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 .
Detailed Action
This office Action is in response to an application filed on 12/05/2024, in which claims 1-15 are pending and are being examined.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119(a)-(d). Claimed foreign priority to EP 23219446.4 dated 12/21/2023. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 12/26/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
This information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. “A computer program” is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-8 refer to "A mobile scanning instrument”, Claims 9-14 refer to "A method of surveying”, and, Claim 15 refers to "A computer program”. Claims 9-15 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-8, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-8, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinmann et al. (US 20190094344 A1), hereinafter Steinmann, in view of Martin et al. (EP3825722 A1), hereinafter Martin. Martin is cited in IDS. Machine level translation of Martin is used for rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Steinmann discloses mobile scanning instrument configured to be mounted on a carrier vehicle (Abstract), and configured to acquire point cloud data representing a target area at an object distance from the mobile scanning instrument whilst the carrier vehicle is travelling at a carrier velocity relative to the target area (Fig. 1a-b, [0005]-[0011]), wherein the mobile scanning instrument exhibits a main axis and comprises - a pulse source unit configured to generate scanning pulses in a periodic manner having a pulse rate ([0046]-[0051], [0077]).
Steinmann discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Steinmann does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section and - a beam deflection element configured to define an actual transmission direction of the generated scanning pulses with respect to the main axis, wherein the actual transmission direction varies along a scan pattern in a periodic manner having a scan rate, wherein the scanning instrument is configured - to offset the scan pattern with a twist angle representing a rotation about the main axis, and - to perform a twist angle optimization algorithm comprising o accessing input parameters comprising the pulse rate, the scan rate, the carrier velocity, and the object distance, o providing an optimization target representing a point density and/or a homogeneity of the point cloud data, o providing an output twist angle based on the optimization target and the input parameters.
However, Martin from the same or similar endeavor teaches and - a beam deflection element configured to define an actual transmission direction of the generated scanning pulses with respect to the main axis, wherein the actual transmission direction varies along a scan pattern in a periodic manner having a scan rate, wherein the scanning instrument is configured - to offset the scan pattern with a twist angle representing a rotation about the main axis, and - to perform a twist angle optimization algorithm comprising o accessing input parameters comprising the pulse rate, the scan rate, the carrier velocity, and the object distance, o providing an optimization target representing a point density and/or a homogeneity of the point cloud data, o providing an output twist angle based on the optimization target and the input parameters (Fig. 1-2, [0004], [0016]-[0017], [0025]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinmann to incorporate the teachings of Martin to improve flexibility and efficiency of scanning (Martin, [0007]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Steinmann in view of Martin discloses the mobile scanning instrument according to claim 1 configured to be mounted to an aircraft, wherein the carrier velocity is a flight velocity over the ground, in particular wherein the main axis corresponds to a nadir direction (Martin, Fig. 1, [0027]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Steinmann in view of Martin discloses the mobile scanning instrument according to claim 1, wherein - the scan pattern is a line pattern, - the scan rate and the carrier velocity define a line-to-line distance, - the pulse rate, the scan rate, and the object distance define a point-to-point distance, and - the optimization target is a threshold homogeneous point density of the point cloud data (Obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 4, Steinmann in view of Martin discloses the mobile scanning instrument according to claim 3. wherein the twist angle optimization algorithm comprises - determining an effective line-to-line distance based on the line-to-line distance and the twist angle, - providing the optimal twist angle based on the effective line-to-line distance and the point-to-point distance, in particular by selecting the twist angle setting the effective line-to-line distance equal to a maximal point-to-point distance or to a point-to-point distance corresponding a point density target (Obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 5, Steinmann in view of Martin discloses the mobile scanning instrument according to claim 1, wherein - the beam deflection element comprises a first wedge and a second wedge mounted along the main axis, - the first wedge is configured to rotate with a first wedge rate, - the second wedge configured to rotate with a second wedge rate, such that a ratio first and the second wedge rates is a proper fraction, in particular a root of unity (Martin, Fig. 7-8, [0034]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Steinmann in view of Martin discloses the mobile scanning instrument according to claim 5, being configured to provide the twist angle based on a wedge phase shift representing a phase difference between a rotation of the first wedge and a rotation of the second wedge (Martin, Fig. 7-8, [0034]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Steinmann in view of Martin discloses the mobile scanning instrument according to claim 1 being configured to provide a twist angle interval, wherein the scanning instrument is configured to offset the scan pattern with any twist angle within the twist angle interval (Martin, Fig. 7-8, [0034]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 8, Steinmann in view of Martin discloses the mobile scanning instrument according to claim 1, being configured to acquire point cloud data with the scan rate of at least 10 Hz (Obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 9-15, See Examiner’s Note. Claims 9-15 are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. Bennett et al. (US 20130324070 A1), Abstract, [0045], pseudo-random; Rieger et al. (US 201202578186 A1), [0057]; Xu (US 20240212496 A1), [0045], optimization; Chen et al. (US 20250209738 A1), [0080]; Metzler et al. (US 20240210563 A1), [0012]-[0018]; point cloud density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights