DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (e.g., “Interim Copy of Certified Priority Application”). Applicant should note that a document was mailed on 01/02/2025 indicating that retrieval of the priority documents was unsuccessful.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
thermal insulation means in claim 11 (support for thermal insulation is the "thermal blanket" found in [0047]);
cooling means in claim 12 (support for cooling are the "cooling cables" found in [0047]).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
guiding system for in claims 13 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
means of a robotic arm in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim limitation “guiding system for positioning” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the fixed structure preferably being located at least partially at a predetermined distance over the opening of the vessel”. It is unclear how the fixed structure can be located only partially at a predetermined distance.
Claim 5 further recites “the fixed structure preferably being located at least partially at a predetermined distance over the opening of the vessel”. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 6-8 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the at least one LiDAR device has a maximum detection range of 5 cm”. Paragraph [0037] of the specification says that “…the LiDAR device is located 3 metres above the opening of the vessel (as shown in Figure 1) and the portion being monitored is about three metres below the plane defined by the opening of the vessel. Therefore, the portion of the refractory lining layer 200 which is monitored is about 6 metres below the LiDAR device.” This teaching appears to set the maximum detection range of the LiDAR device at 6 meters. In that same paragraph, it appears that the “5 cm” range applies to the “wear range”, which is a difference between a pre-established LiDAR device ranging from 600 to 602 cm to a normal refractory lining layer and a LiDAR device ranging from 601 to 607 cm to a worn refractory lining layer. Accordingly, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for being unclear. Examination of claim 10 will proceed under the assumption the maximum detection range relates to the “wear range”.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the at least one LiDAR device comprises physical filters, preferably zirconium dioxide or molybdenum dioxide filters”. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvill et al. (US 20040056217 A1, hereinafter Harvill) in view of Harvill (US 20160018341 A1, hereinafter Harvill 341’) and Shih (US 20210172766 A1).
Concerning claim 1, Harvill teaches a system for monitoring an internal refractory lining of a vessel adapted to contain molten metal, comprising:
at least one laser-based tracking system orientable towards the refractory lining through an opening of the vessel (fig. 2: lased-based tracking system 18; ¶0024),
an external structure with respect to the vessel on which the at least one laser-based tracking system is mounted (fig. 2: laser-based tracking system 18 is mounted on pole 19 which is a part of mobile cart device 12); and
wherein the at least one laser-based tracking system comprises:
a laser source configured to generate a pulsed laser beam (¶0025: pulsed laser range finder),
a rotating beacon configured to project the laser beam on a plurality of points on a surface of the refractory lining through the opening of the vessel (fig. 2: rotating beacon 21, ¶0022);
a receiver configured to receive the laser beam reflected at the plurality of points on the surface of the refractory lining (¶0022: optical radiation reflected from each of the reflectors is sensed by rotating beacon 21); and
a controller configured to calculate a distance between the at least one laser-based tracking system and each of the plurality of points on the surface of the refractory lining (¶0020: “The contouring system 16 measures the range or distance from several points in the internal layer of refractory material 6 (FIG. 1) to the mobile cart 12 with respect to the cart's own frame of reference 14”). It is noted that the claimed invention uses at least one LiDAR device and the prior art uses a non-specific laser-based tracking system. Therefore, Harvill fails to explicitly teach a LiDAR device.
In the same field of endeavor, Harvill 341’ teaches monitoring the lining of a container, wherein the laser scanning system is a LiDAR device (¶0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the laser-based tracking system of Harvill with the commonly used LiDAR system taught by Harvill 341’. This modification is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. It is further noted that the claimed invention uses an optical rotary encoder and the prior art mentions the use of a rotary beacon. Therefore, Harvill fails to explicitly teach an optical rotary encoder to project the laser beam.
Shih, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the use of an optical rotary encoder that uses laser to generate multiple beams that are respectively focused on multiple points (¶0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Shih and use an optical rotary encoder for projecting the laser beam in order to form multiple light points respectively on the code tracks of the code disk to obtain high optical resolution (Shih, ¶0008).
Concerning claim 2, Harvill in view of Harvill 341’ and Shih further teach the system according to claim 1, comprising at least one memory and at least one processor (Harvill, ¶0021: computer hardware; Harvill 341’, ¶0060).
Concerning claim 9, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’ and Shih, further teaches the system, wherein the at least one LiDAR device has a circular field of view extending at least 70° vertically and horizontally (Harvill, ¶0025).
Concerning claim 10, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’ and Shih, further teaches the system, wherein the at least one LiDAR device has a maximum detection range of 5 cm (Harvill, ¶0020: the difference in the thickness of the refractory lining based on a pre-calculated value and a measured value is determined to detect wear of the refractory lining. A threshold value to make this determination is a design choice and is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.).
Concerning claim 15, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’, Shih, further teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one LiDAR device comprises physical filters, preferably zirconium dioxide or molybdenum dioxide filters, to filter and shield from the electromagnetic and light radiations coming from the vessel (Harvill, ¶0021: shield).
Concerning claim 16, Harvill teaches a method for monitoring an internal refractory lining of a vessel adapted to contain molten metal, comprising:
providing at least one laser-based tracking system that is orientable towards the refractory lining through an opening of the vessel (fig. 2: lased-based tracking system 18; ¶0024),
providing an external structure with respect to the vessel on which the at least one laser-based tracking system is mounted (fig. 2: laser-based tracking system 18 is mounted on pole 19 which is a part of mobile cart device 12); and
generating, by a laser source of the at least one laser-based tracking system, a pulsed laser beam (¶0025: pulsed laser range finder);
projecting, by a rotating beacon of the at least one laser-based tracking system, the laser beam on a plurality of points on a surface of the refractory lining through the opening of the vessel (fig. 2: rotating beacon 21, ¶0022);
receiving, by a receiver of the at least one laser-based tracking system, the laser beam reflected at the plurality of points on the surface of the refractory lining (¶0022: optical radiation reflected from each of the reflectors is sensed by rotating beacon 21); and
calculating, by a controller of the at least one laser-based tracking system, a distance between the at least one laser-based tracking system and each of the plurality of points on the surface of the refractory lining (¶0020: “The contouring system 16 measures the range or distance from several points in the internal layer of refractory material 6 (FIG. 1) to the mobile cart 12 with respect to the cart's own frame of reference 14”). It is noted that the claimed invention uses at least one LiDAR device and the prior art uses a non-specific laser-based tracking system. Therefore, Harvill fails to explicitly teach a LiDAR device.
In the same field of endeavor, Harvill 341’ teaches monitoring the lining of a container, wherein the laser scanning system is a LiDAR device (¶0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the laser-based tracking system of Harvill with the commonly used LiDAR system taught by Harvill 341’. This modification is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. It is further noted that the claimed invention uses an optical rotary encoder and the prior art mentions the use of a rotary beacon. Therefore, Harvill fails to explicitly teach an optical rotary encoder to project the laser beam.
Shih, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the use of an optical rotary encoder that uses laser to generate multiple beams that are respectively focused on multiple points (¶0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Shih and use an optical rotary encoder for projecting the laser beam in order to form multiple light points respectively on the code tracks of the code disk to obtain high optical resolution (Shih, ¶0008).
Concerning claim 17, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’, Shih, further teach the method according to claim 16, comprising:
positioning, by means of a robotic arm, the at least one LiDAR device at a first position located away from the opening of the vessel while the at least one LiDAR device is not monitoring the internal refractory lining of the vessel (Harvill, ¶0022: pole 19); and
moving, by the robotic arm, the at least one LiDAR device to a second position located at a height over the opening of the vessel when the at least one LiDAR device is to monitor the internal refractory lining of the vessel (Harvill, ¶0022: pole 19).
Claims 3-8, 11-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvill et al. (US 20040056217 A1, hereinafter Harvill) in view of Harvill (US 20160018341 A1, hereinafter Harvill 341’) and Shih (US 20210172766 A1) and Picco et al. (US 20200072554 A1, hereinafter Picco).
Concerning claim 3, Harvill in view of Harvill 341’ and Shih teaches the system according to claim 1. Harvill further teaches the system, wherein the external structure is a robotic arm movable from a first position located away from the opening of the vessel to a second position located at a distance to the opening of the vessel (fig. 2, ¶0022: pole 19 is retractable). Not explicitly taught is the second position located at a height over the opening of the vessel.
Picco, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for measuring wear of a refractory lining, wherein a mobile device comprising two laser scanners contained in a box attached to an adjustable arm capable of moving said box into a position located a height over the opening of the vessel (fig. 1: mobile device 12, box 20, arm 24; ¶0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Picco in order to monitor the inner refractory lining of a vessel positioned with the opening at the top.
Concerning claim 4, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’ and Shih, further teaches the system, comprising a single LiDAR device mounted on the robotic arm (Harvill, fig. 2: light-based tracking system; Harvill 341’, ¶0031: LiDAR).
Concerning claim 5, Harvill in view of Harvill 341’ and Shih teaches the system according to claim 1. Harvill further teaches the system wherein the external structure is a fixed structure located close to the opening of the vessel, the fixed structure preferably being located at least partially at a predetermined distance to the opening of the vessel (fig. 2, ¶0022: pole 19 is retractable). Not explicitly taught is the fixed structure preferably being located at least partially at a predetermined distance over the opening of the vessel.
Picco, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for measuring wear of a refractory lining, wherein a mobile device comprising two laser scanners contained in a box is preferably being located at least partially at a predetermined distance over the opening of the vessel (fig. 1: mobile device 12, box 20, arm 24; ¶0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Picco in order to monitor the inner refractory lining of a vessel positioned with the opening at the top.
Concerning claim 6, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’, Shih and Picco, further teach the system according to claim 5, wherein the system comprises two LiDAR devices mounted on the fixed structure, wherein each LiDAR device is oriented to scan, with the pulsed laser beam, a corresponding half of the internal refractory lining of the vessel (Picco, fig. 2: laser scanners 21A & 21B; ¶0050 | Note: the LiDAR device and pulsed laser beam are taught by the combination of the prior art references).
Concerning claim 7, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’, Shih and Picco, further teach the system according to claim 6, wherein:
a first LiDAR device can be oriented on a first portion of the surface of the refractory lining (Picco, fig. 2: any one of laser scanners 21A & 21B; ¶0050 | Note: the LiDAR device is taught by the combination of the prior art references); and
a second LiDAR device can be oriented on a second portion of the surface (Picco, fig. 2: any one of laser scanners 21A & 21B; ¶0050 | Note: the LiDAR device is taught by the combination of the prior art references).
Concerning claim 8, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’, Shih and Picco, further teach the system according to claim 5, comprising at least two LiDAR devices mounted on the fixed structure and placed at a height and in an equidistant manner with respect to one another around the opening of the vessel (Picco, fig. 2: laser scanners 21A & 21B; ¶0054 | Note: the LiDAR device and pulsed laser beam are taught by the combination of the prior art references). Not explicitly taught is three LiDAR devices, however, Picco mentions using “at least” two laser scanners and it would have been obvious to add an additional LiDAR to the system in order to obtain a full view of the surface of interest (Picco, ¶0008: The shape of the receptacle, internal geometrical constraints and the fact that a laser scanner cannot be too close to a receptacle that is still hot may prevent obtaining a full view of the surface. ¶0009: In order to overcome this issue, a laser scanner is moved to different locations. Therefore, adding additional devices allows more coverage instead of moving one LiDAR device to different positions.).
Concerning claim 11, Harvill in view of Harvill 341’ and Shih teaches the system according to claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the system, wherein the LiDAR device is integrated inside a measurement head and wherein the measurement head comprises thermal insulation means.
Picco, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for measuring wear of a refractory lining, wherein the LiDAR device is integrated inside a measurement head and wherein the measurement head comprises thermal insulation means (fig. 1: box 20; fig. 3 & ¶¶0087-0090). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the LiDAR device into a measurement head comprising thermal insulation means in order to protect the LiDAR from thermal radiations.
Concerning claim 12, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’, Shih and Picco, further teach the system according to claim 11, wherein the measurement head comprises cooling means (Picco, fig. 6: fans 62, ¶0072, ¶0094).
Concerning claim 13, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’, Shih and Picco, further teach the system according to claim 12, wherein the measurement head comprises a guiding system for positioning the measurement head with respect to the vessel (Harvill, ¶0022: rotating beacon 21).
Concerning claim 14, Harvill, now incorporating the teachings of Harvill 341’, Shih and Picco, further teach the system according to claim 13, wherein the guiding system is configured to work in a coordinated manner with the optical rotary encoder of the at least one LiDAR device (Harvill, ¶0022: rotating beacon 21).
Concerning claim 18, Harvill in view of Harvill 341’ and Shih teaches the method according to claim 16. Not explicitly taught is the method, comprising: providing two LiDAR devices mounted on the fixed structure; orienting each LiDAR device so as to scan a corresponding half of the internal refractory lining of the vessel; and scanning, with a respective pulsed laser beam emitted by each LiDAR device, the corresponding half of the internal refractory lining of the vessel.
Picco, in the same field of endeavor, teaches providing two LiDAR devices mounted on the fixed structure (Picco, fig. 2: laser scanners 21A & 21B; ¶0050 | Note: the LiDAR device and pulsed laser beam are taught by the combination of the prior art references);
orienting each LiDAR device so as to scan a corresponding half of the internal refractory lining of the vessel (Picco, fig. 2: laser scanners 21A & 21B; ¶0050); and
scanning, with a respective pulsed laser beam emitted by each LiDAR device, the corresponding half of the internal refractory lining of the vessel (Picco, fig. 2: laser scanners 21A & 21B; ¶0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Picco in order to obtain a full view of the receptacle and eliminate the need for multiple scans by a single LiDAR device.
Concerning claim 19, Harvill in view of Harvill 341’ and Shih teaches the method according to claim 16. Harvill further teaches the method, comprising a guiding system for positioning the system with respect to the vessel (Harvill, ¶0022: rotating beacon 21); and
operating the guiding system to work in a coordinated manner with the optical rotary encoder of the at least one LiDAR device (Harvill, ¶0022: rotating beacon 21). Not explicitly taught is providing a measuring head in which the at least one LiDAR device is housed.
Picco, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for measuring wear of a refractory lining, wherein the LiDAR device is housed inside a measurement head (fig. 1: box 20; fig. 3; ¶0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the LiDAR device into a measurement head in order to protect the LiDAR device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights