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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s argument, filed 5/13/26, with respect to the
rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of McCutchen (US 2013/0084782).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 17 and 18, recite the limitation “wherein the one or more grinding tools are rotatably fixed in relation to a machine body of the concrete surface processing machine” the specification does not sufficiently describe this limitation in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure does not establish the additionally claimed relationship that the grinding tool is rotatably fixed in relation to the machine body. Thus, the amendment introduces a particular relationship between the grinding tools and the machine body that is not expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported by the application was originally filed. Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convert to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of the presently claimed limitation at the time of filing and claims 1-20 therefore fail to satisfy the written-description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 McCutchen et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0084782) (herein after McCutchen) and further in view of Kieranen et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0265785) (hereinafter Kieranen) and 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), the concrete surface processing machine comprising 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”), one or more grinding tools, 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”).
Würsch fails to explicitly teach that the one or more grinding tools are rotatably fixed in relation to a machine body of the concrete surface processing machine.
McCutchen, however, teaches concrete floor grinding and polishing machines having rotatable grinding tools maintained at a fixed positional relationship with the machine during grinding. In particular, McCutchen teaches that the spindle positions are held fixed relative to the machine during grinding operations (¶[0008]) and that grinding may be performed with the spindle axes half fixed relative to the machine (¶[0016]). McCutchen further teaches that motors 100, 102 and their respective axes 104, 106 while the bowl assemblies remain rotatable relative to the motor housings fixed to shroud 86 (¶¶ [0060]-[0061]). McCutchen additionally teaches a bowl assembly rotatably fixed relative to shroud 86 for performing grinding with abrasive tool 300 and teaches abrasive grinding tools 300 rotating in place relative to shroud 86 about their respective spindle axes (¶[0073]). Thus, McCutchen teaches the known alternative of providing rotating concrete grinding tools whose positions, including their positions along the rotational/depth axes, are fixed relative to the machine body during grinding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the grinding-tool arrangement of Würsch according to the fixed-position rotating grinding tool arrangement taught by McCutchen because McCutchen expressly teaches maintaining the spindle positions fixed relative to the machine during concrete grinding while rotating the abrasive e tools to perform the grinding operation, thereby permitting concrete grinding while maintaining a fixed position relationship between the grinding tools and the machine body and eliminating the need to vertically displace the grinding tools relative to the machine body during the grinding operation.
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, McCutchen, 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, McCutchen, 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, McCutchen, 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, McCutchen, 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, McCutchen, 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, McCutchen, 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, McCutchen, 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, McCutchen, 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, McCutchen, 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, McCutchen, 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 teaches 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).
As per claims 16 and 20, the combination of Würsch, McCutchen, Kieranen and Ogawa teach the system as stated above except that the plurality 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, McCutchen, 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented
in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights