DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/29/2023 and 9/24/2024 were filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 23, 25 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, second to last line, “wherein the tool carriers” should read “wherein the at least three tool carriers” to provide increased clarity and avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Claim 5, “with tiltable axis” should read “with the tiltable axis” to provide increased clarity and avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Claim 7, “along the respective tool carrier axis” should read “along [[the]] a respective tool carrier axis” to provide increased clarity and avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Claim 7, “associated with the tool carrier” should read “associated with the respective tool carrier” to provide increased clarity and avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Claim 8, “variable rotational velocity of the tool carrier” should read “variable rotational velocity of the respective tool carrier” to provide increased clarity and avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Claim 10, “comprising four tool carriers arranged” should read “comprising wherein the at least three tool carriers comprises four tool carriers arranged” to provide increased clarity and avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Claim 23, “a control unit” should read “[[a]] the control unit” to provide increased clarity and avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Claim 25, four instances of “a concrete surface” should read “[[a]] the concrete surface” to provide increased clarity and avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Claim 33, “a concrete surface” should read “[[a]] the concrete surface” to provide increased clarity and avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims, 1, 2, 7, 8, 19, 23, 31, 35; “control unit” … generate a control signal, control the tool carrier, to adjust a normal load, is arranged to control the displacement, arranged to control, arrange to receive, arranged to generate, arranged to perform, arranged to determine. Additionally, proper corresponding structure for the hardware component is provided in the last two pages of the specification. Proper corresponding structure for the sequence of steps of the computer implemented 112(f) limitation is provided throughout the specification regarding the specific performed function.
Claim 33, “a central control unit” … “arranged to control a floor grinding operation”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure for the hardware component is provided in the last two pages of the specification and on page 24 of the specification. Proper corresponding structure for the sequence of steps of the computer implemented 112(f) limitation is provided on page 24 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 14, 18, 31, 35 and 36 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.
Regarding claim 14, the language recites “wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by respective electric machines or wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by a central electric machine via a belt, chain or gear drive arrangement”. However, claim 1 (from which claim 14 depends) requires wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by respective electric machines. This causes confusion around what is required by the language of claim 14. Specifically, the language of claim 14 is redundant in the first clause and contradictory in the second clause. Overall, it is not precisely clear what is required by the language of claim 14. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring the at least three tool carriers are arranged to be rotationally driven by respective electric machines.
Regarding claim 18, the language recites “wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by a central combustion engine via a belt, chain or gear drive arrangement”. However, claim 1 (from which claim 18 depends) requires wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by respective electric machines. This causes confusion around what is required by the language of claim 18. Specifically, it is not precisely clear how the tool carriers can be driven by an electric motor and a central combustion engine via a belt. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring the at least three tool carriers are arranged to be rotationally driven by respective electric machines or wherein the control unit comprises a radio transceiver arranged to establish a communication link to at least one other machine.
Regarding claim 31, the language recites “wherein the machine comprises one or more sensors configured to measure one or more properties of the concrete surface, and wherein the one or more sensors comprise any of: a radar sensor, a vision-based sensor, and/or a lidar sensor configured to detect any of: scratch marks, uneven surface segments, discoloration, or damage in the concrete surface such as cracks, or wherein the one or more sensors comprise a surface temperature sensor and/or a moisture sensor, where the control unit is arranged to determine a degree of concrete maturity associated with a segment of the concrete surface”. Overall, the language recites three limitations with an “and” in between the first and second limitation and an “or” in between the second and third limitation. It is not precisely clear if the “or” is requiring the first two limitations to be met or the third limitation or if the “or” is requiring the first two limitations to be met or the first and third limitations to be met. Overall, it is not precisely clear what is required by the indicated “or”. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring the first two limitations to be met or the first and third limitations to be met.
Regarding claim 31, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the language will be interpreted as being configured to detect damage in the concrete surface.
Regarding claim 35, the language recites “configuring one or more concrete surface processing machines”… “deploying the plurality of machines” and “by the plurality of machines”. However, if the language only requires one machine of the “one or more concrete surface processing machines”, the terms “the plurality” lack proper antecedent basis because no plurality was introduced or required. For purposes of examination, the language will be interpreted as “configuring [[one]] two or more concrete surface processing machines”
Claim 36 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 36, the language recites “controlling the one or more machines” and “each of the one or more machines”. However, as interpreted above in claim 35, the language of claim 35 is requiring “two or more concrete surface processing machines”. Therefore, the terms “one or more” in claim 36 lack proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “controlling the [[one]] two or more machines” and “each of the [[one]] two or more machines”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 25, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (DE 19542728), hereinafter Watanabe, in view of Del Real et al (US PGPUB 20200263443), hereinafter Del Real, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 110725521), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a concrete surface processing machine (fig. 18) for processing a concrete surface (page 1 of the attached translation, second paragraph), the machine comprising a control unit (fig. 18, control unit 303) and at least two tool carriers (fig. 18, carriers 5 and 5a) arranged to rotate about respective tool carrier axes (see annotated fig. 18 below, wherein the arrows of fig. 18 indicate the rotation direction of each respective carrier about the respective axis),
PNG
media_image1.png
800
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at least one of the tool carriers is arranged to generate a variable force acting on the machine (page 11 of the attached translation, last three paragraphs; figs. 7-9g), relative to the concrete surface (figs. 7-9g), in response to a control signal generated by the control unit (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. Control unit 303 generates a correction signal and controls the x pivoting means 50,50a and the y pivoting means 60,60a (page 23 of the attached translation, sixth paragraph from bottom), wherein the control signal is configured to provide locomotion by the machine relative to the surface (fig. 8a-9g).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach at least three tool carriers and, wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by respective electric machines.
However, Del Real teaches a trowel for finishing a concrete surface (abs), wherein the trowel includes two tool carriers (fig. 1), wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by respective electric machines (AC motors 14,15 of fig. 1, [0048]), and a set of actuators 17 configured for tilting the rotor assemblies including the respective electric machines [0046, fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Del Real to provide wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by respective electric machines, wherein the respective electric machines tilt with the respective carrier axis. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the driving means configuration of Del Real for the Driving means configuration of Watanabe, wherein the respective carrier is driven by a respective electric motor, wherein the respective electric motor is configured such that the respective electric motor tilts with the respective carrier axis. Doing so would promote longevity and decreased maintenance due to not relying on a belt and pulley system as taught by Watanabe. Additionally, doing so would promote a more modular design which allows each individual unit to be diagnosed and treated, thereby simplifying maintenance.
Watanabe, as modified, does not explicitly teach at least three tool carriers.
However, Hu teaches a concrete robot, wherein the concrete robot includes four carriers arranged in a square configuration (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Hu to provide wherein the machine includes four carriers arranged in a square configuration. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the arrangement of Watanabe to include four carriers arranged in a square configuration. Doing so would provide increased balance and stability. Additionally, doing so would promote increased surface finish by providing more tool carriers to process the surface.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein at least one tool carrier axis is arranged tiltable in one or two dimensions with respect to a base plane of the machine (the carriers are arranged tiltable via the respective tilting means 60, 60a and 50,50a with respect to a base plane of the machine as taught by Watanabe) to generate locomotion by the machine relative to the surface (fig. 8a-9g of Watanabe), wherein the control unit is arranged to control the tool carrier axis tilt by the control signal (second to last paragraph on page 18 of the attached translation of Watanabe), or
wherein at least two of the tool carrier axes are arranged tiltable with respect to the base plane (the carriers are arranged tiltable via the respective tilting means 60, 60a and 50,50a with respect to a base plane of the machine as taught by Watanabe), wherein respective locomotion forces generated by the at least two corresponding tool carriers are configured to generate a desired torque about a mass center of the machine (fig. 9a-9g of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein the at least one tool carrier axis is arranged tiltable by a servomechanism connected to an excentre based actuator (fig. 18 of Watanabe, the carrier is tiltable by the servomotor 52a connected to excentre based actuator structures 56a and 54a).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein the at least one tool carrier with tiltable axis is supported by a cup spring (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), or
wherein an electric motor and/or a transmission of the tiltable tool carrier is arranged tiltable with respect to the base plane (see rejection of claim 1 above, wherein the respective electric motor is configured to tilt with the respective carrier axis).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein at least one of the tool carriers is configured displaceable along the respective tool carrier axis by the control unit to adjust a normal load associated with the tool carrier, wherein the control unit is arranged to control the displacement of the tool carrier by the control signal to provide locomotion by the machine relative to the surface (third paragraph on page 10 of the attached translation and first paragraph on page 8 of the attached translation of Watanabe; figs. 8a-9g of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches comprising four tool carriers arranged in a square configuration about a machine centroid (fig. 18 of Watanabe, wherein the arrangement of Watanabe was modified (see rejection of claim 1) to include four tool carriers arranged in a square configuration which is about a machine centroid).
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein a first tool carrier is arranged to rotate with a rotational velocity in a different rotation direction compared to a second tool carrier (fig. 18, showing the two different rotation directions which teaches a first tool carrier arranged to rotate with a velocity in a different rotation direction compared to a second tool carrier).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by respective electric machines or wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by a central electric machine via a belt, chain, or gear drive arrangement (In view of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the at least three tool carriers are arranged to be rotationally driven by respective electric machines (as incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). As best understood by the examiner, the prior art teaches the claimed limitations. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejection or more details).
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein the tool carriers are arranged to be driven by a central combustion engine via a belt, chain, or gear drive arrangement (Watanabe, as modified, teaches the at least three tool carriers are arranged to be rotationally driven by respective electric machines as incorporated in the rejection of claim 1. See above 35 USC 112(b) rejection for more details), or wherein the control unit comprises a radio transceiver arranged to establish a communication link to at least one other machine (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”. As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the limitations of claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein the control unit is arranged to receive the control signal at least in part from an external remote control device (fig. 18 of Watanabe, external remote 200), or
wherein the control unit is arranged to generate the control signal at least in part as an autonomous drive control signal, or wherein the machine is arranged to receive the control signal at least in part from an external system for autonomous drive (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”).
Regarding claim 25, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein the one or more tool carriers are arranged for holding a tool configured for any of: smoothing a concrete surface (fig. 18 of Watanabe), troweling a concrete surface (fig. 18 of Watanabe), grinding a concrete surface (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), polishing a concrete surface (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), grinding a wooden surface (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), polishing a floor (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), or for transporting the machine across the surface with minimum damage to the surface (fig. 18 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 26, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein the one or more tool carriers hold respective grinding tools arranged for abrasive operation (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), or
wherein the machine comprises a positioning system arranged to position the machine in a coordinate system relative to the concrete surface (fig. 18 showing coordinate system and figs. 8a-9g showing positioning of machine relative to concrete surface (of Watanabe)).
Regarding claim 27, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein the one or more tool carriers hold respective troweling tools, wherein each troweling tool comprises a carrier structure arranged to carry trowel blades (fig. 18 of Watanabe) and
wherein the carrier structure and the trowel blades are symmetric (fig. 18 of Watanabe) such that the carrier structure can be rotated in both clock-wise and counter-clockwise directions (the carrier structures are capable of being rotated in both clock-wise and counter-clockwise directions).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (DE 19542728), hereinafter Watanabe, in view of Del Real et al (US PGPUB 20200263443), hereinafter Del Real, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 110725521), hereinafter Hu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110181349), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Watanabe, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the tool carriers is arranged to rotate with a variable rotational velocity, wherein the control unit is arranged to control the variable rotational velocity of the tool carrier by the control signal to provide locomotion by the machine relative to the surface, and wherein the variable rotational velocity is configured as a variable electric motor axle speed and/or a variable transmission gear ratio.
However, Zhang teaches a ground leveling device wherein at least one of the tool carriers is arranged to rotate with a variable rotational velocity (fig. 16-19, last paragraph on page 15 of the attached translation), controlling the variable rotational velocity of the tool carrier by the control signal to provide locomotion by the machine relative to the surface (fig. 16-19 wherein the arrow shows the resulting locomotion direction), and wherein the variable rotational velocity is configured as a variable electric motor axle speed (fig. 6, axle speed of speed reducer 304 is interpreted as the variable electric motor axle speed) and/or a variable transmission gear ratio (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “and/or”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to provide wherein at least one of the tool carriers is arranged to rotate with a variable rotational velocity, wherein the control unit is arranged to control the variable rotational velocity of the tool carrier by the control signal to provide locomotion by the machine relative to the surface, and wherein the variable rotational velocity is configured as a variable electric motor axle speed and/or a variable transmission gear ratio. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the variable rotational velocity teachings of Zhang into the device of Watanabe, as modified, wherein the control unit of Watanabe is arranged to control the variable rotational velocity in order to control the direction of movement, wherein the electric motors (of Watanabe, as modified) are configured as variable electric motor axles speeds (as taught by Zhang) in order to allow variable rotational velocity of the carriers. Doing so would provide an additional degree of control to navigate the machine over the surface to be processed which promotes increased handling of the machine. Additionally, doing so promotes increased surface finishing by allowing the operator more customized settings for processing a specific surface.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (DE 19542728), hereinafter Watanabe, in view of Del Real et al (US PGPUB 20200263443), hereinafter Del Real, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 110725521), hereinafter Hu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiroshi et al. (JP 2020060021), hereinafter Hiroshi.
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Watanabe, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein a total weight of the machine is less than 30kg_or
wherein the machine footprint is comprised in a square of dimensions 100cm by 100cm.
However, Hiroshi teaches an automatic leveling work robot with tool carriers (fig. 1), wherein the robot has excellent portability, is lightweight and has a small size (third paragraph on page 3 of the attached translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the device of Watanabe, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Hiroshi to provide wherein the machine of Watanabe, as modified, has excellent portability, is lightweight and has a small size. Doing so would allow the machine to process soft concrete after it is placed (page 3 of the attached translation, third paragraph of Hiroshi). Additionally, doing so would promote decreased burden on the operator during transporting of the machine.
As such, Watanabe, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a concrete surface processing machine wherein the only difference between Watanabe, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Watanabe, as modified, to include wherein a total weight of the machine is less than 30kg_and wherein the machine footprint is comprised in a square of dimensions 100cm by 100cm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Watanabe, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed weight and machine footprint since the concrete surface processing machine would continue to be capable of processing the concrete surface. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, indicating the discussed techniques are also applicable with advantage in larger floor grinders and power trowels (first paragraph on page 11 of the instant specification).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (DE 19542728), hereinafter Watanabe, in view of Del Real et al (US PGPUB 20200263443), hereinafter Del Real, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 110725521), hereinafter Hu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US PGPUB 20200225673), hereinafter Ebrahimi.
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Watanabe, as modified, does not explicitly teach comprising one or more rechargeable batteries configured to power one or more electric machines on the machine, and
comprising an inductive charging circuit arranged to interface with an external power source and to recharge the one or more rechargeable batteries.
However, Del Real additionally teaches the power source may be a battery and a battery charger configured to interface with an external power source (fig. 6). Overall, Del Real teaches comprising one or more rechargeable batteries configured to power one or more electric machines on the machine [0047 and fig. 6].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Del Real to provide wherein the device includes one or more rechargeable batteries configured to power one or more electric machines on the machine. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the power supply of Del Real, which includes a battery and a battery charger configured to interface with an external power source. Doing so would promote increased mobility by allowing the machine to operate off of battery power and not having to be plugged in. Additionally, doing so would allow the machine to operate at locations with no external power source.
Watanabe, as modified, does not explicitly teach
comprising an inductive charging circuit arranged to interface with an external power source and to recharge the one or more rechargeable batteries.
However, Ebrahimi teaches an obstacle recognition method for autonomous robots, wherein the robot comprises an over-the-air inductive charging mechanism [0649].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Ebrahimi to provide wherein the battery charger of Watanabe, as modified, is an over the air inductive charging mechanism. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the battery charger of Watanabe, as modified, to be an inductive battery charger. Doing so would promote time savings by preventing the operator from having to plug in the machine to charge. Additionally, doing so would promote increased convenience for the operator.
In summary, Watanabe, as modified, teaches comprising an inductive charging circuit (as incorporated from Ebrahimi) arranged to interface with an external power source and to recharge the one or more rechargeable batteries (as incorporated from Del Real).
Claims 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (DE 19542728), hereinafter Watanabe, in view of Del Real et al (US PGPUB 20200263443), hereinafter Del Real, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 110725521), hereinafter Hu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwartz (WO 2020102458).
Regarding claim 23, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Watanabe, as modified, does not explicitly teach
comprising a cover body with one or more proximity sensors and/or impact sensors configured to detect when the cover body approaches and/or comes into contact with an obstacle, the machine further comprising a control unit arranged to perform a situation avoidance maneuver in response to the one or more sensors detecting proximity and/or contact with the obstacle, or
comprising an emergency stop control input device arranged accessible on an exterior surface of the machine when the machine is in use.
However, Schwartz teaches an autonomous power trowel which includes an inspection camera 90 (fig. 4) and an array of cameras 130,132 (fig. 4), wherein the camera 90 allows the controller to detect surface blemishes and take corrective action [0044], and wherein the array of cameras 130,132 are connected to the controller to allow the power trowel to stay within an internal boundary [0048]. The autonomous power trowel also includes a plurality of sensors 88 for sensing external boundaries 94 and any obstacles 92, wherein the controller is configured to avoid the obstacles [0035]. Overall, Schwartz teaches comprising a cover body (fig. 4) with one or more proximity sensors and/or impact sensors (cameras 90, 130, 132 and sensors 88) configured to detect when the cover body approaches and/or comes into contact with an obstacle, the machine further comprising a control unit arranged to perform a situation avoidance maneuver in response to the one or more sensors detecting proximity and/or contact with the obstacle [0035], or
comprising an emergency stop control input device arranged accessible on an exterior surface of the machine when the machine is in use (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe, as modified, to incorporate the cameras 90, 130 and 132 and sensors 88 of Schwartz, wherein the controller is configured to detect an obstacle and avoid the obstacle. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the cameras and sensors of Schwartz into the machine of Watanabe, wherein the control unit of Watanabe is configured to detect obstacles and avoid obstacles. Doing so would prevent damage to the machine. Additionally, doing so would promote increased surface finish of the concreate due to the incorporated inspection systems.
Regarding claim 31, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Watanabe, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the machine comprises one or more sensors configured to measure one or more properties of the concrete surface, and
wherein the one or more sensors comprise any of: a radar sensor, a vision-based sensor, and/or a lidar sensor configured to detect any of: scratch marks, uneven surface segments, discoloration, or damage in the concrete surface such as cracks, or
wherein the one or more sensors comprise a surface temperature sensor and/or a moisture sensor, where the control unit is arranged to determine a degree of concrete maturity associated with a segment of the concrete surface.
However, Schwartz teaches an autonomous power trowel which includes an inspection camera 90 (fig. 4) and an array of cameras 130,132 (fig. 4), wherein the camera 90 allows the controller to detect surface blemishes and take corrective action [0044], and wherein the array of cameras 130,132 are connected to the controller to allow the power trowel to stay within an internal boundary [0048]. The autonomous power trowel also includes a plurality of sensors 88 for sensing external boundaries 94 and any obstacles 92, wherein the controller is configured to avoid the obstacles [0035]. Overall, Schwartz teaches wherein the machine comprises one or more sensors configured to measure one or more properties of the concrete surface (cameras and sensors of Schwartz measuring physical boundary properties of the concrete surface), and
wherein the one or more sensors comprise any of: a radar sensor, a vision-based sensor (camera 90), and/or a lidar sensor configured to detect any of: scratch marks, uneven surface segments, discoloration, or damage in the concrete surface such as cracks (Schwartz teaches detecting surface blemishes and taking corrective action [0044]), or
wherein the one or more sensors comprise a surface temperature sensor and/or a moisture sensor, where the control unit is arranged to determine a degree of concrete maturity associated with a segment of the concrete surface (As detailed in the above 35 USC 112 (b) rejection, the prior art is not required to teach this limitation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe, as modified, to incorporate the cameras 90, 130 and 132 and sensors 88 of Schwartz, wherein the controller is configured to detect an obstacle and avoid the obstacle, wherein the controller is configured to detect a surface blemish and take corrective action, and wherein the controller is configured to remain within the designated boundaries. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the cameras and sensors of Schwartz into the machine of Watanabe, wherein the control unit of Watanabe is configured to detect obstacles and avoid obstacles, detect a surface blemish and take corrective action, and remain within the designated boundaries. Doing so would prevent damage to the machine. Additionally, doing so would promote increased surface finish of the concreate due to the incorporated inspection systems.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (DE 19542728), hereinafter Watanabe, in view of Del Real et al (US PGPUB 20200263443), hereinafter Del Real, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 110725521), hereinafter Hu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwartz (WO 2020102458) and Kessler et al. (US PGPUB 20200050215), hereinafter Kessler.
Regarding claim 33, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1 wherein Watanabe in view of Del Real and further in view of Hu teaches the concrete surface processing machine according to claim 1).
Watanabe, as modified, does not explicitly teach a concrete surface processing system comprising a plurality of instances of the concrete surface processing machines, the system comprising a central control unit communicatively coupled to the plurality of machines and arranged to control a floor grinding operation over a concrete surface.
However, Schwartz teaches an autonomous power trowel system which includes a plurality of concrete surface processing machines (fig. 8, machines 11).
Kessler teaches a method for controlling a plurality of robotic devices, wherein a central processing unit 2b (fig. 1) receives position information regarding each robotic system and then can determine control information. Specifically, the different machines 4a-4c may be designed to receive certain control information. Accordingly, control information output from the central processing unit 2b can be received by the respective machine and the respective machine may carry out the action [101-102].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Schwartz and Kessler to provide a concrete surface processing system comprising a plurality of instances of the concrete surface processing machines, the system comprising a central control unit communicatively coupled to the plurality of machines and arranged to control a floor grinding operation over a concrete surface. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a plurality of instances of concrete surface processing machines (as taught by Schwartz, wherein a plurality of the concrete surface processing machines of Watanabe, as modified, are provided), wherein the system includes a central control unit (as taught by Kessler, wherein this term is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as indicated above) communicatively coupled to the plurality of machines (as taught by Kessler), wherein the central control unit (of Kessler) is arranged to control a processing operation of the plurality of machines (as incorporated from Schwartz). Doing so would promote time savings by reducing the amount of surface each machine processes. Additionally, doing so would provide increased utility by allowing the system to process larger surface areas. Doing so would also promote increased convenience of the operator by providing the capability of controlling the plurality of devices from a single controller.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (DE 19542728), hereinafter Watanabe, in view of Hu et al. (CN 110725521), hereinafter Hu, and further in view of Schwartz (WO 2020102458).
Regarding claim 35, Watanabe teaches a method for processing a concrete surface, the method comprising: configuring one or more concrete surface processing machines (fig. 18), wherein each machine comprises a control unit (fig. 18, control unit 303) and at least two tool carriers (fig. 18, carriers 5 and 5a) arranged to rotate about respective tool carrier axes (see annotated fig. 18 below, wherein the arrows of fig. 18 indicate the rotation direction of each respective carrier about the respective axis),
PNG
media_image1.png
800
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at least one of the tool carriers is arranged to generate a variable force acting on the machine (page 11 of the attached translation, last three paragraphs; figs. 7-9g), relative to the concrete surface (figs. 7-9g), in response to a control signal generated by the control unit (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. Control unit 303 generates a correction signal and controls the x pivoting means 50,50a and the y pivoting means 60,60a (page 23 of the attached translation, sixth paragraph from bottom), wherein the control signal is configured to provide locomotion by the machine relative to the surface (fig. 8a-9g).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach at least three tool carriers and deploying the plurality of machines over the concrete surface, and processing the concrete surface by the plurality of machines.
However, Hu teaches a concrete robot, wherein the concrete robot includes four carriers arranged in a square configuration (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Hu to provide wherein the machine includes four carriers arranged in a square configuration. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the arrangement of Watanabe to include four carriers arranged in a square configuration. Doing so would provide increased balance and stability. Additionally, doing so would promote increased surface finish by providing more tool carriers to process the surface.
Watanabe, as modified, does not explicitly teach deploying the plurality of machines over the concrete surface, and processing the concrete surface by the plurality of machines.
However, Schwartz teaches an autonomous power trowel system which includes deploying the plurality of machines over the concrete surface (fig. 8, plurality of machines 11), and processing the concrete surface by the plurality of machines (fig. 8, plurality of machines 11, [0049]). Additionally, Schwartz teaches the power trowels are autonomous power trowels with cameras and inspection systems (fig. 4) to allow the controller to autonomously control the power trowels [0035].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Schwartz to provide deploying the plurality of machines over the concrete surface, and processing the concrete surface by the plurality of machines, wherein the plurality of power trowels are autonomously controlled via the respective controller. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide a plurality of the machines of Watanabe, as modified, to process a concrete surface, wherein the concrete surface is processed by the plurality of machines, wherein the plurality of machines are autonomously controlled by the respective controllers. Doing so would promote time savings by reducing the amount of surface each machine processes. Additionally, doing so would provide increased utility by allowing the system to process larger surface areas.
Regarding claim 36, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 35. Additionally, Watanabe, as modified, teaches wherein the processing comprises controlling the one or more machines by remote control (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), or
autonomously controlling each of the one or more machines (see above rejection of claim 35, wherein Watanabe, as modified, teaches autonomously controlling each of the machines).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holz et al. (US Patent 3936212) teaches a surface processing machine with tiltable tool carriers to provide varied pressure which is pertinent to the claimed invention.
Whiteman (US Patent 4312603) teaches a twin trowel cement finishing machine which is similar to the claimed invention.
Jaszkowiak (US Patent 5816740) teaches a hydraulically controlled steering for a power trowel with variable pressure similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights