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 filed 5/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5 that claim 1 defines a specific diagnostic output for reliably identifying a line target- “only” when one output signal from a radial scan is generally hyperbolic and the other output from an orthogonal radial scan is generally non-hyperbolic, and argues that this specific two-part condition is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art. The argument is not persuasive at least because the language of claim 1 does not require, nor does the specification teach the declaration “only” when both of these conditions are met, rather the claim merely establishes a scenario where a line target is declared when they both are. The specification consistently indicates a line target is declared if either output is generally hyperbolic ([0006], [0063]). The limitation as claimed finds support in the specification in that a line target is declared when either output is generally hyperbolic ([0063]), providing an example where an exemplary output is hyperbolic (Fig. 5C) and another from an orthogonal scan (Fig. 5E) is not. 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, but the method does not specifically seek or require a non-hyperbolic output in order to declare a line target as is argued.
At page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Struckman provides no motivation to analyze the shape of the data plots, let alone to require one specific shape and the absence of that shape in an orthogonal scan to confirm the object’s identity. The argument is not persuasive first as indicated above, as neither the claims nor specification require the absence of such a shape to confirm an object’s identity (declare line target); they merely require declaring a line target in a case where this is true. That is, the only requirement imposed is that a line target be declared in a case where one of the radar outputs is generally hyperbolic and the other non-hyperbolic. This is anticipated by Struckman by the explicit disclosure that “at some orientations of a bar of metal in the ground to the antennas there is almost zero reflected radar signal return” (i.e. non-hyperbolic) but “by rotating the antennas ninety-degrees the reflected radar signal return is much larger” (generally hyperbolic). In this scenario, Struckman declares such a target, as the very purpose of rotating the antenna is to identify situations where the target is oriented along a line not easily identified with a particular polarization. This coincides with the realization indicated at [0057] of the instant specification. Note the two traces of Struckman Figure 9, and further note that even if trace 36 including the illustrated peak cannot be considered “generally hyperbolic”, one of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes that an actual output of such a radar as it sweeps over such a target is generally hyperbolic: gaining strength as the antenna nears the target, peaking when directly above, and losing strength as it moves away.
Also at page 6 Applicant argues that Applicant’s invention avoids false positives by distinguishing true line targets from other objects like boulders or strata changes that might coincidentally produce a hyperbolic signature from a single scan direction. However, it is noted again that there is nothing apparent in the specification that specifically indicates the invention requires both a hyperbolic and non-hyperbolic response in order to declare a line target, but instead consistently indicates that if either output is hyperbolic, a line target is declared. Further, the Remarks make no reference to any particular support for the argued feature. The Remarks of 1/22/2026 refer generically to [0060]-[0063], though these are not found to disclose such a requirement, and indeed state “controller 590 may declare a pipe with either of the signals in Figures 5C and 5D“, consistent with the summary at [0006]. If Applicant believes a disclosure is present where the line target is declared “only” when both a hyperbolic and a non-hyperbolic output are identified as is argued, it is suggested this be specifically pointed out and explained, with corresponding amendments to require such in the claims.
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 a first 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 a second 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 declares a line target when one of said first or second outputs is generally hyperbolic and the output of the other of said first or second outputs is generally non-hyperbolic (Fig. 9; column 10, lines 3-59). 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 first output or second output (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 a first 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 a second 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 declares a line target when one of said first or second outputs is generally hyperbolic and the output of the other of said first or second outputs is generally non-hyperbolic (Fig. 9; column 10, lines 3-59). 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 first output or second output (Fig. 9; column 10, lines 3-59).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
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