DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 22 APRIL 2025 and the Information Disclosure Statements.
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 Statements (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2025 and 06/12/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
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, 7, 9-13, 38-40, 43, 44, 49, and 50 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.
With regard to claim 1, it is unclear which “reference points” is being referred to for antecedent basis in first recitation of “the reference points.” The interpretation can vary as to which is being used for antecedent basis, because the first instance of “reference points” is interpreted as reference points designed for measuring distance and the second instance of “reference points” includes the interpretation of any identifiable feature or location within the construction site. For examination purposes, the limitation “the reference points” is interpreted as any identifiable feature or location within the construction site and not just reference points for measuring distance.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 13, 38-40, 43, and 49-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2008/0055554 A1 (hereinafter “Tubin”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0018258 A1 (hereinafter “Goldsmith”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0246943 A1 (hereinafter “Kaufman”).
Regarding claim 1, Tubin discloses a projection device (FIG. 1, processor 102 with projector 104) for displaying a construction plan ([0006], “Construction documents can be scanned, stored digitally, and projected;” see projection FIG. 1), the projection device comprising:
a projector head comprising (FIG. 1, projector 104):
a laser module ([0023], “a projector using one or more lasers”), and
the laser module([0023], “a projector using one or more lasers.” FIG. 1 depicts projector 104 projecting the lasers down an optical path. Note, Tubin does not disclose the set of projection optics or the two mirror galvanometers; however, these are optical elements for guiding the light source and/or laser used in Tubin. Therefore, these two elements if present would be in the projector head optical path);
a rangefinder ([0034], “light source in the projector.” Claim 7, “ranging device”) adapted to measure distances between the projection device and reference points positioned on a construction site ([0034], “the projector 702 may be able to determine the distance to each alignment mark by scanning each corner 704 708 712 using a light source in the projector.” [0035], “the alignment marks 806 808 810 may be active, emitting coded signals using either optical signals, such as infrared, or ultrasound signals for determining distance from the projector 802. […] The pointer 816 may use the coded signals from the alignment marks 806 808 812 and forward either raw position data or a calculated position, relative to the alignment marks, back to the processor 804”),
the rangefinder having an optical path aligned with the projector head optical path ([0034], “the projector 702 may be able to determine the distance to each alignment mark by scanning each corner 704 708 712 using a light source in the projector.” FIG. 7 depicts using the same optical head of the projector for the light source and the lasers; therefore, they have an aligned optical path);
a memory device (FIG. 1, memory 106) adapted for storing one or more construction plans ([0023], “The processor 102 may have a memory 106 for storing building plans”), the memory device being further adapted for storing known positions of reference points on the construction site ([0036], “digitally store and project construction drawings at full scale presents benefits to builders, their current customers, and their prospective customers. Multiple layers of drawings may be easily overlaid to allow checking for interferences. Full-sized visualizations of floor plans, wall and cabinet layouts, as well as window and door placements.” Note, the reference points include the floor plans, and layouts of cabinets, windows, and doors. Additionally, the known position of the alignment marks, such as in FIGS. 7-8, are considered stored because they are in continual use by the projection device); and
a controller (FIG. 1, processor 102) operatively connected to the laser module and the rangefinder,([0023], “The processor 102 may be a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a tablet computer, or a special function processor suitable to the task of storing and rendering building plans to the projector 104. The processor 102 may have a memory 106 for storing building plans.” FIG. 1 depicts processor 102 connected via network connection 111 to the projector 104. [0025], “couple the processor 102 to the projector 104.” Note, the coupling means all components of the projector 104 are “operatively connected” with the processor 102), the controller being adapted for:
choosing a construction plan to be displayed from the memory device ([0011], “Once digitally scanned, the drawing images can be uploaded onto the device and/or projector and displayed over framing, or decking.” FIG. 1 depicts a building plan that has been chosen for display),
selectively activating the laser module ([0011], “Once digitally scanned, the drawing images can be uploaded onto the device and/or projector and displayed over framing, or decking FIG. 1 depicts a building plan that has been chosen for display by the laser described in [0023]”), and
([0011], “Once digitally scanned, the drawing images can be uploaded onto the device and/or projector and displayed over framing, or decking.” FIG. 1 depicts a building plan that is being projected on a site),
receiving the distances measured by the rangefinder between the projection device and the reference points ([0034], “the projector 702 may be able to determine the distance to each alignment mark by scanning each corner 704 708 712 using a light source in the projector.” [0035], “The coding may correspond to the each particular alignment mark, such as, bottom right. The full-scale projection illustrated shows wall studs 812 and an initial window opening 814. A pointer 816 may be used to update changes to the full-scale projection either during the planning phases or for creating an as-built diagram. The pointer 816 may use the coded signals from the alignment marks 806 808 812 and forward either raw position data or a calculated position, relative to the alignment marks, back to the processor 804”)
Tubin fails to expressly disclose a set of projection optics,
two mirror galvanometers, including a first mirror galvanometer configured to redirect incident light from the laser module toward a second mirror galvanometer, the second mirror galvanometer being configured to redirect the incident light from the first mirror galvanometer toward the set of projection optics,
selectively causing the first and second mirror galvanometers to follow a path defined by the construction plan concurrently with the selective activation of the laser module so that the incident light redirected toward the projection optics; and
calculating a position and an orientation of the projection device within the construction site based on the known positions of the reference points and on the measured distances between the projection device and the reference points.
However, Goldsmith teaches a set of projection optics (FIG. 1, lens 150; [0029], “The lens 150 may be a single focal length lens, or a multifocal length lens, or may include multiple lenses”),
two mirror galvanometers, including a first mirror galvanometer configured to redirect incident light from the laser module toward a second mirror galvanometer, the second mirror galvanometer being configured to redirect the incident light from the first mirror galvanometer toward the set of projection optics ([0028], “image signals can include signals (which can be referred to as sub-signals) that correspond to desired X-Y positions (e.g., on a Cartesian coordinate scan field of the laser projector 120) for projecting laser beams, signals (e.g., sub-signals) corresponding with a desired color (or colors) of projected laser beams at the desired X-Y positions.” [0034], “The laser and diodes 136 may then generate a laser beam of the specified color and power, which mirrors of the X-Y galvanometers 140 can direct (at the desired X-Y position) through the lens 150 and into a venue in which the laser projector 120 is being used”),
selectively causing the first and second mirror galvanometers to follow a path defined by the construction plan concurrently with the selective activation of the laser module so that the incident light redirected toward the projection optics ([0034], “The laser and diodes 136 may then generate a laser beam of the specified color and power, which mirrors of the X-Y galvanometers 140 can direct (at the desired X-Y position) through the lens 150 and into a venue in which the laser projection 120 is being used”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used galvanometers and projection lens, as taught by Goldsmith (FIG. 1), in Tubin’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Tubin’s invention, by incorporating Goldsmith’s invention, because it is an application of a known optical assembly into a known laser projector for achieving efficient projections and additionally Tubin provides a safety system attached to the optical assembly for disallowing projection when there is a safety concern (Goldsmith: FIG. 1 and [0006]).
Tubin and Goldsmith fail to expressly disclose calculating a position and an orientation of the projection device within the construction site based on the known positions of the reference points and on the measured distances between the projection device and the reference points.
However, Kaufman teaches calculating a position and an orientation of the projection device within the construction site based on the known positions of the reference points and on the measured distances between the projection device and the reference points ([0078], “The laser projector 99 utilizes its optical feedback capabilities and the set of retro-reflective or cooperative targets 101, 102, 103, and 104 as fiducial points to determine projector's location and orientation in 3D space with respect to the object 105.” [0145], “the photo detector 10 captures the signal pulse of light that traveled from the projector toward the object and all the way back. The difference in time between the reference pulse and the signal pulse represents the time needed for the light pulse to travel from the projector to the object and back. That, in accordance with the well-known principle of time-of-flight ranging, allows a calculation of the distance between the projector and the object by multiplying the time difference by the speed of light.” [0030], “computer also defines the projector location and orientation in 3D space with respect to the object based on the optical feedback scan data from the object’s features.” Note, Kaufman also discloses how the mirror galvanometers function in FIG. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the projector location and orientation, as taught by Kaufman ([0030]), in Tubin and Goldsmith’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Tubin and Goldsmith’s invention, by incorporating Kaufman’s invention, to provide 3D location and light reflectivity information about points on the object to pixels with high precision, sensitivity, and dynamic range (Kaufman: [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation in claim 1. Additionally, Tubin discloses wherein the controller is further configured to adapt the projection of the construction plan to a projection zone determined in view of the position and of the orientation of the projection device within the construction site ([0034], “When the four corners of the full-scale plan projection are defined, relatively simple adjustments to scale and the keystone the image may be calculated and the image displayed.” [0036], “The use of alignment marks may supplement or replace manual adjustment of the projection.” [0034-0036] describe how the positioning of the projector is determined relative to a target surface, by the use of distance).
Regarding claim 13, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Tubin discloses further comprising: a human machine interface (HMI) communicatively connected to the controller ([0025], “The processor 102 may include a display 108 and a keyboard 110, or equivalent data entry mechanism.” [0023], “The processor 102 may be a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a tablet computer, or a special function processor suitable to the task of storing and rendering building plans to the projector 104.” [0010], “an added handheld controller/stylus pad device.” Claim 1, “a display coupled to the processor implementing a user interface for managing projection by the projector”), the HMI being configured to forward to the projection device one or more commands ([0025], “A network connection 111, wired or wireless, may be used to couple the processor 102 to the projector 104.” Claim 1, “a display coupled to the processor implementing a user interface for managing projection by the projector”) selected from:
a command to cause a calibration of the projection device, a command to control an orientation of the projection device, a command to cause a self-leveling of the projector head, a command to initiate a search for reference points positioned on the construction site a command to select the construction plan, a command to start the projection of the construction plan on the construction site, a command to increase a brightness of the projection, a command to decrease the brightness of the projection, a command to stop the projection of the construction plan on the construction site, and a command to modify the construction plan ([0010], “field revisions and directed changes can be input onto the projected drawings as an overlay.” [0035], “The pointer 816 may use the coded signals from the alignment marks 806 808 812 and forward either raw position data or a calculated position, relative to the alignment marks, back to the processor 804. The processor 804 may generate new projection lines, such as line 818 indicating removal of an element and new line 820 indicating increased size of the window opening 814. The added lines may be overlayed or otherwise incorporated with the projected image to create a marked-up version in real time”).
Regarding claim 38, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Tubin discloses a method of operation of the projection device as defined by claim 1 (FIG. 1, projector 104, see rejection of claim 1 for a disclosure of each limitation by the prior-art of record), the method comprising:
loading a construction plan in the projection device ([0023], “a special function processor suitable to the task of storing and rendering building plans to the projector 104. The processor 102 may have a memory 106 for storing building plans”);
positioning the projection device on a construction site (FIG. 1 depicts projector 104 having been “position[ed]” at a construction site. FIGS. 7 and 8 depict how the projector 104 determines its distance, which is positioning, relative to a target surface 703 at a construction site);
initiating the projection of the construction plan on the construction site ([0023], “a special function processor suitable to the task of storing and rendering building plans to the projector 104. The processor 102 may have a memory 106 for storing building plans”).
Regarding claim 39, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation of claim 38, as outlined above. Additionally, Tubin discloses further comprising providing position and orientation information to the construction site ([0032], “Alignment marks 602 and 604 may be placed a measured distance apart corresponding to the actual environment, with a given height 606 and width 608.” FIG. 6 depicts alignment marks 602 and 604. FIG. 7 depicts alignment marks 704, 708, and 712. FIG. 8 depicts alignment marks 806, 808, and 810. Note, the claim is interpreted as the construction site being modified with some form of indicator for which the projector could determine position and orientation information. [0034], “the projector 702 may be able to determine the distance to each alignment mark by scanning each corner 704 708 712 using a light source in the projector.” [0035], “use the coded signals from the alignment marks 806 808 812 and forward either raw position data or a calculated position, relative to the alignment marks, back to the processor 804.” As per the rejection of claim 1, this information can be used for positioning and orientation, see Kaufman, [0030] and [0145]).
Regarding claim 40, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation of claim 38, as outlined above. Additionally, Tubin discloses further comprising: configuring at least three reference points on the construction site (FIG. 7 depicts alignment marks 704, 708, and 712. FIG. 8 depicts alignment marks 806, 808, and 810)
.
Tubin and Goldsmith fail to expressly disclose causing the projection device to calculate its position and orientation on the construction site.
However, Kaufman teaches causing the projection device to calculate its position and orientation on the construction site ([0078], “The laser projector 99 utilizes its optical feedback capabilities and the set of retro-reflective or cooperative targets 101, 102, 103, and 104 as fiducial points to determine projector's location and orientation in 3D space with respect to the object 105.” [0030], “computer also defines the projector location and orientation in 3D space with respect to the object based on the optical feedback scan data from the object’s features”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally to claim 40.
Regarding claim 43, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation of claim 38, as outlined above. Additionally, Kaufman discloses wherein calculating the position and orientation of the projection device on the construction site comprises performing a trilateration of the projection device ([0145], “The difference in time between the reference pulse and the signal pulse represents the time needed for the light pulse to travel from the projector to the object and back. That, in accordance with the well-known principle of time-of-flight ranging, allows a calculation of the distance between the projector and the object by multiplying the time difference by the speed of light.” [0030], “computer also defines the projector location and orientation in 3D space with respect to the object based on the optical feedback scan data from the object’s features.” FIG. 4 discloses fiducial points can include reflective markers 101-104, consistent with Tubin’s alignment marks, which provide distances from the projector to each point of reference, and thus at least three (i.e., trilateration) computations of distance are used for the position and orientation calculation). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally to claim 43.
Regarding claim 49, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Goldsmith discloses wherein light emitted by the rangefinder is directed by the two mirror galvanometers (FIG. 1, X-Y galvanometers 140 is used to direct laser and diodes 136). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally to claim 49.
Regarding claim 50, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Kaufman discloses further comprising: a LiDAR sensor operatively connected to the controller, the LiDAR sensor being configured to scan the construction site to generate a 3D cloud of points representing the construction site (FIG. 1, photo detector 10. [0028], “A time-of-light measuring system calculates the elapsed time of flight and distance traveled of pulses from the laser, to points on the object surface, and back via said signal light feedback beam to the detector.” [0023], “produces a dense point 3D cloud”).
Regarding claim 51, the limitations are the same as those in claims 1 and 50. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 1 and 50 apply equally as well to claim 51.
Regarding claim 52, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation of claim 51, as outlined above. Additionally, Kaufman discloses wherein the controller is further adapted for calculating a flatness and an elevation of a floor of the construction site, based on the 3D cloud of points ([0134], “the surface of the object following input CAD data in the form of (x, y, z).” [0159], “extract detailed information about scanned 3D objects needed for high precision laser projection.” Note, the Y component is the elevation and adjacent Y components of the object define the flatness, and the object can include any surface, including the floor, see FIG. 5 and 14A). The same motivation of claim 51 applies equally to claim 52.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2008/0055554 A1 (hereinafter “Tubin”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0018258 A1 (hereinafter “Goldsmith”), further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0246943 A1 (hereinafter “Kaufman”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0064328 A1 (hereinafter “Ammer”).
Regarding claim 7, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation in claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Kaufman discloses further comprising: ([0146], “The light pulses emitted by the laser 1P are quite short, and therefore so are the electrical output pulses obtained from the photo detectors 501 and 10.” [0134], “the surface of the object following input CAD data in the form of (x, y, z).” [0159], “extract detailed information about scanned 3D objects needed for high precision laser projection”);
wherein the controller is further configured to calculate at least one of a flatness and an elevation of the floor of the construction site based on the images of the floor provided by the two or more cameras ([0134], “the surface of the object following input CAD data in the form of (x, y, z).” [0159], “extract detailed information about scanned 3D objects needed for high precision laser projection.” Note, the Y component is the elevation and the object can include any surface, including the floor). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 7.
Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman fail to expressly disclose two or more cameras.
However, Ammer teaches two or more cameras ([0036], “the laser scanner may reference its position by surveying a reference object (e.g. a reference target or prism), wherein the surveying may be done by scanning with the laser, by stereoscopic referencing, or by camera imaging (according equipment provided, like e.g. two sensors or cameras may be used to detect reference points)”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used two or more cameras, as taught by Ammer ([0036]), in Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman. One would have been motivated to modify Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman’s invention, by incorporating Ammer’s invention, because it is an obvious simple substitution of one imaging means for detecting a reference position for another with predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(A)(B).
Claim(s) 9-12 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2008/0055554 A1 (hereinafter “Tubin”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0018258 A1 (hereinafter “Goldsmith”), further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0246943 A1 (hereinafter “Kaufman”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2010/0318319 A1 (hereinafter “Maierhofer”).
Regarding claim 9, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman fail to expressly disclose further comprising: a leveling system supporting the projector head;
wherein the controller is further configured to cause the leveling system to modify a pitch axis and/or a yaw axis of the projector head.
However, Maierhofer teaches further comprising: a leveling system supporting the projector head ([0047], “The drive unit consists of (at least) two highly precisely adjustable positioning motors 11, 12, of which a first (indicated with broken lines in FIG. 4) is disposed in the upper region 7 of the base 8 disposed underneath the housing, for rotation or pivoting of the housing 4 about the axis N, which runs vertically. The rotation or pivoting of the housing 4 about the horizontal axis M takes place by means of a second positioning motor, which is optionally disposed in one of the two housing shells 9, 10 that lie against the housing 4 from different sides”);
wherein the controller is further configured to cause the leveling system to modify a pitch axis and/or a yaw axis of the projector head (FIG. 1, motors can control the rotation at upper region 7 to change the rotation about the yaw axis N, and motors can control the pivoting from either housing shell 9 or 10 to pivot about the pitch axis M. Data and electricity are provided through interfaces. [0014], “at least one data processing device for controlling the laser projector, the laser distance measurement device, and the drive unit”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a leveling system for modifying movement of the projector head, as taught by Maierhofer (FIG. 1), in Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman. One would have been motivated to modify Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman’s invention, by incorporating Maierhofer’s invention, to allow for positioning information on the projector to be determined with great precision ([0047]), which will increase the accuracy of the projection.
Regarding claim 10, Tubin, Goldsmith, Kaufman, and Maierhofer disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Additionally, Maierhofer discloses wherein: the leveling system comprises:
a pitch encoder to measure a pitch of the projector head (FIG. 1, pitch axis M. [0047], “Each positioning motor 11, 12 comprises an angle decoder--not shown--with which the given angle position of the setting of the positioning motor 11, 12, in each instance, can be determined with great precision”),
a pitch motor adapted to adjust the pitch of the projector head ([0047], “The rotation or pivoting of the housing 4 about the horizontal axis M takes place by means of a second positioning motor”),
a yaw encoder adapted to measure a yaw of the projector head (FIG. 1, yaw axis N. [0047], “Each positioning motor 11, 12 comprises an angle decoder--not shown--with which the given angle position of the setting of the positioning motor 11, 12, in each instance, can be determined with great precision”), and
a yaw motor adapted to adjust the yaw of the projector head ([0047], “motors 11, 12 […] for rotation or pivoting of the housing 4 about the axis N, which runs vertically”); and
the controller is further configured to receive measurements from the pitch encoder and from the yaw encoder to control the pitch motor and the yaw motor, respectively ([0014], “at least one data processing device for controlling the laser projector, the laser distance measurement device, and the drive unit.” [0047], “The apparatus furthermore has a drive unit by means of which the laser projector 2 and the laser distance measurement device 3, together with the housing 4, can be pivoted or rotated jointly about two different axes M and N, according to the double arrows A, B. The drive unit consists of (at least) two highly precisely adjustable positioning motors 11, 12, of which a first (indicated with broken lines in FIG. 4) is disposed in the upper region 7 of the base 8 disposed underneath the housing, for rotation or pivoting of the housing 4 about the axis N, which runs vertically. The rotation or pivoting of the housing 4 about the horizontal axis M takes place by means of a second positioning motor, which is optionally disposed in one of the two housing shells 9, 10 that lie against the housing 4 from different sides. Each positioning motor 11, 12 comprises an angle decoder--not shown--with which the given angle position of the setting of the positioning motor 11, 12, in each instance, can be determined with great precision”). The same motivation of claim 9 applies equally to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Tubin, Goldsmith, Kaufman, and Maierhofer disclose every limitation of claim 10, as outlined above. Additionally, Maierhofer discloses wherein the controller is further configured to adapt the projection of the construction plan in view of a change of the pitch and/or the yaw of the projector head ([0014], “at least one data processing device for controlling the laser projector, the laser distance measurement device, and the drive unit.” Note, data processing device controls the laser projector to project the construction plan ([0001], “projection of a specified pattern”) and can freely change the pitch/yaw based on the current pitch/yaw to a desirable pitch/yaw, see [0047]). The same motivation of claim 9 applies equally to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are the same as those in claims 9 and 10. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 9 and 10 apply equally to claim 12.
Regarding claim 44, Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman disclose every limitation of claim 38, as outlined above. Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman fail to expressly disclose further comprising providing a command to the projection device for causing the projection device to adjust a pitch angle of the projector head, a yaw angle of the projector head, or at once the pitch angle and the yaw angle of the projector head.
However, Maierhofer teaches further comprising providing a command to the projection device for causing the projection device to adjust a pitch angle of the projector head, a yaw angle of the projector head, or at once the pitch angle and the yaw angle of the projector head (FIG. 1, motors can control the rotation at upper region 7 to change the rotation about the yaw axis N, and motors can control the pivoting from either housing shell 9 or 10 to pivot about the pitch axis M. Data and electricity are provided through interfaces. [0014], “at least one data processing device for controlling the laser projector, the laser distance measurement device, and the drive unit.” See [0047]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted a pitch and/or a yaw angle of the projector, as taught by Maierhofer (FIG. 1), in Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman. One would have been motivated to modify Tubin, Goldsmith, and Kaufman’s invention, by incorporating Maierhofer’s invention, to allow for positioning information on the projector to be determined with great precision ([0047]), which will increase the accuracy of the projection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-13, 38-40, 43, 44, and 49-52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,309,535 B2 (hereinafter “Patent ‘535”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0055554 A1 (hereinafter “Tubin”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0246943 A1 (hereinafter “Kaufman”).
The following table exemplifies the similarities between independent claim 1 from the instant application and Patent ‘535.
Instant Application
Patent ‘535
Claim 1. A projection device for displaying a construction plan, the projection device comprising: a projector head comprising: a set of projection optics, a laser module, and two mirror galvanometers, including a first mirror galvanometer configured to redirect incident light from the laser module toward a second mirror galvanometer, the second mirror galvanometer being configured to redirect the incident light from the first mirror galvanometer toward the set of projection optics,
Claim 1. A projection device for displaying construction plans, the projection device comprising: a projector head comprising: a set of projection optics, a laser module, and two mirror galvanometers, including a first mirror galvanometer configured to redirect incident light from the laser module toward a second mirror galvanometer, the second mirror galvanometer being configured to redirect the incident light from the first mirror galvanometer toward the set of projection optics;
the laser module, the set of projection optics, and the two mirror qalvanometers forminq a projector head optical path; a rangefinder adapted to measure distances between the projection device and reference points positioned on a construction site, the rangefinder havinq an optical path aligned with the projector head optical path;
a laser safety module operatively connected to the laser module;
a memory device adapted for storing one or more construction plans, the memory device being further adapted for storing known positions of reference points on the construction site;
a memory device adapted for storing one or more construction plans; and
and a controller operatively connected to the laser module and the rangefinder, the two mirror galvanometers, and the memory device, the controller being adapted for: choosing a construction plan to be displayed from the memory device, selectively activating the laser module, and selectively causing the first and second mirror galvanometers to follow a path defined by the construction plan concurrently with the selective activation of the laser module so that the incident light redirected toward the projection optics selectively forms a projection of the construction plan on a construction
a controller operatively connected to the laser module, the two mirror galvanometers, the laser safety module, and the memory device, the controller being adapted for: choosing a construction plan to be displayed from the memory device, selectively activating the laser module, and selectively causing the first and second mirror galvanometers to follow a path defined by the chosen construction plan concurrently with the selective activation of the laser module so that the incident light redirected toward the projection optics selectively forms a projection of the construction plan on a construction site;
wherein the laser safety module is configured to: calculate a safe level of retinal exposure to laser light, estimate a brightness of the projection of the construction plan by considering one or more of a number of lines on the projection of the construction plan, a length of the lines, a combined length of the lines, intersections between the lines, and a number of jumps in the projection of the construction plan, and dynamically control an operation of the laser module by attenuating its intensity until the brightness of the projection of the construction plan is less than the safe level of retinal exposure.
receiving the distances measured by the rangefinder between the projection device and the reference points, and calculating a position and an orientation of the projection device within the construction site based on the known positions of the reference points and on the measured distances between the protection device and the reference points.
Regarding the differences of claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection above includes a mapping of both Tubin and Kaufman for disclosing each limitation.
One would have been motivated modify Patent ‘535, by incorporating Tubin’s disclosure, to have a projector capable of alleviating and eliminating many project and construction management issues (Tubin: [0006]). Additionally, one would have been motivated to modify Patent ‘535 and Tubin, by incorporating Kaufman’s disclosure, to provide 3D location and light reflectivity information about points on the object to pixels with high precision, sensitivity, and dynamic range (Kaufman: [0002]).
Each of the dependent claims are obvious over Patent ‘535 in combination with Tubin, and Kaufman, as outlined in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2019/0388945 A1 – Discloses, a laser rangefinder in combination with a galvanometer mirror, see par. [0026].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights