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 .
Under 35 USC § 101
Although claim 1 includes abstract ideas, claim 1 also recites additional elements
such as “concrete surface processing machine for processing a concrete surface, wherein the concrete surface processing machine is arranged to be supported on the concrete surface by one or more support elements extending in a base plane of the machine parallel to the concrete surface, wherein the concrete surface processing machine comprises a control unit connected to at least one linear photo sensor (130) extending transversally to the base plane, wherein the control unit is arranged to control a self-locomotion of the machine based on a difference between the detected height (h) and a desired height”. The inclusion of these additional elements integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application that effects a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, claims 1-16 are considered to be eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Although the claims 17 and 18 include abstract ideas, the claims also include the
additional element “deploying a rotary laser device on or in connection to the concrete surface to generate a laser beam, configuring a concrete surface processing machine supported on the concrete surface by one or more support elements extending in a base plane of the machine parallel to the concrete surface, connecting a control unit of the machine to at least one linear photo sensor on the machine extending transversally to the base plane, and detecting a height of the laser beam relative to the base plane, by the linear photo sensor, based on a point of incidence of the incoming laser beam on the linear photo sensor” is considered significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a whole, the invention amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea, therefore, claims 17-20 are considered eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
3.1. Claims 1-16 and 18-20 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 1, the full claim appears to be the preamble leaving no body with active limitations. The claim merely recites a preamble describing a system and does not include a claim body that affirmatively sets forth any structural elements, operational steps, or functional limitations that define the invention. As written, the claim fails to delineate the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, rendering it unclear what is encompassed by the claim. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite. For examination on the merits the claim will be interpreted as best understood.
Regarding claim 18, the full claim appears to be the preamble leaving no body with active limitations. The claim merely recites a preamble describing a system and does not include a claim body that affirmatively sets forth any structural elements, operational steps, or functional limitations that define the invention. As written, the claim fails to delineate the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, rendering it unclear what is encompassed by the claim. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite. For examination on the merits the claim will be interpreted as best understood.
The examiner suggests that the applicant amend claims 1 and 18 as follows:
(Currently amended) A concrete surface processing machine for processing a
concrete surface, wherein the concrete surface processing machine is arranged to be supported on the concrete surface by one or more support elements extending in a base plane of the machine parallel to the concrete surface, the concrete surface processing machine comprising: a control unit…
18. (Currently amended) A concrete surface processing machine for processing a concrete surface, the concrete surface processing machine comprising: a control unit…
3.2. Claims 14-16 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.
Claims 14-16 recite the limitation “plurality of instances”. It is not clear from the claims or the specification what instances the applicant is referring to. Therefore, claims 14-16 are considered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 12-14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Würsch (Patent DE 102007000280) in view of Kieranen et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0265785) (hereinafter Kieranen) and further in view of Ogawa et al. (Patent number US 6,501,553) (hereinafter Ogawa).
As per claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 17 and 18, Würsch teaches a concrete surface processing machine for processing a concrete surface, wherein the concrete surface processing machine is arranged to be supported on the concrete surface by one or more support elements extending in a base plane of the machine parallel to the concrete surface (see Abstract and Fig. 1), wherein the concrete surface processing machine comprises a control unit connected to at least one photo sensor extending transversally to the base plane (see ¶ 21, i.e., “Processing concerning the concrete floor space is optimized. The external control commands required for this can be done directly in the form of modulated laser signals the photodetector” and ¶ 24, i.e., “This is the concrete grinder 1 a rotating laser 9 associated, which with a rotating laser beam 10 Spans a height-offset reference plane in the room, in which the height-sensitive laser detector 7 is arranged”), and wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a height of an incoming laser beam relative to the base plane, based on a point of incidence of the incoming laser beam on the linear photo sensor (see ¶ 24, i.e., “This is the concrete grinder 1 a rotating laser 9 associated, which with a rotating laser beam 10 Spans a height-offset reference plane in the room, in which the height-sensitive laser detector 7 is arranged”).
While Würsch further teaches control a self-locomotion of the machine (see ¶ 28, i.e., “controlling the self-propelled concrete grinding machine 1”). Würsch fails to explicitly teach that the control unit is arranged to control a self-locomotion of the machine based on a difference between the detected height and a desired height, and wherein the control unit is arranged to determine the desired height in dependence of an estimated location of the concrete surface processing machine on the concrete surface (emphasis underlined).
Kieranen teaches determining a desired height (Z value) as a function of machine location (X, Y), including generating and storing a location dependent surface profile (site map) and controlling the elevation and orientation of a concrete processing/screeding machine by comparing measured height values to a desired height associated with the machine’s current X-Y position (see ¶¶ [0047]-[0050], ¶ [0050]: “At step 106 (FIG. 10) main processor 72 calculates a height error signal, which is the difference between the desired Z value from the stored work site map profile and the measured Z value from tracking device 58”).
Würsch fails to explicitly teach that the photodetector is a linear photo sensor.
However, Ogawa discloses a surface profile measuring apparatus that uses an image pickup device in the form of a linear photodetector (or planar photodetector) (see col. 16, lines 4-8). Ogawa further teaches “a computing device for estimating characteristic functions from the group of interference light intensity values stored, and determining a height in the particular location based on a peak position of the characteristic functions” (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Würsch to determine the desired processing height as a function of machine location using a stored site profile as taught by Kieranen and to implement the laser height detection of Würsch using a linear photo sensor as taught by Ogawa because doing so would provide more precise, location dependent height control using known optical sensing techniques, thereby improving accuracy and automation of concrete surface processing.
As per claim 8, the combination of Würsch, Kieranen and Ogawa teach the
system as stated above. Kieranen further teaches a desired height is an absolute pre-configured height as function of concrete surface location because the system stores a desired three-dimensional surface shape (i.e., site map) in computer memory and as the contouring assembly moves over the surface, determines its position and adjust the height to correspond to the stored shape (see ¶¶ [0012], [0013], and [0047]-[0049]).
As per claim 13, the combination of Würsch, Kieranen and Ogawa teach the
system as stated above. Würsch further teaches a suction device arranged to collect dust from the concrete surface, and a dust container for holding an amount of collected dust (¶ 17).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Würsch Kieranen and further in view of Ogawa and Marriott, JR. et al. (Pub. No. US 2003/0006048) (hereinafter Marriott).
As per claims 3 and 15, the combination of Würsch, Kieranen and Ogawa teach the system as stated above except for explicitly teaching that the control unit is arranged to transmit topology information comprising the height to a remote device.
However, Marriott teaches communicating measured position/elevation information via radio/transceiver links between a machine-side portable station/computer and a reference/remote station/processor for 3D grading control, including broadcasting/receiving measured position and elevation data (see ¶¶ [0021] and [0064]-[0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Marriott’s teaching into the combination of Würsch, Kieranen and Ogawa because it would provide location based desired elevation control and remote exchange of elevation/position data, thereby improving automatic height control accuracy and enabling remote topology reporting to support accurate processing of the concrete surface.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Würsch Kieranen and further in view of Ogawa and Horn et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0267361) (hereinafter Horn).
As per claim 5, the combination of Würsch, Kieranen and Ogawa teach the
system as stated above except for a sensor arranged to detect a distance to the concrete surface (310) along a normal vector to the concrete surface.
However, Horn teaches a machine (road paver/screed) with a layer thickness detecting device attached to the screed, including a first sensor detecting a first distance from the applied layer surface and a second sensor detecting a second distance from the foundation, where the sensors may be ultrasound, laser, microwave, and the thickness is computed based on the detected distance signals and known geometry (i.e., sensor distances from rear screed edge and attachment heights) (see ¶¶ [0007], [0010], [0047] and [0066]-[0069]). Horn further teaches laser scanners that “provide orthogonal vectors” to foundation/layer for thickness calculation, i.e., distance measured along an orthogonal/normal direction to the surface (see ¶ [0102]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Horn’s teaching into the combination of Würsch, Kieranen and Ogawa’s teaching it would provide orthogonal distance to surface information that can complete the laser reference plane control, therefore improving the robustness and accuracy of automatic height control to support accurate processing of the concrete surface.
As per claim 6, the combination of Würsch, Kieranen, Ogawa and Horn teach the system as stated above. Kieranen further teaches adjusting the height of a surface processing assembly based on both stored surface data and detected distance to a reference surface during machine movement (see ¶ [0012]).
Claims 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Würsch Kieranen and further in view of Ogawa and Fritz (Pub. No. US 2021/0010211).
As per claims 9 and 19, the combination of Würsch, Kieranen and Ogawa teach the system as stated above except that the desired height is a relative height determined in dependence of an initially detected height.
However, Fritz teaches relative height determination based on an initially detected height, including setting an initial height as zero or set point and thereafter controlling height relative to that initially detected reference (see ¶ [0106]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Fritz’s teaching into the combination of Würsch, Kieranen and Ogawa’s teaching because it would provide accurate sensing and control of the surface height, thereby improving the robustness and accuracy of automatic height control to support processing of the concrete surface.
As per claim 10, the combination of Würsch, Kieranen, Ogawa and Fritz teach the system as stated above except that the desired height is determined in dependence of a desired concrete surface quality.
Since the combination teach controlling the machine height to achieve a specified surface profile (see Kieranen ¶ [0047]), which inherently reflects a desired concrete surface quality. Selecting or adjusting height as a function of the required surface finish, flatness, or thickness would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Würsch Kieranen and further in view of Ogawa and Hogan (Pub. No. US 2021/0238813).
Asper claims 16 and 20, the combination of Würsch, Kieranen and Ogawa teach the system as stated above except that the plurality of instances of the concrete surface processing machines are arranged to exchange the detected height with each other over wireless links.
However, Hogan teaches sending and receiving information and data to and from various sensors and controls associated with the rotor elevation control system 200 through electronic communication via wires, cables, data buses or by wireless transmission technologies such as RFID (see paragraph [0029]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hogan’s teaching into the combination of Würsch, Kieranen and Ogawa’s teaching because data, such as height, would be exchanged between sensors and control system 200 via wireless links, thereby improving the robustness and accuracy of automatic height control to support processing of the concrete surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming the 35 USC § 112(b) made above.
Regarding claim 7, none of the prior of record teaches or fairly suggests a
concrete surface processing machine for processing a concrete surface comprising: a control unit, wherein the control unit is arranged to trigger generation of a signal indicating a tool wear in dependence of the detected distance to the concrete surface, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 11, none of the prior of record teaches or fairly suggests a
concrete surface processing machine for processing a concrete surface comprising: a control unit, wherein the control unit is arranged to average the detected height (h) over time to determine an average detected height, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Prior art
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure:
Kangas [‘083] discloses a screeding machine for screeding an uncured concrete surface includes a screed head assembly movable over the concrete surface via the screeding machine. A pair of elevation sensors disposed at opposite ends of the screed head assembly sense an elevation of the respective end of the screed head assembly. An angle sensor disposed at the screed head assembly senses a pitch angle and/or a roll angle of the screed head assembly. A gyroscope sensor disposed at the screed head assembly senses rotational velocity of the screed head assembly about a lateral axis and/or a longitudinal axis of the screed head assembly. A control uses gyroscope sensor data and angle sensor data to determine pitch angle and/or roll angle of the screed head assembly. The control controls the screed head assembly based on the signals from one or both of the elevation sensors and the determined pitch and/or roll angles.
Naman [‘677] discloses an autonomous machine and a method for operating the autonomous machine are disclosed. In an embodiment, the method includes receiving first sensor data from a first plurality of sensors supported by the machine, the first sensors covering a scene in a vicinity of the machine, generating a virtual map frame comprising a plurality of gravity patches and mapping the gravity patches and the first sensor data.
Quenzi et al. [‘385] discloses a screeding apparatus for screeding and smoothing an uncured concrete surface includes a vibrating member and a grade setting device adjustably mounted to said vibrating member. The screeding apparatus may include a wheeled support which at least partially supports the vibrating member and/or the grade setting device. The grade setting device is vertically adjustable, such as via a laser plane responsive control system, to set or indicate the desired grade of the concrete surface as the screeding apparatus is moved over and through the uncured concrete. The level of the screeding apparatus may be automatically adjustable to maintain a desired level and angle of attack of the vibrating member. The vibrating member may be activated only when the screeding apparatus is moved in a screeding direction so as to reduce depressions that otherwise may occur if the vibrating member vibrates on the uncured concrete when not moving.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857