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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, particularly regarding the limitations: “virtual measurement point,” “degree of coincidence between said measuring point and said virtual measurement point,” “certainty degree,” “entire point cloud of a surface of said reference sphere,” “reference sphere normalizing the radius of said sphere as 1,” “plane surface based on each selected point cloud,” “preset reference curved surface,” and “preset reference plane.” The specification does not provide a clear definition, description, or algorithm for these terms or explain how the claimed mathematical and quality metrics are calculated or used. As a result, the claims recite subject matter that is not adequately described in the specification.
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 1-15 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.
The claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention, specifically with respect to the limitations: “virtual measurement point,” “degree of coincidence between said measuring point and said virtual measurement point,” “certainty degree,” “entire point cloud of a surface of said reference sphere,” “reference sphere normalizing the radius of said sphere as 1,” “plane surface based on each selected point cloud,” “preset reference curved surface,” “preset reference plane,” and, in claims 2 and 11, the ambiguous antecedent basis for “said sphere” and “said targets.” These terms are not defined in the claims or specification, and their scope and meaning would not be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art, rendering the claims indefinite.
Reference List
D1: US 2022/0074764 A1 (Leica Geosystems AG)
D2: CN 105890560 A (Hang et al.)
D3: US 2021/0372768 A1 (Muller et al.)
D4: US 2013/0253871 A1. (Gray)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1.
Claim 1 A surveying system comprising: a target device including a pole and a target of which a distance from a lower end of said pole is known (D1, [para. 6], [para. 85], Figs. 1, 4a: D1 discloses a pole with a target at a known distance from the lower end), and a surveying instrument capable of measuring said target (D1, [para. 13], [para. 86], Figs. 1, 4a: D1 describes a total station measuring the target), wherein said pole is swung in a state where the lower end of said pole coincides with a predetermined measuring point (D1, [para. 7], [para. 121], [para. 122], Figs. 4a, 6: D1 teaches fixing the pole tip at the measuring point and swinging the pole), and said surveying instrument is configured to measure said target at least at three points (D1, [para. 122], [para. 123], Figs. 4a, 5a: D1 describes measuring the target at multiple points during swinging), to calculate three-dimensional coordinates of a virtual measurement point based on each measurement result of said target (D1, [para. 123], [para. 127]: D1 describes fitting a sphere to measured points to determine the 3D measuring point), to calculate a degree of coincidence between said measuring point and said virtual measurement point as a certainty degree (D1, [para. 125], [para. 130], [para. 133]: D1 describes quality/confidence metric for the fit), and to perform an operation of completion of measurement when said certainty degree satisfies a preset threshold value (D1, [para. 129], [para. 134]: D1 describes automated completion when the quality is sufficient).
Claim 7 The surveying system according to any one of claims 1 to 5, wherein said surveying instrument further comprises a tracking function, and said surveying instrument is configured to be measurable while tracking said target (D1, [para. 17], [para. 18], [para. 87], [para. 117]: D1 discloses a tracking function and measurement during tracking).
Claim 9 The surveying system according to claim 7, wherein said surveying instrument is configured to measure said target at predetermined time intervals, to calculate a center of a sphere fitting to at least three measurement results of said target continuously measured, as said virtual measurement point, each time said target is measured, and to judge that said target device is installed at said measuring point when the certainty degree of said virtual measurement point satisfies said threshold value (D1, [para. 122], [para. 123], [para. 129]: D1 describes timed measurements, sphere fitting, and automated completion based on certainty/quality threshold).
Claim 12 A surveying method comprising a step of causing a pole to swing in a state where a lower end of said pole coincides with a predetermined measuring point, a step of causing a surveying instrument to measure a target provided at a position where a distance from the lower end of said pole is known, at least at three points, a step of causing said surveying instrument to calculate three-dimensional coordinates of a virtual measurement point based on each measurement result of said target, a step of causing said surveying instrument to calculate a degree of coincidence between said measuring point and said virtual measurement point as a certainty degree, and a step of causing said surveying instrument to provide notification of an alarm indicating completion of measurement when the certainty degree satisfies a preset threshold value (D1, [Abstract], [para. 6], [para. 85], [para. 121]–[para. 134], Figs. 4a, 5a: D1 discloses all these steps).
Claim 15 The surveying system according to claim 1, wherein the surveying system further comprises a surveying program for causing said surveying instrument to perform a process of measuring said target at least at three points, a process of calculating three-dimensional coordinates of a virtual measurement point based on each measurement result of said target, a process of calculating a degree of coincidence between said measuring point and said virtual measurement point as a certainty degree, and a process of providing notification of an alarm indicating completion of measurement when the certainty degree satisfies a preset threshold value (D1, [para. 21], [para. 55]: D1 describes a surveying program for automated measurement and completion).
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) 4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3.
Claim 4 The surveying system according to claim 1, wherein said surveying instrument is configured to calculate a radius of a sphere fitting to each measurement result at least at four points, to compare between the radius and a distance from the lower end of said pole to said target, and to calculate said certainty degree based on a difference between the distance and the radius of said sphere (D1, [para. 123], [para. 125]: D1 discloses sphere fitting and quality/confidence assessment but does not explicitly compare the fitted radius to the known distance; D3, [para. 0124]: D3 explicitly discloses comparing the radius of the fitted sphere to the known distance from the ground point to the target and evaluating fit quality based on the difference). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine D1 and D3 to use the difference between the fitted radius and the known distance as a certainty metric, as this is a routine mathematical approach to evaluating fit quality and provides a predictable improvement in measurement reliability (Rationale: combining known error metrics for predictable improvement in fit assessment).
Claim 6 The surveying system according to claim 1, wherein said surveying instrument is configured to calculate a standard deviation based on a distance from a center of a sphere fitting to each measurement result, and to correct said certainty degree based on the standard deviation (D1, [para. 125]: D1 discloses quality/confidence assessment for sphere fitting but does not disclose using standard deviation of distances from the sphere center; D3, [para. 0129]: D3 explicitly discloses calculating the standard deviation of the distances from the center of the fitted sphere to each measured point and using this as an indicator of fit quality). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine D1 and D3 to use the standard deviation of distances as a certainty metric, as this is a well-known statistical method for evaluating the consistency of fit and would predictably enhance the reliability of the measurement (Rationale: applying standard deviation as a recognized statistical indicator of fit quality).
Claim 10 The surveying system according to claim 7, wherein said surveying instrument is configured to measure said target at predetermined time intervals, to calculate a virtual measurement point from earlier measurement results, and to judge that said target device is installed at said measuring point when a certainty degree of said virtual measurement point satisfies a threshold value (D1, [para. 123], [para. 129]: D1 describes repeated measurements and completion based on a quality/confidence threshold, but does not explicitly disclose using a certainty degree for a virtual measurement point calculated from earlier results; D3, [para. 0129]: D3 discloses calculating a virtual measurement point (sphere center) from measured points and completing the process when the standard deviation is below a threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine D1 and D3 to use a certainty threshold for a virtual measurement point derived from earlier measurements, as this is a routine application of statistical quality control to ensure reliable installation (Rationale: use of a threshold for process completion based on statistical confidence is a common engineering practice).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D4.
Claim 5 The surveying system according to claim 1, wherein said surveying instrument is configured to fit a sphere each time said target is measured and to calculate said certainty degree based on a distance between a center of a sphere fitted to a current measurement result and a center of a sphere fitted to a previous measurement result (D1, [para. 123]: D1 discloses iterative sphere fitting and quality/confidence assessment for each measurement, but does not disclose using the distance between successive sphere centers as a certainty metric; D4, [para. 0062]: D4 explicitly discloses repeatedly calculating the center point of a fitted sphere from successive measurement data sets and using the difference between the calculated center points from consecutive measurement sets to determine the stability or reliability of the measurement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine D1 and D4 to use the distance between sphere centers from consecutive measurements as a certainty metric, as this provides a direct, quantitative measure of convergence and stability, which is a predictable improvement in assessing measurement reliability (Rationale: combining iterative fit convergence monitoring for enhanced reliability).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 8, 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAM ALSOMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-6970. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
