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 the Amendment After Non-Final Rejection filed 10/10/2025. Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Heichel (US 2021/0230942) discloses video cameras designed to perform fundamentally different functions from the claimed video cameras, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Heichel discloses using cameras 81 to capture images of the work environment around the drilling machine to detect hindrances and avoid the detected hindrances when the machine is moved about the environment. Clearly, using cameras to prevent the drilling machine from colliding with hindrances is equivalent to the function of the claimed video cameras.
In response to applicant’s argument that the combination of Heichel with Green (US 2020/0189507) would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the drilling machine of Heichel is larger than the mobile machinery of Green, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Green discloses the mobile machinery 130 can be a variety of machines of a variety of different sizes and that the sensors 140 of the rollover detection system 200 can be easily or temporarily mounted to any of the machine types ([0021], [0029]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to mount the sensors 140 of Green onto the drilling machine of Heichel.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., positioning of the video cameras) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heichel et al. (US 2021/0230942), herein Heichel, in view of Green (US 2020/0189507).
Consider claim 1, Heichel clearly teaches a foundation machine configured for drilling the ground for structural foundation elements or retaining elements, (Fig. 1, [0007]) the machine comprising:
a base machine comprising a structural frame and a movable assembly for moving the machine on the ground; (Fig. 2: Carrier device 1 includes upper carriage 11 and moveable chassis 12, [0044], [0045], [0049].)
a mast, mechanically connected to the base machine, whereon an operating equipment is adapted to be mounted to drill the ground; (Fig. 1: Working carriage 4 is attached to drilling device 5 and carrier device 1, [0040]-[0042].)
at least one video camera, mounted to the base machine and oriented to frame a field of view to be monitored; (Fig. 1: Cameras 81 are arranged on carrier device 1 and collect real-time images of the work environment, [0047], [0057].)
a control system operatively connected to the at least one video camera to receive a signal representative of images acquired by the video camera, (Fig. 1: Evaluation module 63 receives images from cameras 81, [0047].) wherein:
said at least one video camera is mounted and oriented to observe in a perspective view, the foundation machine; (Fig. 1: Evaluation module 63 uses the images obtained by cameras 81 to determine hinderances located around the drilling rig, [0014]-[0017], [0026], [0047], [0048], [0057].)
the control system is configured for having the foundation machine perform predetermined functions. (Fig. 1: Evaluation module 63 uses the images obtained by cameras 81 to determine hinderances and corrects the displacement path of the drilling rig or activates signal emitters, [0017], [0018], [0047], [0048].)
However, Heichel does not explicitly teach said control system comprises said at least one video camera is mounted and oriented to observe in a perspective view, a human figure standing by the machine; a neural network trained to recognize a human figure in the images acquired by the video camera, for recognizing when said at least one video camera is framing a human figure in the monitored field of view; wherein, if the neural network recognizes a human figure, the control system is configured for having the foundation machine perform predetermined functions.
In an analogous art, Green, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches said at least one video camera is mounted and oriented to observe in a perspective view, a human figure standing by the machine; said control system comprises a neural network trained to recognize a human figure in the images acquired by the video camera, for recognizing when said at least one video camera is framing a human figure in the monitored field of view; wherein, if the neural network recognizes a human figure, the control system is configured for having the foundation machine perform predetermined functions. (Figs. 2, 3: Neural network 214 detects humans within the rollover zone 120 based on information from cameras 140 and in response the system triggers disabling device 170, alert device 150 and operator warning device 180, [0021], [0022], [0027]-[0030], [0039]-[0041].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Heichel by said at least one video camera is mounted and oriented to observe in a perspective view, a human figure standing by the machine; said control system comprises a neural network trained to recognize a human figure in the images acquired by the video camera, for recognizing when said at least one video camera is framing a human figure in the monitored field of view; wherein, if the neural network recognizes a human figure, the control system is configured for having the foundation machine perform predetermined functions, as taught by Green, for the benefit of preventing injuries to humans in hazardous areas.
Consider claim 2, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches the at least one video camera is mounted to said structural frame proximate any side or any vertex of the structural frame, (Fig. 1: Cameras 81 are arranged on carrier device 1, [0047] Heichel.) wherein the at least one video camera is oriented to frame the field of view to be monitored proximate said side. (Fig. 1: Sensors 140 capture a field-of-view around the mobile machinery 130, [0022], [0023], [0027] Green.)
Consider claim 3, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches the at least one video camera frames the field of view to be monitored with a depth of field having a length greater than or equal to the length of any one of the sides of the structural frame. (Fig. 1: The rollover zone 120 extends 1 to 3 meters beyond the dimensions of the mobile machinery 130, [0022] Green.)
Consider claim 5, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches the predetermined functions that the control system is configured for having the machine execute when a human figure is recognized in the field of view are executed by sending signals having priority over the commands issued by the operator, and comprise one or more of the following functions: emitting a signal representative of the recognition, emitting an alarm signal, stopping or braking movements of the machine or of parts thereof, preventing movements of the machine or of parts thereof. (When a human form 110 is recognized in the rollover zone 120 disabling device 170 prevents the mobile machinery 130 from moving and devices 150, 180 issue alerts, [0024], [0025], [0041] Green.)
Consider claim 7, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches the at least one video camera frames the field of view to be monitored with a field angle greater than or equal to 60°. (Fig. 1: Rollover zone 120 extends 360-degrees around the mobile machinery 130, [0022], [0042] Green.)
Consider claim 10, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches the control system comprises at least one electronic processing system operatively connected to the at least one video camera for of receiving a signal representative of the acquired images; (Fig. 2: Processor 212 receives images from the cameras, [0023] Green.) wherein the electronic processing system comprises a plurality of processing devices configured for processing (Aspects of the embodiments disclosed herein, in whole or in part, can be equivalently implemented in integrated circuits, as one or more computer programs running on one or more computers as one or more programs running on one or more processors, [0045] Green.) said signal by executing computations mutually interconnected to comprise the neural network. (Neural networks are composed of a plurality of layers, [0032] Green.)
Consider claim 11, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches said processing devices are configured for parallel processing of said signal representative of the images. ([0047] Green)
Consider claim 13, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches a plurality of video cameras. (Cameras 81, [0047] Heichel)
Consider claim 14, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches each video camera is mounted proximate a vertex or a side of the structural frame. (Figs. 4-5C: Cameras 140, [0042]-[0044] Green)
Consider claim 15, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches two video cameras, each of the video cameras being oriented to frame the field of view to be monitored proximate a respective side, and two video cameras oriented to frame the field of view to be monitored proximate an additional side. (Figs. 4-5C: Cameras 140, [0042]-[0044] Green)
Consider claim 16, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches the control system comprises a plurality of electronic processing systems, each of the processing systems being operatively connected to a respective video camera (Aspects of the embodiments disclosed herein, in whole or in part, can be equivalently implemented in integrated circuits, as one or more computer programs running on one or more computers as one or more programs running on one or more processors, [0045] Green.) and configured for recognizing a human figure being framed by the video camera. (Human forms 110 are recognized based on images captured by cameras 140, [0021], [0022], [0028], [0040] Green.)
Consider claim 17, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches a video recorder configured for receiving a signal representative of the images acquired by the at least one video camera and for storing said images. (The cameras are enabled to record video, [0027] Green.)
Consider claim 18, Heichel clearly teaches a method for controlling a foundation machine configured for drilling the ground for structural foundation elements or retaining elements, (Fig. 1, [0007]) the machine comprising:
a base machine adapted to move the foundation machine on the ground, said base machine comprising a structural frame and a movable assembly; (Fig. 2: Carrier device 1 includes upper carriage 11 and moveable chassis 12, [0044], [0045], [0049].)
a mast mechanically connected to the base machine, whereon an operating equipment is adapted to be mounted to drill the ground; (Fig. 1: Working carriage 4 is attached to drilling device 5 and carrier device 1, [0040]-[0042].)
at least one video camera mounted to the base machine and oriented to frame a field of view to be monitored, (Fig. 1: Cameras 81 are arranged on carrier device 1 and collect real-time images of the work environment, [0047], [0057].) the at least one video camera being configured to observe in a perspective view, the foundation machine; (Fig. 1: Evaluation module 63 uses the images obtained by cameras 81 to determine hinderances located around the drilling rig, [0014]-[0017], [0026], [0047], [0048], [0057].)
wherein the method comprises the steps of: executing predetermined functions of the foundation machine. (Fig. 1: Evaluation module 63 uses the images obtained by cameras 81 to determine hinderances and corrects the displacement path of the drilling rig or activates signal emitters, [0017], [0018], [0047], [0048].)
However, Heichel does not explicitly teach the at least one video camera being configured to observe in a perspective view, a human figure standing by the machine; recognizing, through a neural network, when said at least one video camera is framing a human figure in the field of view, and in case of presence of said human figure, executing predetermined functions of the foundation machine.
In an analogous art, Green, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches he at least one video camera being configured to observe in a perspective view, a human figure standing by the machine; recognizing, through a neural network, when said at least one video camera is framing a human figure in the field of view, and in case of presence of said human figure, executing predetermined functions of the foundation machine. (Figs. 2, 3: Neural network 214 detects humans with in the rollover zone 120 based on information from cameras 140 and in response the system triggers disabling device 170, alert device 150 and operator warning device 180, [0021], [0022], [0027]-[0030], [0039]-[0041].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Heichel by he at least one video camera being configured to observe in a perspective view, a human figure standing by the machine; recognizing, through a neural network, when said at least one video camera is framing a human figure in the field of view, and in case of presence of said human figure, executing predetermined functions of the foundation machine, as taught by Green, for the benefit of preventing injuries to humans in hazardous areas.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heichel et al. (US 2021/0230942) in view of Green (US 2020/0189507) in view of Kowatari et al. (US 2015/0138360), herein Kowatari.
Consider claim 4, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches at least one video camera is mounted to the base machine. ([0047] Heichel)
However, Heichel combined with Green does not explicitly teach at least one video camera is mounted to the movable assembly of said base machine, wherein said at least one video camera is oriented to frame a field of view to be monitored, the field of view being underneath the structural frame.
In an analogous art, Kowatari, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches at least one video camera is mounted to the movable assembly of said base machine, wherein said at least one video camera is oriented to frame a field of view to be monitored, the field of view being underneath the structural frame. (Fig. 13: Camera 50B captures an underneath image, [0088], [0089].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Heichel combined with Green by at least one video camera is mounted to the movable assembly of said base machine, wherein said at least one video camera is oriented to frame a field of view to be monitored, the field of view being underneath the structural frame, as taught by Kowatari, to achieve the predictable result of capturing images below the machine.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heichel et al. (US 2021/0230942) in view of Green (US 2020/0189507) in view of Izumikawa (US 2014/0267731).
Consider claim 6, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches at least one video camera is oriented along a direction that forms, with respect to a plane whereon the machine lies, an orientation angle. (Fig. 1: The images captured by the cameras 140 are formed into a top-down view, [0023].)
However, Heichel combined with Green does not explicitly teach the at least one video camera is oriented along a direction that forms, with respect to a plane whereon the machine lies, an orientation angle not exceeding 75°.
In an analogous art, Izumikawa, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches the at least one video camera is oriented along a direction that forms, with respect to a plane whereon the machine lies, an orientation angle not exceeding 75°. (Fig. 1A, 1B: Cameras 12 are pitched down at a 55° angle, [0030], [0034].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Heichel combined with Green by the at least one video camera is oriented along a direction that forms, with respect to a plane whereon the machine lies, an orientation angle not exceeding 75°, as taught by Izumikawa, to achieve the predictable result of capturing images of the area surrounding the machine.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heichel et al. (US 2021/0230942) in view of Green (US 2020/0189507) in view of Kiyota (US 2013/0033494).
Consider claim 8, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches the at least one video camera is mounted at a distance from the ground. ([0047] Heichel)
However, Heichel combined with Green does not explicitly teach the at least one video camera is mounted at a distance from the ground not exceeding 6 meters.
In an analogous art, Kiyota, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches the at least one video camera is mounted at a distance from the ground not exceeding 6 meters. (Fig. 2: Camera 2 is mounted 2 meters above ground level, [0189].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Heichel combined with Green by the at least one video camera is mounted at a distance from the ground not exceeding 6 meters, as taught by Kiyota, to achieve the predictable result of capturing images of the surrounding area.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heichel et al. (US 2021/0230942) in view of Green (US 2020/0189507) in view of Yaldo et al. (US 2018/0364728), herein Yaldo.
Consider claim 9, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches the control system.
However, Heichel combined with Green does not explicitly teach the control system is configured for recognizing any darkened pixels in a signal representative of the images acquired by the at least one video camera and for sending a signal to have the machine execute one or more predetermined functions when the quantity of said darkened pixels exceeds a predefined threshold value.
In an analogous art, Yaldo, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches the control system is configured for recognizing any darkened pixels in a signal representative of the images acquired by the at least one video camera and for sending a signal to have the machine execute one or more predetermined functions when the quantity of said darkened pixels exceeds a predefined threshold value. (Fig. 4: If a number X of pixels have brightness values below a threshold a notification is presented to a user, [0047], [0048].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Heichel combined with Green by the control system is configured for recognizing any darkened pixels in a signal representative of the images acquired by the at least one video camera and for sending a signal to have the machine execute one or more predetermined functions when the quantity of said darkened pixels exceeds a predefined threshold value, as taught by Yaldo, for the benefit of determining if the lens of the camera is dirty.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heichel et al. (US 2021/0230942) in view of Green (US 2020/0189507) in view of Dutta et al. (US 2020/0302223), herein Dutta.
Consider claim 12, Heichel combined with Green clearly teaches said processing devices comprise logic blocks, and said at least one electronic processing system. ([0045] Green)
However, Heichel combined with Green does not explicitly teach said at least one electronic processing system has a reconfigurable architecture.
In an analogous art, Dutta, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches said at least one electronic processing system has a reconfigurable architecture. (Coarse-grained reconfigurable architectures, [0539], [0571], [0703], [0729])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Heichel combined with Green by said at least one electronic processing system has a reconfigurable architecture, as taught by Dutta, for the benefit of improving the performance of the neural network.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425