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(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, p. 16, “Fig. 2A” should be “Fig. 3A” and “Fig. 2B” should be “Fig. 3B”
Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, and 13-14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, the phrase “laser scanning of said scenario, obtaining a three-dimensional model” should be “laser scanning and obtaining a three-dimensional model”
In Claim 1, the phrase “for each point Pl of said scenario being known the spatial coordinates” should be “wherein spatial coordinates of each point Pl of said scenario are known”
In Claim 1, the phrase “radar scanning of said scenario, obtaining at least two matrices” should be “radar scanning and obtaining at least two matrices”
In Claim 1, the phrase “for each point Pr of said scenario being known the spatial coordinates” should be “wherein spatial coordinates of each point Pr of said scenario are known”
In Claim 2, the phrase “perform a scanning” should be “perform a scan”
In Claim 2, the word “SAR” should be defined the first time it is used, e.g., “synthetic-aperture radar (SAR)”
In Claim 11, the phrase “laser scanning of said scenario at instant t1, obtaining a three-dimensional model” should be “laser scanning and obtaining a three-dimensional model”
In Claim 11, the phrase “radar scanning of said scenario at instant t1, obtaining at least one matrix” should be “radar scanning and obtaining at least one matrix”
In Claim 11, the phrase “laser scanning of said scenario at instant t2, obtaining a three-dimensional model” should be “laser scanning and obtaining a three-dimensional model”
In Claim 11, the phrase “radar scanning of said scenario at instant t2, obtaining at least one matrix” should be “radar scanning and obtaining at least one matrix”
In Claim 13, the phrase “in case that” should be “in the case that”
In Claim 14, p. 30, line 1, the word “defining” should be “define”
In Claim 14, p. 30, line 4, the word “operating” should be “operate”
In Claim 14, p. 30, lines 8-9, the phrase “operating a laser scanning of said scenario, obtaining a three dimensional model” should be “operate a laser scanning of said scenario, and obtain a three dimensional model”
In Claim 14, the phrase “for each point Pl of said scenario being known the spatial coordinates” should be “wherein spatial coordinates of each point Pl of said scenario are known”
In Claim 14, line 14, the word “operating” should be “operate”
In Claim 14, p. 30, lines 18-19, the phrase “operating a radar scanning of said scenario, obtaining at least two matrices” should be “operate a radar scanning of said scenario, and obtain at least two matrices”
In Claim 14, the phrase “for each point Pr of said scenario being known the spatial coordinates” should be “wherein spatial coordinates of each point Pr of said scenario are known”
In Claim 14, p. 30, line 25, the word “carrying” should be “carry”
In Claim 14, p. 31, line 3, the word “carrying” should be “carry”
In Claim 14, p. 31, line 6, the word “generating” should be “generate”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, the claims recite contingent limitations (“in the case of the condition” in Claim 12 and “in case that” in Claim 13). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04 II).
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 13 is/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.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the limitation(s) “at least two radar scans” but then refers to “said two radar scans.” If there are more than two radar scans, it is unclear which two radar scans are used in the calculations.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the limitation(s) “at least two laser scans” but then refers to “said two laser scans.” If there are more than two laser scans, it is unclear which two laser scans are used in the calculations.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “module dlaser.” It is unclear what “module” means. Because the term “module” appears to be related to a vector, “module” is interpreted as meaning “magnitude.”
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites the limitations “making said step of laser scanning … at instant t1” and “making said step of laser scanning … at instant t2.” It is unclear whether “making” means performing, creating, or something else. For examination purposes, the limitations are interpreted as meaning “performing laser scanning … at instant t1” and “performing laser scanning … at instant t2.”
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites the limitations “making said step of radar scanning … at instant t1” and “making said step of radar scanning … at instant t2.” It is unclear whether “making” means performing, creating, or something else. For examination purposes, the limitations are interpreted as meaning “performing radar scanning … at instant t1” and “performing radar scanning … at instant t2.”
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites “obtaining at least one matrix” at both instant t1 and instant t2, but later recites “comparing said matrix” from each instant. If more than one matrix is obtained at either instant, it is unclear which matrices are compared.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. The claim appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Specifically, the claim recites the limitation “obtaining possible spatial coordinates Rl(i), with i=1, 2, . . . , n, a step is provided of disambiguating the laser measurement, wherein it is identified the spatial coordinate Rr of a point Pr obtained by means of radar scanning and having spatial coordinates, except Rr, closest to the coordinates of Pl, in order to select the coordinate closest to Rr among said possible spatial coordinates Rl (i).” The limitation is generally unclear. For example, it is unclear which coordinate “the spatial coordinate Rr” refers to, it is unclear what “except Rr” means, and it is unclear what “closest” means or how a closest coordinate is determined. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as meaning that when there is ambiguity in calculating a position of a laser measurement point, there is a step of disambiguating the position of the point which includes obtaining multiple possible positions of the point and selecting one of the possible positions.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HYDRA (“HYDRA User Manual,” IDS GeoRadar, 2017) in view of Coppi (WO 2018/109745 A1) and Viviani (Viviani et al., “IBIS-ArcSAR: an Innovative Ground-Based SAR System for Slope Monitoring,” 2018).
Regarding Claim 1, HYDRA teaches:
A method for monitoring the deformation of a scenario comprising the steps of:
prearranging a device (100) for monitoring the deformation of a scenario comprising:
a support (105) ([p. 14]: “Tripod unit”);
a LIDAR sensor (110) ([p. 14]: “IR Laser”);
a radar sensor (120) ([p. 14]: “Radar Sensor”);
at least one actuator arranged to move said LIDAR sensor (110) and said radar sensor (120) with respect to said support (105) ([p. 14]: “Pan-Tilt Unit (PTU)”);
defining a spatial reference system S comprising a rotation axis z, said spatial reference system S being integral with said support (105) ([p. 14]: “The movement of the Radar Sensor on the PTU permits the utilization of an Arc-SAR technique”; [p. 20]: “the PTU moves performing a serpentine, alternating clockwise and counterclockwise scans in azimuth”);
rotating said LIDAR sensor (110) about said rotation axis z, by means of said or each actuator ([p. 20]: “the PTU is used to move the Laser in azimuth and elevation”; “the PTU moves performing a serpentine, alternating clockwise and counterclockwise scans in azimuth”);
during said step of rotating said LIDAR sensor (110), laser scanning of said scenario, obtaining a three-dimensional model comprising a plurality of points Pl of said scenario … ([p. 26]: “The Laser … is mounted on the elevation pointing system, below the Radar Sensor and, when moved by the PTU, act as a laser scanner, enabling the surface reconstruction of the monitored scenario.”);
rotating said radar sensor (120) about said rotation axis z, by means of said or each actuator ([p. 20]: “the PTU is used to move … the Radar Sensor in azimuth for the actual monitoring.”; “During the actual scan … the PTU moves in azimuth at a fixed elevation”);
during said step of rotating said radar sensor (120), radar scanning of said scenario, obtaining radar data comprising a plurality of points Pr of said scenario … ([p. 14]: “The movement of the Radar Sensor on the PTU permits the utilization of an Arc-SAR technique, that obtains a two dimensional image of the scenario”); and
generating a three-dimensional map of said scenario superimposing the radar data with said three-dimensional model … ([p. 14]: “IR Laser … installed on the PTU, act as a laser scanner to reconstruct the surface of the monitored area, on which are projected the radar data.”).
HYDRA does not explicitly teach:
the spatial coordinates of each point Pl and Pr are known with respect to said spatial reference system S;
obtaining at least two matrices of complex data comprising information of amplitude and phase of the radar points Pr;
focusing said at least two matrices of complex data obtaining at least two focused images of said scenario;
comparing said at least two focused images of said scenario obtaining a relative interferogram; or
superimposing said relative interferogram with said three-dimensional model in such a way that points Pl and Pr having the same spatial coordinates with respect to said spatial reference system S are superimposed to each other.
However, Coppi is in the field of deformation monitoring (Coppi [Abstract]) and teaches:
defining a spatial reference system S comprising a rotation axis (Coppi [p. 14]: “defining a reference system S having origin in said centre O”; [p. 27]: “rotation around an axis parallel to the ground”);
obtaining a three-dimensional model comprising a plurality of points of said scenario, where the spatial coordinates of each point are known with respect to said spatial reference system S (Coppi [p. 15]: “acquiring a three-dimensional mapping of said scenario, said mapping comprising a cloud of highlights Pi … each highlight Pi definable by means of spherical coordinates (ρk, θk, βk) referring to said reference system S;”);
obtaining radar data comprising a plurality of points of said scenario, where the spatial coordinates of each radar point are known with respect to said spatial reference system S (Coppi [p. 14]: “acquisition of radar signals”; “defining a plurality of target points ti of said scenario”);
focusing said radar data and obtaining at least two focused images of said scenario ([p. 8-9]: “first focused radar datum”; “second focused radar datum”);
comparing said at least two focused images of said scenario obtaining a relative interferogram ([p. 9]: “comparing said first and second focused datum by means of differential interferometry technique”); and
superimposing said radar data with said three-dimensional model in such a way that the points of the radar data and the points of the three-dimensional model having the same spatial coordinates with respect to said spatial reference system S are superimposed to each other ([p. 15]: “superimposable”; “three-dimensional determining said target points ti by means of intersection, for each target point ti, between said three-dimensional surface Σ and the locus of points having the coordinates Pi and θi”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HYDRA and determine the spatial coordinates of the radar data points and the three-dimensional model points with respect to the spatial reference system S, focus the radar data to obtain at least two focused images, compare the two focused images to obtain a relative interferogram, and superimpose the radar data with the three-dimensional model, as taught by Coppi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using a shared spatial reference system enables accurately superimposing the radar data and three-dimensional model, and combining Coppi’s differential interferometry technique with HYDRA’s deformation monitoring system yields the predictable result of superimposing the interferometry data with the three-dimensional model in order to improve the precision of the deformation monitoring (Coppi [p. 1]).
Furthermore, Viviani is in the field of slope monitoring (Viviani [Title]) and teaches:
a differential interferometry technique that comprises obtaining at least two matrices of complex radar data comprising information of amplitude and phase of the radar points (Viviani [p. 1348]: “differential interferometry processing”; [p. 1349]: “K is a constant proportional to amplitude of signal and RCS of the target”; “the first term is related to the phase dependence on target distance”; Equation 1 showing the radar data being a complex signal.; [p. 1350]: “2D range-azimuth SAR”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HYDRA and represent the radar data as matrices of complex data comprising amplitude and phase information, as taught by Viviani, with a reasonable expectation of success. HYDRA and Viviani both teach Arc-SAR techniques, and applying Viviani’s Arc-SAR technique to HYDRA’s Arc-SAR technique yields the predictable result of obtaining complex 2D radar data comprising amplitude and phase information and representing the 2D data as a matrix in order to properly implement HYDRA’s Arc-SAR technique.
Regarding Claim 14, HYDRA teaches:
A device (100) for monitoring the deformation of a scenario comprising:
a support (105) ([p. 14]: “Tripod unit”);
a LIDAR sensor (110) ([p. 14]: “IR Laser”);
a radar sensor (120) ([p. 14]: “Radar Sensor”);
at least one actuator arranged to move said LIDAR sensor (110) and said radar sensor (120) with respect to said support (105) ([p. 14]: “Pan-Tilt Unit (PTU)”);
said device (100) also comprising a control unit ([p. 14]: “control computer”) arranged to:
defining a spatial reference system S comprising a rotation axis z, said spatial reference system S being integral with said support (105) ([p. 14]: “The movement of the Radar Sensor on the PTU permits the utilization of an Arc-SAR technique”; [p. 20]: “the PTU moves performing a serpentine, alternating clockwise and counterclockwise scans in azimuth”);
operating a rotation of said LIDAR sensor (110) about said rotation axis z, by means of said or each actuator ([p. 20]: “the PTU is used to move the Laser in azimuth and elevation”; “the PTU moves performing a serpentine, alternating clockwise and counterclockwise scans in azimuth”);
during said step of rotating said LIDAR sensor (110), operating a laser scanning of said scenario, obtaining a three-dimensional model comprising a plurality of points Pl of said scenario … ([p. 26]: “The Laser … is mounted on the elevation pointing system, below the Radar Sensor and, when moved by the PTU, act as a laser scanner, enabling the surface reconstruction of the monitored scenario.”);
operating a rotation of said radar sensor (120) about said rotation axis z, by means of said or each actuator ([p. 20]: “the PTU is used to move … the Radar Sensor in azimuth for the actual monitoring.”; “During the actual scan … the PTU moves in azimuth at a fixed elevation”);
during said step of rotating said radar sensor (120), operating a radar scanning of said scenario, obtaining radar data comprising a plurality of points Pr of said scenario … ([p. 14]: “The movement of the Radar Sensor on the PTU permits the utilization of an Arc-SAR technique, that obtains a two dimensional image of the scenario”); and
generating a three-dimensional map of said scenario superimposing the radar data with said three-dimensional model … ([p. 14]: “IR Laser … installed on the PTU, act as a laser scanner to reconstruct the surface of the monitored area, on which are projected the radar data.”).
HYDRA does not explicitly teach:
the spatial coordinates of each point Pl and Pr are known with respect to said spatial reference system S;
obtaining at least two matrices of complex data comprising information of amplitude and phase of the radar points Pr;
focusing said at least two matrices of complex data obtaining at least two focused images of said scenario;
comparing said at least two focused images of said scenario obtaining a relative interferogram; or
superimposing said relative interferogram with said three-dimensional model in such a way that points Pl and Pr having the same spatial coordinates with respect to said spatial reference system S are superimposed to each other.
However, Coppi is in the field of deformation monitoring and teaches:
defining a spatial reference system S comprising a rotation axis (Coppi [p. 14]: “defining a reference system S having origin in said centre O”; [p. 27]: “rotation around an axis parallel to the ground”);
obtaining a three-dimensional model comprising a plurality of points of said scenario, where the spatial coordinates of each point are known with respect to said spatial reference system S (Coppi [p. 15]: “acquiring a three-dimensional mapping of said scenario, said mapping comprising a cloud of highlights Pi … each highlight Pi definable by means of spherical coordinates (ρk, θk, βk) referring to said reference system S;”);
obtaining radar data comprising a plurality of points of said scenario, where the spatial coordinates of each radar point are known with respect to said spatial reference system S (Coppi [p. 14]: “acquisition of radar signals”; “defining a plurality of target points ti of said scenario”);
focusing said radar data and obtaining at least two focused images of said scenario ([p. 8-9]: “first focused radar datum”; “second focused radar datum”);
comparing said at least two focused images of said scenario obtaining a relative interferogram ([p. 9]: “comparing said first and second focused datum by means of differential interferometry technique”); and
superimposing said radar data with said three-dimensional model in such a way that the points of the radar data and the points of the three-dimensional model having the same spatial coordinates with respect to said spatial reference system S are superimposed to each other ([p. 15]: “superimposable”; “three-dimensional determining said target points ti by means of intersection, for each target point ti, between said three-dimensional surface Σ and the locus of points having the coordinates Pi and θi”).
The rationale to modify HYDRA with the teachings of Coppi persists from Claim 1.
Furthermore, Viviani is in the field of slope monitoring and teaches:
a differential interferometry technique that comprises obtaining at least two matrices of complex radar data comprising information of amplitude and phase of the radar points (Viviani [p. 1348]: “differential interferometry processing”; [p. 1349]: “K is a constant proportional to amplitude of signal and RCS of the target”; “the first term is related to the phase dependence on target distance”; Equation 1 showing the radar data being a complex signal.; [p. 1350]: “2D range-azimuth SAR”).
The rationale to modify HYDRA with the teachings of Viviani persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, HYDRA as modified teaches: wherein said radar sensor is arranged to perform a scanning by means of SAR technology ([p. 14]: “Arc-SAR”).
Regarding Claim 3, HYDRA as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein said step of rotating said LIDAR sensor (110) and said step of rotating said radar sensor (120) take place simultaneously.
However, in that HYDRA teaches that both the lidar and radar sensors are installed on the same PTU and both sensors must be rotated for scanning the scenario ([p. 14]: “PTU”; [p. 20]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the lidar sensor and the radar sensor simultaneously, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to simultaneously obtain the three-dimensional model and the radar data and thereby improve the efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 4, HYDRA as modified teaches: wherein a step is also provided of rotating said LIDAR sensor (110) about a rotation axis x, orthogonal to said rotation axis z, by means of said or each actuator, said step of rotating said LIDAR sensor (110) about said rotation axis x occurring simultaneously with said step of rotating said LIDAR sensor (110) about said rotation axis z ([p. 20]: “During surface reconstruction the PTU moves performing a serpentine, alternating clockwise and counterclockwise scans in azimuth, increasing the elevation angle at each scan.”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, HYDRA as modified teaches: wherein said device (100) further comprises a camera (130) and wherein a step is also provided of acquiring photographic images of said scenario ([p. 14]: “Camera: provides a panoramic view or shots of the monitored area”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HYDRA (“HYDRA User Manual,” IDS GeoRadar, 2017), Coppi (WO 2018/109745 A1), and Viviani (Viviani et al., “IBIS-ArcSAR: an Innovative Ground-Based SAR System for Slope Monitoring,” 2018), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Axelsson (US 2017/0234973).
Regarding Claim 5, HYDRA as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein said LIDAR sensor (110) is arranged to simultaneously emit a plurality of laser beams at different elevation angles.
However, Axelsson is in the field of lidar scanning for slope monitoring (Axelsson [0070]) and teaches: wherein said LIDAR sensor (110) is arranged to simultaneously emit a plurality of laser beams at different elevation angles (Axelsson [0036]: “the SPL scanner is adapted for scanning with a single lidar beam or for simultaneously scanning with multiple lidar beams”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HYDRA and simultaneously emit a plurality lidar beams at different elevation angles, as taught by Axelsson, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Axelsson’s simultaneous lidar beam technique to HYDRA’s deformation monitoring system yields the predictable result of simultaneously emitting a plurality lidar beams from HYDRA’s lidar sensor in order to minimize shadow effects and thereby improve the accuracy of the three-dimensional model (Axelsson [0034]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HYDRA (“HYDRA User Manual,” IDS GeoRadar, 2017), Coppi (WO 2018/109745 A1), and Viviani (Viviani et al., “IBIS-ArcSAR: an Innovative Ground-Based SAR System for Slope Monitoring,” 2018), as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Lingua (Lingua et al., “Remote monitoring of a landslide using an integration of GB-INSAR and LIDAR techniques,” 2008).
Regarding Claim 7, HYDRA as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein a step is also provided of overlapping at least one of said photographic images with said three-dimensional model acquired by means of laser scanning.
However, Lingua is in the field of landslide monitoring (Lingua [Title]) and teaches: overlapping photographic images with a three-dimensional model acquired by laser scanning (Lingua [p. 364]: “Many digital images of the scenario were acquired and they were employed to integrate the laser scanner data with their radiometric content.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HYDRA and overlap the photographic images with the three-dimensional model acquired by laser scanning, as taught by Lingua, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Lingua’s image and laser data integration technique to HYDRA’s deformation monitoring system yields the predictable result of incorporating additional data, such as radiometric data (Lingua [p. 364]), into the three-dimensional model.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HYDRA (“HYDRA User Manual,” IDS GeoRadar, 2017), Coppi (WO 2018/109745 A1), and Viviani (Viviani et al., “IBIS-ArcSAR: an Innovative Ground-Based SAR System for Slope Monitoring,” 2018), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Pieraccini (Pieraccini et al., “Integration of Radar Interferometry and Laser Scanning for Remote Monitoring of an Urban Site Built on a Sliding Slope,” 2006).
Regarding Claim 8, HYDRA as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein a step is also provided of generating a three-dimensional mesh starting from said three-dimensional model, said three-dimensional mesh comprising a plurality of faces arranged to define the shape of a polyhedral object of said scenario.
However, Pieraccini is in the field of slope monitoring (Pieraccini [Title]) and teaches: wherein a step is also provided of generating a three-dimensional mesh starting from said three-dimensional model, said three-dimensional mesh comprising a plurality of faces arranged to define the shape of a polyhedral object of said scenario (Pieraccini [p. 2338]: “…a digital surface model (DSM) from the points the cloud is obtained. It can be a triangle mesh, that is, a surface floored by triangles (or other elementary surfaces) of which the vertices are the assigned points, embedded in three-dimensional (3-D) space.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HYDRA and generate a three-dimensional mesh in the shape of a polyhedral object of said scenario, as taught by Pieraccini, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Pieraccini’s three-dimensional mesh technique to HYDRA’s deformation monitoring system yields the predictable result of accurately modeling the three-dimensional scenario while being computationally efficient.
Regarding Claim 9, HYDRA as modified does not explicitly teach: the step of calculating at least one three-dimensional vector of displacement of the points of said scenario as claimed.
However, Pieraccini teaches: a step of calculating at least one three-dimensional vector of displacement of the points of said scenario, comprising:
making at least two radar scans at a time interval Δtr (Pieraccini [Abstract]: “Both techniques compare images taken at different times”; [p. 2336]: “Complex radar images are generated through GB-SAR focusing”);
calculating a displacement value dLOS representing the component along the line of sight of the displacement of a point Pr between said two radar scans in said time interval Δtr (Pieraccini [p. 2336]: “The phase difference between two images is called an interferogram.”; “interferometric phases are within the interval [−π,π] corresponding to displacements along the radar LOS”);
making at least two laser scans at a time interval Δtl (Pieraccini [Abstract]: “Both techniques compare images taken at different times”; [p. 2335]: “Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS)”);
calculating the vector of the displacement direction dlaser of a point Pl having same spatial coordinates of said point Pr, between said two laser scans in said time interval Δtl, said vector of the displacement direction dlaser having versor of displacement and module (Pieraccini [p. 2339]: “Strength and direction of the displacements measured by the TLS technique”);
calculating the angle θ between said displacement direction calculated and said line of sight (Pieraccini [p. 2341]: “For each identified area, the LOS displacements measured by the radar were converted into displacements along the direction determined by the TLS surveys”);
calculating said three-dimensional vector of displacement using the radar LOS component and the direction determined from laser scans (Pieraccini [p. 2341]: “For each identified area, the LOS displacements measured by the radar were converted into displacements along the direction determined by the TLS surveys”).
Pieraccini does not explicitly write the claimed equation. However, Pieraccini teaches the same calculation which uses the displacement direction determined by the laser to convert the radar’s LOS displacement into the three-dimensional vector of displacement (Pieraccini [p. 2341]: “the LOS displacements measured by the radar were converted into displacements along the direction determined by the TLS surveys”). The claimed cosine equation is merely the standard mathematical expression of that conversion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HYDRA and calculate at least one three-dimensional vector of displacement, as taught by Pieraccini, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Pieraccini’s displacement vector calculation technique to HYDRA’s deformation monitoring system yields the predictable result of accurately determining the direction of the displacement.
Regarding Claim 10, HYDRA as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein a step is provided of graphic superimposition of said or each vector of displacement to said three-dimensional map of said scenario.
However, Pieraccini teaches: wherein a step is provided of graphic superimposition of said or each vector of displacement to said three-dimensional map of said scenario (Pieraccini [p. 2341]: “The benefit of the 3-D information together with the surface displacements retrieved is appreciable in Fig. 5, where the displacements along the normal to the surface are overlaid on an optical picture.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HYDRA and graphically superimpose each vector of displacement to said three-dimensional map, as taught by Pieraccini, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Pieraccini’s displacement vector superimposition technique to HYDRA’s deformation monitoring system yields the predictable result of allowing the location, direction, and magnitude of the deformation to be viewed together.
Regarding Claim 12, HYDRA as modified does not explicitly teach: the radar measurement disambiguation step as claimed.
However, Pieraccini teaches that LOS displacements may be less than or equal to λ/4 (Pieraccini [p. 2336]: “The LOS displacements amount to about λ/4”).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04 II). In this case, the claimed radar measurement disambiguation step is only performed when the LOS displacement is greater than λ/4. Pieraccini teaches that LOS displacements may be less than or equal to λ/4. Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the claimed radar measurement disambiguation step to be performed.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HYDRA (“HYDRA User Manual,” IDS GeoRadar, 2017), Coppi (WO 2018/109745 A1), and Viviani (Viviani et al., “IBIS-ArcSAR: an Innovative Ground-Based SAR System for Slope Monitoring,” 2018), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2020/0116833).
Regarding Claim 13, HYDRA as modified does not explicitly teach: disambiguating the laser measurement as claimed.
However, Yang is in the field of laser measurement disambiguation (Yang [Abstract]) and teaches: wherein in case that, following said laser scanning of said scenario, there is ambiguity in calculating a position of a point, obtaining multiple possible positions and disambiguating the laser measurement by selecting one of the possible positions (Yang [0007]: “The process of this assignment is often referred to as MPiA or MTA disambiguation and the assignment itself is often referred to as the return pulse's MPiA or MTA zone.”; [0041]: “determining a confidence level of the initial assignment … generating an alternative assignment of the return pulse to a different send pulse in case the confidence level is below a defined threshold … carrying out a selection of one of the assignments”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HYDRA and disambiguate an ambiguous laser measurement, as taught by Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Yang’s laser measurement disambiguation technique to HYDRA’s deformation monitoring system yields the predictable result of disambiguating any ambiguous laser measurements and improving the accuracy of the three-dimensional model.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites a discontinuous monitoring procedure that requires laser scanning a scenario at two different instants and obtaining two three-dimension models, comparing the two three-dimensional models to determine a rotation error and a translation error, and using the rotation and translation errors to correct a radar interferogram.
HYDRA as modified does not teach the claimed discontinuous monitoring procedure or determining rotation or translation errors.
Hu (Hu et al., “Repositioning Error Compensation in Discontinuous Ground-Based SAR Monitoring,” 2021) teaches a discontinuous monitoring procedure that uses two radar scans to determine rotation and translation errors (Hu [p. 2-3, 10]) and generates an interferogram while considering the rotation and translation errors (Hu [p. 6]). However, Hu does not explicitly teach determining the rotation and translation errors by comparing two three-dimensional models obtained by laser scanning.
Therefore, the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art does not teach laser scanning a scenario at two different instants and obtaining two three-dimension models, comparing the three-dimensional models to determine a rotation error and a translation error, and using the rotation and translation errors to correct a radar interferogram.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least Claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights