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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claim recites the compensation of the signal outputted from the radar sensor based on the vibration data outputted from the IMU. The Specification, as filed, simply teaches “the vibration in the machine is likely to have a detrimental effect on the quality of the output data from the radar sensor. Thus, the control unit 110 can be arranged to compensate the output signal from the radar sensor for vibration in the machine based on an output signal from the IMU” (paragraph [0144], US 2024/0060953) without further discussing how the compensation takes place, how the vibration data from the IMU is analyzed and how to correct the data from the radar sensor accordingly based on such analyzed vibration data.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 14, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 11719005) in view of Quenzi et al. (US 2009/0214294).
Regarding to claims 1 and 31:
Schwartz discloses a concrete surface processing machine for processing a concrete surface,
wherein the machine comprises means for self-locomotion and a control unit (FIG. 5, element MAIN CONTROLLER) arranged to control the means for self-locomotion (column 8, lines 1-15: The controller 12 controls operation of the actuators 84 to steer and control movement of the power trowel along the concrete to avoid obstacles 92 or stay within the concrete boundaries),
wherein the machine comprises one or more surface quality sensors connected to the control unit and arranged to determine a local surface quality of the concrete surface (FIG. 5, element 90: Inspection cameras. Column 9, lines 13-15: The cameras 90 provide a view of the concrete surface to detect blemishes in the concrete surface),
wherein the control unit is arranged to control a self-locomotion of the machine to determine a plurality of local surface quality values associated with respective different locations on the concrete surface (column 9, lines 13-15: The cameras 90 provide a view of the concrete surface to detect blemishes in the concrete surface, wherein the blemishes indicate the surface quality of the concrete), and
wherein the one or more surface quality sensors comprises a three-dimensional, 3D, camera sensor (FIG. 4, elements 130, 132: The stereoscopic camera arrays).
Schwartz discloses the claim invention as discussed above except wherein the control unit is arranged to compare the plurality of local surface quality values to a pre-configured specification, and to output a validation result based on the comparison.
Quenzi et al. teaches that concrete floors are specified, measured and compared within the concrete industry according to an accepted concrete floor profile specification and measurement standard, such as floor flatness and floor levelness, to define the concrete floor quality (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operation of Schwarts’s apparatus to include comparing the measured/sensed data of the concrete surface to the concrete floor industry specification and standard, and finishing the concrete surface accordingly to increase the quality of the concrete surface to closet tolerance as taught by Quenzi et al. (paragraph [0004]).
Schwartz further discloses the following claims:
Regarding to claim 2: wherein the local surface quality is indicative of the presence of scratch marks, cracks in the surface, and/or a level of surface gloss (column 9, lines 13-15: The cameras 90 provide a view of the concrete surface to detect blemishes in the concrete surface, wherein the blemish, in general, may indicate the presence of cracks, curling, discoloring, dusting, or unevenness of or on the concrete surface).
Regarding to claim 4: wherein the one or more surface quality sensors comprises a laser scanner or a gloss sensor (column 8, lines 40-50: Sensors 88 can be cameras, proximity sensors, touch sensors, laser sensors).
Regarding to claim 14: wherein the control unit is arranged to generate a desired tool selection based on the determined local surface quality values (column 9, lines 25-30: When blemish is detected, the controller takes correctively action. Column 9, lines 58-62: When a surface blemish is detected, the controller can spray water onto the concrete blemish to re-work or refinish to remove the blemish).
Claim(s) 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 11719005) in view of Quenzi et al. (US 2009/0214294), and further in view of Nobunori et al. (JP H1130510).
Schwartz, as modified, discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except wherein the one or more surface quality sensors comprises a linear photo sensor adapted to determine a height of the concrete surface on which the machine is currently supported.
Nobunori discloses an apparatus for judging the uneven amount of a concrete surface, comprising a linear scanning sensor (FIG. 1, element 10. Page 5, 2nd paragraph: The sensor head 10 can be selected as linearly scanning) for sensing the depth of the irregularities on the concrete surface (page 5, 4th paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operation of Schwarts’s apparatus, as modified, to include a linear scanning sensor in order to be able to sense the depth of the irregularities on the concrete surface as taught by Nobunori (page 5, 4th paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding to Quenzi reference: Quenzi teaches that concreted floors are specified, measured, and compared within the concrete industry according to an accepted concrete floor specification and standard. Such “floor specification and standard” reads on the claimed pre-configured specification”, wherein the floor flatness or the floor levelness to validate the floor quality is outputted based on the comparison.
Regarding to claim 3: The modification of the radar sensor output signal in the consideration of the machine vibration detected by the IMU is not simply a routine, but requires specific compensation algorithm and implementation; As a result, without the disclosure from the Specification, one of ordinary skill does not know how to use/make the claimed invention.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights