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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant refers to paragraphs [0060]-[0063] of the specification in support of the amended language. However, neither this portion nor the remainder of the specification is found to discuss comparing first and second outputs.
The Remarks also suggest that the invention requires “both conditions to be met”, i.e. a positive and negative confirmation to declare a line object and argues the non-hyperbolic condition for declaring a line target is not disclosed by Struckman. The claim is not found to be limited to such as explained below, but further, the specification is not found to support a step where both are required in order to declare a line object. Rather, the specification consistently indicates a line target is declared if either output is generally hyperbolic ([0006], [0063]).
Concerning the “declaring” limitation as claimed, the limitation finds support in the specification in that it is disclosed a line target is declared if either output is generally hyperbolic ([0063]), therefore a method step of declaring a line “when” the output of one of said first or second collecting is generally hyperbolic and the output of the other of said first or second collecting is generally non-hyperbolic is supported. Notably this limitation does not exclude declaring a line target when both outputs are found to be hyperbolic and it also does not require both positive and negative conditions be met in order to declare a line target.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 and 3 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said first output" and “said second output” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and is likewise indefinite.
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 and 3 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 claim(s) contains 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.
Claim 1 is amended to require: “comparing said first output and said second output;”
The specification is not found to make any mention of such a comparison or otherwise disclose comparing the outputs to each other or anything else. Rather, the specification discloses only that it is determined for each output individually whether measurements fit a hyperbola (e.g. [0060]-[0061], [0063]). Even if matching a hyperbola to an output ([0060]) could broadly be interpreted as “comparing” an output, the claim language is not limited to such and instead encompasses “comparing” the outputs to anything, notably including a comparison to each other. Indeed this appears as if it may be the intended “comparison” in view of the wording and subsequent limitation. No such comparisons are found to be described. The amendment introduces a comparison step having scope which is well outside of the original disclosure and therefore introduces new matter. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and likewise fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struckman (6,377,872) in view of Roulston et al. (US 2019/0338490).
Regarding claim 1, Struckman discloses a method for an implement (15) for use with an excavator (10), the method comprising: coupling a radar implement to be rotatably connected to an arm (14) of said excavator, said radar implement having a ground penetrating radar at a lower surface thereof (Figures 5, 6; antennas 18, 19); rotating said radar implement to a first angle; said arm moving said radar implement while maintaining said first angle; collecting output of said ground penetrating radar during said moving; rotating said radar implement to a second angle generally orthogonal to said first angle; said arm moving said radar implement while maintaining said second angle; and collecting output of said ground penetrating radar during said second moving (column 9, lines 63- column 10, line 15; column 11, line 26 - column 12, line 10).
That is, Struckman discloses moving the radar implement via the arm to the left and to the right, passing over the same path in an arc, and rotating the radar implement as claimed in between these passes. Struckman also discloses radially moving the radar implement with respect to the excavator by extending arm 14 (e.g. at column 11, lines 26-30: “Auger 15 with spades 16 and 17 is repeatedly scanned back and forth over a one-hundred centimeter wide swath (fifty centimeters to either side of center) while auger 15 is slowly extended away from vehicle 11 a distance of thirty centimeters. At each extension of arm 14…” and at column 11, line 66: “After the two scans have been performed … the auger is extended forward and an additional scanning and measurement cycle conducted starting at block 54”).
Struckman discloses comparing said first output and said second output (in line with the broad language, the outputs are each “compared” to what would indicate a line target is present) (Fig. 9; column 10, lines 3-59); and declaring a line target when the output of one of said first or second collecting is generally hyperbolic and the output of the other of said first or second collecting is generally non-hyperbolic. See especially column 10, at line 40: “Rotation is required because at some orientations of a bar of metal in the ground to the antennas there is almost zero reflected radar signal return, but by rotating the antennas ninety-degrees the reflected radar signal return is much larger”.
The disclosure of Struckman differs from the claimed invention in that Struckman elects to scan as the implement is moved in an arc rather than during the radial movement with respect to the excavator. Roulston discloses a similar excavator mounted ground penetrating radar where in a radar monitoring mode, scanning is limited to any one plane at a time, including a vertical plane such that the scanning is performed radially with respect to the excavator ([0025]). As the method of Struckman already includes radial movement, and particularly in view of the teaching of Roulston of alternatively scanning in one direction or the other, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Struckman to switch the direction of movement in which radar scanning takes place, i.e. to instead scan while moving out and back radially. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for such a modification because it would significantly decrease the amount of travel required for the entire arm assembly to image the disclosed 100 cm wide by 30 cm deep swath. That is, rather than needing to repeatedly swing the entire arm and implement assembly left and right along the width of the swath, by scanning in the radial direction as disclosed by Roulston, only one pass along the arc is required over the duration of scanning the swath.
The arm of Struckman is “hinged” as is broadly claimed in that the spades are connected to the arm via hinges 30a and 30b.
Separately, Roulston discloses a conventional “hinged arm” for the excavator mounted ground penetrating radar (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to replace the extending arm of Struckman with a conventional hinged type in the style of Roulston ([0018]) for conventional advantages in the art, e.g. to add freedom of movement to orient the sensor toward or away from the excavator, i.e. to better align with uneven ground or to scan a steep/vertical slope.
Regarding claim 3, Struckman discloses determining a direction of said line target from a strength of said output of said first or second collecting (Fig. 9; column 10, lines 3-59).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struckman (6,377,872) in view of Roulston et al. (US 2019/0338490) and Scott (US 2010/0277397).
Regarding claim 1, Struckman discloses a method for an implement (15) for use with an excavator (10), the method comprising: coupling a radar implement to be rotatably connected to an arm (14) of said excavator, said radar implement having a ground penetrating radar at a lower surface thereof (Figures 5, 6; antennas 18, 19); rotating said radar implement to a first angle; said arm moving said radar implement while maintaining said first angle; collecting output of said ground penetrating radar during said moving; rotating said radar implement to a second angle generally orthogonal to said first angle; said arm moving said radar implement while maintaining said second angle; and collecting output of said ground penetrating radar during said second moving (column 9, lines 63- column 10, line 15; column 11, line 26 - column 12, line 10).
That is, Struckman discloses moving the radar implement via the arm to the left and to the right, passing over the same path in an arc, and rotating the radar implement as claimed in between these passes. Struckman also discloses radially moving the radar implement with respect to the excavator by extending arm 14 (e.g. at column 11, lines 26-30: “Auger 15 with spades 16 and 17 is repeatedly scanned back and forth over a one-hundred centimeter wide swath (fifty centimeters to either side of center) while auger 15 is slowly extended away from vehicle 11 a distance of thirty centimeters. At each extension of arm 14…” and at column 11, line 66: “After the two scans have been performed… the auger is extended forward and an additional scanning and measurement cycle conducted starting at block 54”).
Struckman discloses comparing said first output and said second output (in line with the broad language, the outputs are each “compared” to what would indicate a line target is present) (Fig. 9; column 10, lines 3-59); and declaring a line target when the output of one of said first or second collecting is generally hyperbolic and the output of the other of said first or second collecting is generally non-hyperbolic. See especially column 10, at line 40: “Rotation is required because at some orientations of a bar of metal in the ground to the antennas there is almost zero reflected radar signal return, but by rotating the antennas ninety-degrees the reflected radar signal return is much larger”.
The disclosure of Struckman differs from the claimed invention in that Struckman elects to scan as the implement is moved in an arc rather than during the radial movement with respect to the excavator. Roulston discloses a similar excavator mounted ground penetrating radar where in a radar monitoring mode, scanning is limited to any one plane at a time, including a vertical plane such that the scanning is performed radially with respect to the excavator ([0025], [0027]). As the method of Struckman already includes radial movement, and particularly in view of the teaching of Roulston of alternatively scanning in one direction or the other, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Struckman to switch the direction of movement in which radar scanning takes place, i.e. to instead scan while moving out and back radially. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for such a modification because it would significantly decrease the amount of travel required for the entire arm assembly to image the disclosed 100 cm wide by 30 cm deep swath. That is, rather than needing to repeatedly swing the entire arm and implement assembly left and right along the width of the swath, by scanning in the radial direction as disclosed by Roulston, only one pass along the arc is required over the duration of scanning the swath.
The arm of Struckman is “hinged” as is broadly claimed in that the spades are connected to the arm via hinges 30a and 30b, but does not disclose a conventional excavator style hinged arm.
Scott discloses such a hinged arm for a similar vehicle-mounted ground penetrating radar (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to replace the extending arm of Struckman with a hinged type in the style of Scott for conventional advantages in the art, e.g. to add freedom of movement to orient the sensor toward or away from the excavator (Scott [0049]), i.e. to better align with uneven ground or to scan a steep/vertical slope.
Regarding claim 3, Struckman discloses determining a direction of said line target from a strength of said output of said first or second collecting (Fig. 9; column 10, lines 15-59).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights