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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on August 27, 2024 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 18, and 23 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.
More specifically, in claim 1 it is unclear as to how “obtaining a set of two or more images of a monument environment” is tied to the claim as the rest of the steps do not incorporate this “obtaining” step into any of the other steps. Dependent claims 2 and 3 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as both these claims recite how the “obtaining” step is utilized.
In claim 4, it is unclear as to how “obtaining a set of two or more images of a monument environment” is tied to the claim as the rest of the steps do not incorporate this “obtaining” step into any of the other steps. Dependent claims 5-8 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as at least claim 5 (claims 6-8 depend from claim 5) recites how the “obtaining” step is utilized.
Dependent claims 9 and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as neither of these claims indicate how the “obtaining” step is tied to the other steps within the claim(s).
In claim 18, it is unclear as to how “an imaging device configured to obtain a set of two or more images of a monument environment” and “detect the set of markers in the set of images” are tied to the claim as the rest of the steps do not incorporate these two steps into any of the other steps. In other words, the system obtains images and detects markers within the images, but then does nothing with the images. Dependent claims 19-22 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as at least claim 19 (claims 20-22 depend from claim 19) recites how the “obtaining” step is utilized. It is noted that there are two claim 18s, appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claim 23 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as claim 23 does indicate how the above two steps are tied to the other steps within the claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11-17 is rejected under statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting based on the side by side view of claim 8-14 of US Patent 11,361,419:
18/817,086
11,361,419
Interpretation/Differences
11. A leveling device comprising:
a surface having two or more markers affixed to the surface,
the surface configured to position the two or more markers on a plane;
an inclinometer configured to measure an angle of the plane with respect to gravity;
one or more actuators configured to adjust the angle of the plane; and
a controller configured to instruct the one or more actuators to automatically adjust the angle of the plane based on the measured angle to level the plane.
8. A leveling device
comprising:
a surface having two or more markers affixed to the surface,
the surface configured to position the two or more
markers on a plane;
an inclinometer configured to measure an angle of the plane with respect to gravity;
one or more actuators
configured to adjust the angle
of the plane; and
a controller configured to instruct the one or more actuators to automatically adjust the angle of the plane based on the measured angle to level the plane.
As can be seen from the side-by-side comparison, US Patent 11,361,419 has every feature/limitation that the present application has, plus, the wording is identical.
Please see the following table for the dependent claims:
18/817,086
11,361,419
Interpretation/Differences
12. The leveling device of claim 11, wherein the surface comprises: a top plate; and two or more arms detachably coupled to the top plate, wherein the two or more markers are affixed to the two or more arms.
9. The leveling device of claim 8, wherein the surface comprises: a top plate; and two or more arms detachably coupled to the top plate, wherein the two or more markers are affixed to the two or more arms.
No difference, claims are identical.
13. The leveling device of claim 12, wherein the two or more arms are configured to fit in slots in the top plate.
10. The leveling device of claim 9, wherein the two or more arms are configured to fit in slots in the top plate.
No difference, claims are identical.
14. The leveling device of claim 13 wherein the two or more markers are fixed at a predetermined location on the two or more arms and wherein the slots are configured to position the two or more arms at a predetermined angle and distance from each other.
11. The leveling device of claim 10 wherein the two or more markers are fixed at a predetermined location on the two or more arms and wherein the slots are configured to position the two or more arms at a predetermined angle and distance from each other.
No difference, claims are identical.
15. The leveling device of claim 11 further comprising a battery mount configured to accept a tool battery.
12. The leveling device of claim 8 further comprising a battery mount configured to accept a tool battery.
No difference, claims are identical.
16. The leveling device of claim 11 wherein the one or more actuators comprise at least one stepper motor or a linear actuator.
13. The leveling device of claim 8 wherein the one or more actuators comprise at least one stepper motor or a linear actuator.
No difference, claims are identical.
17. The leveling device of claim 11, wherein the inclinometer comprises a
dual axis inclinometer.
14. The leveling device of claim 8, wherein the inclinometer comprises a dual axis inclinometer.
No difference, claims are identical.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent theunjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patentand to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutoryobviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claimsare not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinctfrom the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipatedby, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d)may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutorydouble patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown tobe commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result ofactivities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 4-10 and 18-23, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 15-20 of U.S. Patent 11,361,419. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is a broader version of 11,361,419.
18/817,086
11,361,419
Claim Interpretation
4. A method for measuring a monument, comprising:
obtaining a set of two or more images of a monument environment;
detecting a set of markers in the set of images,
wherein the set of markers are positioned on a plane level with respect to gravity by a leveling device, and
wherein the leveling device is configured to automatically level the set of markers;
generating a virtual
representation of the monument environment with respect to gravity;
mapping the monument to a virtual representation; determining one or more slopes and dimensions of the monument based on the mapped monument and the gravity plane; and outputting the one or more slopes of the monument.
A method for measuring a monument, comprising:
obtaining a set of two or more images of a monument environment;
detecting a set of markers in the obtained set of two or more images,
wherein the set of markers are positioned on a plane level with respect to gravity by a leveling device, and
wherein the leveling device is configured to automatically level the set of markers;
generating a virtual representation of the monument environment with respect to gravity based on the obtained set of two or more images;
mapping the monument to a virtual representation;
determining one or more slopes and dimensions of the monument based on the mapped monument and the gravity plane; and outputting the one or more slopes of the monument.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version of US 11,361,419. Therefore, 18/817,086 is anticipated by US 11,361,419.
18/817,086
11,361,419
Claim Interpretation
18. A system for inspecting a monument, comprising:
an imaging device configured to obtain a set of two or more images of a monument environment;
a leveling device configured to position a set of markers on a plane level with respect to gravity,
wherein the leveling device is configured to automatically level the markers; and
one or more non-transitory program storage devices comprising instructions stored thereon to cause one or more processors to:
detect the set of markers in the set of images;
generate a virtual representation of the
monument environment with respect to gravity;
map the monument to a virtual representation; determine, one or more slopes and dimensions of the monument based on the mapped monument and the gravity plane; and
output the one or more slopes of the monument.
15. A system for inspecting a monument, comprising:
an imaging device configured to obtain a set of two or more images of a monument environment;
a leveling device configured
to position a set of markers on
a plane level with respect to gravity,
wherein the leveling device is configured to automatically level the markers; and
one or more non-transitory program storage devices comprising instructions stored thereon to cause one or more processors to:
detect the set of markers in the obtained set of two or more images;
generate a virtual
representation of the
monument environment with respect to gravity based on the obtained set of two or more images;
map the monument to a
virtual representation;
determine, one or more slopes and dimensions of the
monument based on the
mapped monument and the gravity plane; and
output the one or more slopes of the monument.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version of US 11,361,419. Therefore, 18/817,086 is anticipated by US 11,361,419.
Please see the following table for the dependent claims:
18/817,086
11,361,419
Claim Interpretation
5. The method of claim 4, wherein each marker of the set of markers, is positioned at a predetermined distance from another marker of the set of markers and further comprising: determining, based on the set of markers, a scale for the monument; detecting, in the set of images, one or more features of the monument; generating a set of measurements based on the detected one or more features; and outputting the set of measurements.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein each marker of the set of markers, is positioned at a predetermined distance from another marker of the set of markers and further comprising: determining, based on the set of markers, a scale for the monument; detecting, in the set of two or more images, one or more features of the monument; generating a set of measurements based on the detected one or more features; and outputting the set of measurements.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the detection of one or more features is based on another set of markers positioned on the monument.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the detection of one or more features is based on another set of markers positioned on the monument.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
7. The method of claim 5, further comprising outputting a report based on the one or more slopes and the set of measurements, wherein the set of measurements include at least a distance and an elevation change.
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising outputting a report based on the one or more slopes and the set of measurements, wherein the set of measurements include at least a distance and an elevation change.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
8. The method of claim 5, further comprising outputting a pass/fail score for the monument based on the set of measurements.
5. The method of claim 2, further comprising outputting a pass/fail score for the monument based on the set of measurements.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
9. The method of claim 4, wherein the virtual representation comprises a point cloud or a three-dimensional model of the monument environment.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the virtual representation comprises a point cloud or a three-dimensional model of the monument environment.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising outputting a three-dimensional drawing based on the three-dimensional model.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising outputting a three-dimensional drawing based on the three-dimensional model.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein each marker of the set of markers, is positioned at a predetermined distance from another marker of the set of markers, and wherein the one or more non-transitory program storage devices comprise instructions stored thereon to cause one or more processors to: determine, based on the set of markers, a scale for the monument environment; detect, in the set of images, one or more features of the monument; generate a set of measurements based on the detected one or more features; and output the set of measurements.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein each marker of the set of markers, is positioned at a predetermined distance from another marker of the set of markers, and wherein the one or more non-transitory program storage devices comprise instructions stored thereon to cause one or more processors to: determine, based on the set of markers, a scale for the monument environment; detect, in the set of two or more images, one or more features of the monument; generate a set of measurements based on the detected one or more features; and output the set of measurements.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the detecting of one or more features is based on another set of markers positioned on the monument.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the detecting of one or more features is based on another set of markers positioned on the monument.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
21. The system of claim 19, wherein the one or more non-transitory program storage devices comprise instructions stored thereon to cause one or more processors to output a report based on the one or more slopes and the set of measurements.
18. The system of claim 16, wherein the one or more non-transitory program storage devices comprise instructions stored thereon to cause one or more processors to output a report based on the one or more slopes and the set of measurements.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
22. The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more non-transitory program storage devices comprise instructions stored thereon to cause one or more processors to output a pass/fail score for the monument based on the set of measurements.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the one or more non-transitory program storage devices comprise instructions stored thereon to cause one or more processors to output a pass/fail score for the monument based on the set of measurements.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
23. The system of claim 18, wherein the virtual representation comprises a point cloud or a three-dimensional model of the monument environment.
20. The system of claim 15, wherein the virtual representation comprises a point cloud or a three-dimensional model of the monument environment.
US 11,361,419 anticipates 18/817,086.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,361,419 in view of Lau et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0186907 A1, hereinafter Lau). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is obvious over 11,361,419 in view of Lau.
Please see the following table for the independent claim analysis:
18/817,086
11,361,419
Claim Interpretation
A method for measuring a monument, comprising: obtaining a set of two or more images of a monument environment;
determining a plane level with respect to gravity based on a leveling device;
determining one or more slopes and dimensions of the monument based on the determined plane level; and
outputting the determined one or more slopes and dimensions.
A method for measuring a monument, comprising:
obtaining a set of two or more images of a monument environment;
detecting a set of markers in the obtained set of two or more images,
wherein the set of markers are positioned on a plane level with respect to gravity by a leveling device, and
wherein the leveling device is configured to automatically level the set of markers;
generating a virtual representation of the monument environment with respect to gravity based on the obtained set of two or more images;
mapping the monument to a virtual representation;
determining one or more slopes and dimensions of the monument based on the mapped monument and the gravity plane; and outputting the one or more slopes of the monument.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is obvious over US 11,361,419 in view Lau. More specifically, the only difference is what is boldened in 18/817,086, which Lau clearly disclose below.
US 11,361,419 substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach determining a plane level with respect to gravity based on a leveling device and outputting determined one or more slopes and dimensions.
However, Lau teaches determining a plane level with respect to gravity based on a leveling device and outputting determined one or more slopes and dimensions (paragraphs 39, 40, read as an inclinometer determines an orientation angle with respect to the force of gravity and providing the system with the calculated data and information (i.e. rotational orientation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lau into the invention of US 11,361,419 in order to provide a way for gathering data and information for the precise calculation of the position and orientation of a dynamic object, where multiple measurements are collected to adjust for error to more precisely calculate the position and orientation of the dynamic object.
Please see the following table for the dependent claim:
18/817,086
11,361,419
Claim Interpretation
The method of claim 1, further comprising
mapping the monument based on the obtained two or more images to generate a virtual representation of the monument.
(From claim 1):
generating a virtual representation of the monument environment with respect to gravity based on the obtained set of two or more images;
mapping the monument to a virtual representation.
18/817,086 is a broader version of US 11,361,419.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,361,419 in view of Lau et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0186907 A1, hereinafter Lau) and as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Meyer et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0228359 A1, hereinafter Meyer). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is obvious over 11,361,419 in view of Lau and further in view of Meyer.
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1. US 11,361,419 and Lau disclose the claimed invention but fail to explicitly teach detecting the leveling device in the set of two or more images detecting a set of calibrated markers on the leveling device, and determining a scale of the monument based on the detected set of calibrated markers.
However, Meyer teaches detecting the leveling device in the set of two or more images detecting a set of calibrated markers on the leveling device, and determining a scale of the monument based on the detected set of calibrated markers (at least paragraphs 34, 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Meyer into the invention of US 11,361,419 and Lau in order to easily and accurately determine a scale of objects.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent 12,073,546 in view of Lau et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0186907 A1, hereinafter Lau). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is obvious over 12,073,546 in view of Lau.
Please see the following table for the independent claim analysis:
18/817,086
12,073,546
Claim Interpretation
A method for measuring a monument, comprising: obtaining a set of two or
more images of a monument environment;
determining a plane level with respect to gravity based on a leveling device;
determining one or more slopes and dimensions of the monument based on the determined plane level; and
outputting the determined one or more slopes and dimensions.
1. A method for measuring a fixed monument, comprising: obtaining a set of two or
more images of a fixed monument environment around the fixed monument;
determining a gravity plane based on a leveling device;
determining one or more dimensions of the fixed monument based on the determined gravity plane and the set of two or more images of the fixed monument environment; and outputting the determined one or more dimensions.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is obvious over US 12,073,546 in view Lau. More specifically, the only difference is what is boldened in 18/817,086 and that the monument is fixed (in US 12,073,546), which Lau clearly disclose below.
US 12,073,546 substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach determining one or more slopes and dimensions of the monument based on the determined plane level; and outputting the determined one or more slopes and dimensions.
However, Lau teaches determining one or more slopes and dimensions of the monument based on the determined plane level; and outputting the determined one or more slopes and dimensions (paragraphs 39, 40, read as calculating the rotational orientation of the dynamic object in part through the combined use of a gyroscope and the inclinometer and providing the system with the calculated data and information (i.e. rotational orientation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lau into the invention of US 12,073,546 in order to provide a way for gathering data and information for the precise calculation of the position and orientation of a dynamic object, where multiple measurements are collected to adjust for error to more precisely calculate the position and orientation of the dynamic object.
Please see the following table for the dependent claims:
18/817,086
12,073,546
Claim Interpretation
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising mapping the monument based on the obtained two or more images to generate a virtual representation of the monument.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising mapping the fixed monument based on the set of two or more images of the fixed monument environment to generate a virtual representation of the fixed monument aligned to the gravity plane.
18/817,086 is a broader version of US 12,073,546.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0186907 A1, hereinafter Lau) in view of Liu et al. (US Patent 10,794,710 B1, hereinafter Liu).
Consider claim 1. Lau discloses a method for measuring a monument, comprising: determining a plane level with respect to gravity based on a leveling device (paragraph 39, read as an inclinometer determines an orientation angle with respect to the force of gravity);
determining one or more slopes and dimensions of the monument based on the
determined plane level (paragraph 39, read as calculating the rotational orientation of the dynamic object in part through the combined use of a gyroscope and the inclinometer); and
outputting the determined one or more slopes and dimensions (paragraph 40, read as providing the system with the calculated data and information (i.e. rotational orientation)).
Lau discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach obtaining a set of two or more
images of a monument environment.
However, Liu teaches obtaining a set of two or more images of a monument environment (column 29 lines 44-54, lines 66 – column 30 lines 1, read as capturing a pair of 360-degrees images of a curb).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Liu into the invention of Lau in order to efficiently and accurately avoid unwanted collisions.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1. Lau and Liu disclose mapping the monument based on the obtained two or more images to generate a virtual representation of the
monument (Liu; column 31 line 66 – column 32 line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Liu into the invention of Lau in order to efficiently and accurately avoid unwanted collisions.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0186907 A1, hereinafter Lau) in view of Liu et al. (US Patent 10,794,710 B1, hereinafter Liu) in view of Meyer et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0228359 A1, hereinafter Meyer).
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1. Lau and Liu disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach detecting the leveling device in the set of two or more images detecting a set of calibrated markers on the leveling device, and determining a scale of the monument based on the detected set of calibrated markers.
However, Meyer teaches detecting the leveling device in the set of two or more images detecting a set of calibrated markers on the leveling device, and determining a scale of the monument based on the detected set of calibrated markers (at least paragraphs 34, 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Meyer into the invention of Lau and Liu in order to easily and accurately determine a scale of objects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 18 would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph issues are resolved.
Claims 11-17 are allowed. Lau, Liu, the other cited reference, and a thorough search in the art fail to disclose or suggest a leveling device that includes a surface having two or more markers affixed to the surface, the surface configured to position the two or more markers on a
plane; an inclinometer configured to measure an angle of the plane with respect to gravity; one or more actuators configured to adjust the angle of the plane; and a controller configured to instruct the one or more actuators to automatically adjust the angle of the plane based on the measured angle to level the plane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights