DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application and a Preliminary Amendment, filed on June 16, 2023, and two Information Disclosure Statements filed on June 16, 2023 and December 31, 2024, respectively. This action is made non-final.
2. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 13-15, 17-22, and 26-28 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 15, and 28 are independent claims; Claims 6, 7, 10-12, 16, and 23-25 were canceled by Preliminary Amendment filed on June 16, 2023, while the remaining claims were amended by the Preliminary Amendment; Claims 26-28 were added by the Preliminary Amendment.
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are: “transport means arranged to carry said support structure…,” “power means arranged to move said support structure…,” “depth of wear scanning means … to scan at least a said upwardly facing surface…,” etc., in claim 15, “positional sensor means to enable desired directional movement” in claim 19, etc. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
5. Claims 9, 17-22, and 26-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Dependent Claim 9, as amended by the Preliminary Amendment, is dependent upon Claim 6, but Claim 6 was canceled by the Preliminary Amendment. It appears that the amended reference to the parent claim is based on renumbering/reordering of the claims which should correspond to the Preliminary Amendment, but such renumbering is not reflected in the Claim Listing.
Dependent Claims 17-21, 26, and 27, as amended by the Preliminary Amendment, are dependent upon Claims 10 or 11, but Claims 10 and 11 were canceled by the Preliminary Amendment. Similarly, to discussion of Claim 9, above, it appears that the amended references to the respective parent claims are based on renumbering/reordering of the claims in view of the Preliminary Amendment, but such renumbering is not reflected in the Claim Listing. It is noted that Claim 22 is dependent upon Claim 15, but Claim 22 relies on the features that were introduced in Claim 21 (i.e., a depth of wear level characteristic), thus it appears that Claim 22 should be dependent upon Claim 21 (which is 15th claim of the Amended Claim Listing, but is referenced as “Claim 21”).
Independent Claim 28, references features recited in Claim 10, but Claim 10 was canceled by the Preliminary Amendment (it appears that Claim 28 should be referencing Claim 15).
Applicant is encouraged to check the dependencies of the remaining claims to ensure that they are referencing the intended parent claim(s) (for example, see Claim 14 which appears to be dependent upon Claim 8, but following the logic of misnumbering discussed above, it would seem that the intended parent claim was Claim 13, instead (i.e., the 8th claim of the Amended Claim Listing)). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13-15, 17-19, 21, 22, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Managing screens and screen maintenance in extractive mining,” NSW Department of Industry, Skills and Regional Development, published February 2017, see IDS filed on June 16, 2034 (NPL cite no. 2) (hereinafter NSW).
With respect to independent Claim 1, NSW teaches a method of assessing wear depth on a treatment deck made in part by individual treatment panel modules positioned in adjacent side by side and end to end relationship to determine whether an individual, or multiple, said treatment panel modules should be replaced because of excess wear depth thereon, said method providing (see generally, pgs. 18-19, 34-35)
a remotely controllable and moveable treatment deck depth of wear scanning device and positioning same on or over upwardly facing surfaces of said treatment panel modules forming an upwardly facing surface of said treatment deck (see pgs. 34-35, illustrating a remotely-controlled vehicle with attached camera and light that is used to inspect screens for wear), said treatment deck depth of wear scanning device carrying wear depth scanning means operatively directed towards said treatment deck (see pg. 34, discussing a 360 degree pivotable camera design, although a skilled artisan would understand that even a basic camera could be positioned to face any desired direction), said method including remotely moving said treatment deck depth of wear scanning device along a selectable or predefined course on or over said treatment deck whereby said wear depth scanning means establishes scanned depth of wear information data indicative of depth of wear levels of the upwardly facing surfaces of at least some of said individual treatment panel modules (see pg. 34, describing remote control of the vehicle, although a skilled artisan would understand that the vehicle could alternatively follow a predetermined path/pattern or that it could be implemented as an autonomous vehicle, similar to autonomous vacuum cleaners (robovac) which were well-known at the time the instant Application was filed), and said scanned depth of wear information data is transferred to operational control means at least partially located remotely from said treatment deck (see pg. 35, discussing record keeping that allows the captured images to be referred to post-inspection; see also pg. 34, discussing that the camera unit can be synced to an iPad to provide a live feed of the inspection, and a skilled artisan would understand that such live feed could also be captured/recorded at the remote device (or by the camera unit) as was well-known in the art at the time the instant Application was filed).
It is noted that NSW teaches the idea of utilizing a remotely-controlled vehicle to perform a screen inspection using a camera, and a skilled artisan would understand that different types of vehicles (i.e., autonomous robots, drones, etc.), as well as different sensors and configurations, could be used in a similar manner in order to perform such inspections (see, for example, Gui (AU 2018101830 A4), Loveland et al. (US 9,805,261 B1), Cichosz et al. (US 2018/0313715 A1)).
With respect to dependent Claim 2, NSW teaches a method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said treatment deck depth of wear scanning device is remotely operatively moved, at least in part, by transport means contacting said treatment deck, or by contacting guide tracks positioned adjacent said treatment deck (see pg. 34, showing an RC vehicle).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, NSW teaches a method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said operational control means includes at least a first operational control section positioned remotely from said treatment deck (see pg. 34, showing an RC vehicle).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, NSW teaches a method according to claim , as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said operational control means includes a second operational control section carried with said treatment deck depth of wear scanning device whereby said scanned depth of wear information data is either accessed after said treatment deck depth of wear scanning device has been moved to a position remote from said treatment deck being assessed, or is transferrable to said first remote operational control section as the data is established during operational use of the treatment deck depth of wear scanning device (see pgs. 34-35, showing that the camera unit is synced to an iPad and further describing record keeping which allows for post-inspection access/comparison of captured images; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 13, NSW teaches a method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said scanned depth of wear information data includes establishing after a period of operational use of said treatment deck, by either or both: determining a variation in size and/or shape of at least one pre-existing discrete aperture or recess extending downwardly from the upwardly facing surface of a said treatment panel module; determining a variation in size and/or shape of a lands or ligaments existing between pre-existing discrete apertures or recesses extending downwardly from the upwardly facing surface of a said treatment panel module, by use of said depth of wear scanning device, a depth of wear that would indicate an unacceptable level of wear (see pg. 35, describing post-inspection review of captured images).
With respect to dependent Claim 14, NSW teaches a method according to claim 8 [13?], as discussed above, and further suggests wherein a determination of whether a said treatment panel module should be removed from said treatment deck and replaced is achieved by comparing said scanned depth of wear information data established after a period of use of said treatment deck with a pre-existing characteristic of configuration prior to said period of use of said treatment deck (see pgs. 34-35, showing that the autonomous inspection units are able to determine wear on screen media, and further showing post-inspection record review).
With respect to independent Claims 15 and 28, these claims are directed to a device and an apparatus comprising steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claim 1, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1, above.
With respect to dependent Claim 17, NSW teaches a treatment deck depth of wear scanning device according to claim , as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said transport means includes at least one of: multiple wheels and/or at least two spaced endless track movement means; or an elevatable drone device (see pg. 34, Figs. AC1 and AC2).
With respect to dependent Claim 18, NSW teaches a treatment deck depth of wear scanning device according to claim , as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said depth of wear scanning means is operable either while said depth of wear scanning means is moved by said transport means along said selectable or predetermined course or while said depth of wear scanning means is held stationary relative to said treatment deck (see pgs. 34-35).
With respect to dependent Claim 19, NSW teaches a treatment deck depth of wear scanning device according to claim , as discussed above, and further suggests including positional sensor means to enable desired directional movement on or over a said treatment deck (see pg. 34, describing RC vehicle; see also discussion of Claim 1, above, regarding other types of vehicles and configurations thereof).
With respect to dependent Claim 21, NSW teaches a treatment deck depth of wear scanning device according to claim , as discussed above, and further suggests wherein a depth of wear level characteristic is established by comparing the scanned depth of wear information data collected after a period of operational use of said treatment deck with pre-existing data established prior to said operational use of said treatment deck (see pg. 35, describing post-inspection review of captured images).
With respect to dependent Claim 22, NSW teaches a treatment deck depth of wear scanning device according to claim 15 [21?], as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said depth of wear scanning means is configured to establish said depth of wear level characteristic by scanning a physical, visual or sensory feature or characteristic of a said treatment panel module (see pg. 35, describing post-inspection review of captured images).
With respect to dependent Claim 26, NSW teaches a treatment deck depth of wear scanning device according to claim , as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said transport means includes said multiple wheels and/or said at least two spaced endless track movement means, the or each in use, being configured to operationally contact the upwardly facing surface of said treatment deck (see pg. 34).
With respect to dependent Claim 27, NSW teaches a treatment deck depth of wear scanning device according to claim , as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said transport means is configured, in use, to contact respective guide surfaces positioned on either side of the treatment deck (see pg. 34; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
7. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NSW in view of Gui, AU 2018101830 A4, published on January 3, 2019.
With respect to dependent Claim 3, NSW teaches a method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and while NSW suggests that further improvements to the camera unit were being considered at the time (see pg. 34, describing a 360 degree pivot control system for the camera), NSW does not appear to explicitly state wherein said treatment deck depth of wear scanning device is remotely operatively moved by transport means arranged to elevate said treatment deck depth of wear scanning device above said treatment deck during at least a portion of operational movement along said selectable or predefined course. However, as discussed above with respect to Claim 1, a skilled artisan would understand that various modification/reconfigurations could be made to the vehicle/robot performing the inspection, such as implementing a telescoping mechanism to control the camera unit, as suggested by the teachings of Gui.
Gui is directed towards an autonomous intelligent pavement inspection apparatus which is used in inspecting road surfaces (see Gui, ¶¶ 0001-04). Gui teaches that the inspection robot can have a plurality of sensors, including a camera, and further teaches that such sensors can be attached to the robot via a telescoping mechanism (see Gui, ¶ 0047). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant application was filed, to explicitly incorporate the telescoping camera (or other sensors) of Gui with the RC vehicle/robot described in NSW in order to allow for a more comprehensive inspection to be performed by the vehicle/robot, by allowing for a greater flexibility in obtaining the desired photos of the screens from different angles (see Gui, ¶¶ 0003-04).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, NSW in view of GUI teaches a method according to claim 3, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said depth of wear scanning device is operable to establish said scanned depth of wear information data while elevated above said treatment deck (see Gui, Fig. 1, illustrating the robot in a running state where the telescoping mechanism is used to place a sensor in an appropriate/desired position).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, NSW in view of GUI teaches a method according to claim 3, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said treatment deck depth of wear scanning device is operationally moved along said selectable or predefined course between spaced first positions where the treatment deck depth of wear scanning device is stationary and supported on said treatment deck separated by second movement sections where the treatment deck depth of wear scanning device is elevated above said treatment deck (see Gui, Fig. 1, illustrating the robot in a running state where the telescoping mechanism is used to place a sensor in an appropriate/desired position).
8. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NSW in view of Loveland et al. (hereinafter Loveland), US 9,805,261 B1, issued on October 31, 2017.
With respect to dependent Claim 20, NSW teaches a treatment deck depth of wear scanning device according to claim , as discussed above, and while NSW does not discuss the use of drones/UAVs, as discussed above with respect to Claim 1, a skilled artisan would understand that other types of vehicles could be configured to perform the inspection and that such vehicles would be controlled accordingly in order to perform the inspection (i.e., a drone would be controlled in a manner such that it does not crash into screens or decks, as well as to allow for the proper use of the sensor/camera (such as minimum/maximum distance from a target), desired speed, etc.), as illustrated by the teachings of Loveland.
Loveland is directed towards autonomous surface and subsurface structural analysis, inspections, reporting, and remediation estimates performed by autonomous vehicles and associated reporting and visualization systems (see Loveland, col. 1, lines 8-15). Loveland teaches utilizing a drone to perform inspections and explicitly suggests that an inspection is performed from a predetermined distance (see Loveland, col. 7, line 55 – col. 8, line 8, col. 8, lines 36-47, col. 8, line 55 – col. 9, line 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant Application was filed, to utilize a drone as described in Loveland to perform the inspections described in NWS in order to allow the inspections to be performed anywhere, regardless of the available screen/deck access.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on 571-272-5109. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667