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 . Claims 1-2, 5-13, and 16-22 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 3/3/26.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/3/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 USC § 103. filed on 3/3/26, regarding 35 USC § 103 rejections are moot in view of amendments filed 3/3/26.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of J. N. Murphy and H. E. Parkinson, "Underground mine communications," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 26-50, Jan. 1978, herein “Murphy” below.
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, 5-6, 8, 11-13, 16-17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinstead et al. (US 2013/0268118), in view of J. N. Murphy and H. E. Parkinson, "Underground mine communications," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 26-50, Jan. 1978, herein “Murphy”.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Grinstead discloses a wireless robot control system including a system/method for remotely viewing and/or operating machinery (Abstract), the system comprising:
a camera fixed to the machinery, and the camera being configured to acquire a video stream of a field of view including a portion of the machinery (¶48, ¶83-84, and Fig. 2 - the robot 100 corresponding to the recited machinery captures imagery of its surroundings using the camera(s) including a gripper camera which streams a video of the gripper corresponding to the recited acquire a video stream of a field of view including a portion of the machinery);
a first radio connected to the camera via a first wired link, and the first radio is configured to transmit the video stream via a first wireless link (¶46-51, ¶58, ¶90, and Fig. 2 – controller including communication system 202 corresponding to the recited first radio connected to the sensor system including the recited camera connected via a first wired link to wirelessly transmit captured images and/or video of the robot environment for navigating the robot to be displayed at the operator control unit (OCU));
a computer located at a control station and configured to decode the video stream to generate video and display the generated video on a display of the computer (¶51 – OCU corresponding to the recited a computer located at a control station which processes and displays corresponding to the recited decode and display the sensor data corresponding to the recited the video stream); and
a second radio connected to a computer, and the second radio is configured to receive the video stream via a second wireless link (¶82-85 – OCU corresponding to the recited computer which includes a network interface capable of receiving radio signal corresponding to the recited second radio connected to the computer configured to receive the video stream via a second wireless link); and
a wireless repeater comprising: a third radio configured to receive, via the first wireless link, the video stream from the first radio; a fourth radio configured to transmit, via the second wireless link, the video stream from the fourth radio to the second radio; and an internal wired link configured to transmit the video stream from the third radio to the fourth radio (¶59, ¶76, and Fig. 8A-F – repeater 500 corresponding to the recited wireless repeater acts as a transceiver corresponding to the recited third and fourth radios as a transceiver is a combined transmitter and receiver connected via wired link that conveys the video stream from the robot communication system corresponding to the recited first radio via wireless link through the transceiver corresponding to the recited from the third radio to the fourth radio which then transmits it to the OCU communications system corresponding to the recited second radio via the second wireless link); wherein
the control station is located outside the exclusion zone, which is a region within which workers are not permitted due to a hazardous condition within the exclusion zone (¶3-4 and ¶83 – OCU is located a safe distance away, corresponding to the recited located outside the exclusion zone, from an area which is deemed too dangerous corresponding to the recited a region within which workers are not permitted due to a hazardous condition within the exclusion zone).
While Grinstead does disclose utilizing a wireless repeater with the ability to simultaneously route incoming and outgoing signals including two radio antennae (¶85 and Fig. 8A) and a robotic system including articulating arms which are not explicitly disclosed as being used for excavation, Murphy discloses a system design for radio communication in underground mining the machinery is industrial excavation equipment (page 48, section d.ii.) as well as the detailed repeater system designs including one way repeaters, two frequency repeaters, UHF/VHF repeaters with two independent wired transmitter/receiver pairs within each repeater to communicate wirelessly to other devices/equipment for transmitting information (page 40 and Figs. 26-28).
The combination of the wireless robot control system including the task based articulated arm of Grinstead with the remote radio operating system for mining operations of Murphy fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the wireless robot control system including the task based articulated arm of Grinstead with the remote radio operating system for mining operations of Murphy in order to improve communications channel security, reliability, and maintainability for remote access monitoring in underground mining systems (pages 40-41).
Regarding claim 2, Grinstead further discloses wherein the machinery is operated in an exclusion zone, which is a region within which workers are not permitted due to a hazardous condition within the exclusion zone (¶3-4 and ¶40-48 – robot includes grippers capable of grasping an object and may be a tracked skid steer system corresponding to the recited excavation equipment from an area which is deemed too dangerous corresponding to the recited a region within which workers are not permitted due to a hazardous condition within the exclusion zone).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Grinstead further discloses the first wireless link operates simultaneously with the second wireless link (¶59 and ¶85 - the repeater receives a signal corresponding to the recited first wireless link and retransmits it corresponding to the recited second wireless link at a higher level or higher power corresponding to the recited different frequency channel is able to transport and route all of the video signals simultaneously),
Grinstead does not explicitly disclose the different links are different frequency channels however Murphy further discloses the first wireless link is on a different frequency channel than the second wireless link (page 40 and Fig. 28 – each transceiver pairing operates on different frequency channels).
The combination of the wireless robot control system including the task based articulated arm of Grinstead with the remote radio operating system for mining operations of Murphy fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the wireless robot control system including the task based articulated arm of Grinstead with the remote radio operating system for mining operations of Murphy in order to improve communications channel security, reliability, and maintainability for remote access monitoring in underground mining systems (pages 40-41).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Grinstead does not explicitly disclose specific wireless link however Murphy further discloses wherein the first wireless link is a point-to-multipoint link, and the second wireless link is a point-to-point link (pages 39-40 and Figs. 26-28 – different wireless links are disclosed including daisy chained one way communications corresponding to the recited point-to-point as well as two way broadcast communications corresponding to the recited point-to-multipoint link)
The combination of the wireless robot control system including the task based articulated arm of Grinstead with the remote radio operating system for mining operations of Murphy fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the wireless robot control system including the task based articulated arm of Grinstead with the remote radio operating system for mining operations of Murphy in order to improve communications channel security, reliability, and maintainability for remote access monitoring in underground mining systems (pages 40-41).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Grinstead further discloses an input device connected to the computer and configured to receive user inputs that indicate an action to be performed by the machinery (¶58 – OCU corresponding to the recited computer includes a keyboard 54, and one or more auxiliary user inputs 56, such a joystick or gaming unit corresponding to the recited input device configured to receive user inputs which allows an operator or user to control the robot 100 from a distance),
wherein the computer is configured to generate control signals based on the user inputs (¶58 – user can select different levels of human control over the robot 100, ranging from a teleoperation mode, in which the user directly controls the motors and actuators on the robot 100, to autonomous operation, in which the user passes higher-level commands to the robot corresponding to the recited generate control signals based on the user inputs), and
another radio is configured to transmit the control signals via a wireless channel that is configured to transmit control signals to the machinery (¶86 - drive command issued by a remote operator control unit 50 in communication with the mission robot 100 and deploying 1004 a repeater 500. The repeater 500 receives a communication signal between the operator control unit 50 and the mission robot 100 and retransmits the signal).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Grinstead further discloses wherein the second radio is arranged outside of a line of sight of the first radio, and the repeater is arranged to be within a line of sight of the first radio and within a line of sight of the second radio (¶39 - no line of sight exists between the OCU 50 and the mobile robot 100 corresponding to the recited the second radio is arranged outside of a line of sight of the first radio and the mobile robot 100 may be in communication with the OCU 50 via the repeater 500 positioned therebetween and having a direct first line of sight 1 to the OCU 50 and a direct second line of sight 2 to the mobile robot 100
Regarding claim 13, Grinstead further discloses wherein the machinery is operated in an exclusion zone, which is a region within which workers are not permitted due to a hazardous condition within the exclusion zone (¶3-4 and ¶40-48 – robot includes grippers capable of grasping an object and may be a tracked skid steer system corresponding to the recited excavation equipment from an area which is deemed too dangerous corresponding to the recited a region within which workers are not permitted due to a hazardous condition within the exclusion zone).
While Grinstead does disclose a robotic system including articulating arms which are not explicitly disclosed as being used for excavation, Murphy further discloses remote control of mining machinery including the machinery is industrial excavation equipment and the industrial excavation equipment is an excavator, a bulldozer, or a front-end loader (page 48 section d.ii. and Appendix: Figs. 3-5 – different excavating machinery which can be remotely operated and utilized in mining operations are disclosed and examples are shown in the figures).
The combination of the wireless robot control system including the task based articulated arm of Grinstead with the remote radio operating system for mining operations of Murphy fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the wireless robot control system including the task based articulated arm of Grinstead with the remote radio operating system for mining operations of Murphy in order to improve communications channel security, reliability, and maintainability for remote access monitoring in underground mining systems (pages 40-41).
Claims 7, 9-10, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinstead et al. (US 2013/0268118) in view of J. N. Murphy and H. E. Parkinson, "Underground mine communications," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 26-50, Jan. 1978, herein “Murphy”, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, in view of Abedini et al. (US 2022/0069893).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Grinstead further discloses transmitting the video stream over different wireless links but does not disclose directionality of the antennas connecting the links.
However, Abedini further discloses wherein the first radio uses a first omnidirectional antenna to transmit, via the first wireless link, the video stream to the repeater; the repeater uses a second omnidirectional antenna to receive the video stream via the first wireless link (¶112-114 and ¶177 – communication between the UE and repeater corresponding to the recited first wireless link utilizes omnidirectional wide beam communication for transmitted and received signals which is configured by scanning a plurality of receive directions);
the repeater uses a first directional antenna to transmit, via the second wireless link, the video stream to the second radio; and the second radio uses a second directional antenna to receive the video stream via the second wireless link (¶114 and ¶127 - a repeater device may perform directional communication by using beamforming to communicate with the base station via a first beam pair where directional communication between the repeater and the base station corresponding to the recited second wireless link via directional antennas in fixed directions).
The combination of the vehicle remote control communication range extending system of Grinstead in view of Murphy with the radio frequency repeater configuration for extending communication range of user equipment including different directional transmissions of Abedini fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the vehicle remote control communication range extending system of Grinstead in view of Murphy with the radio frequency repeater configuration for extending communication range of user equipment including different directional transmissions of Abedini in order to reach all possible UE positions (Abedini - ¶112).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Grinstead doesn’t explicitly disclose measuring power density of different frequency bands however Abedini further discloses wherein the repeater is configured to measure a power spectral density and then select, based on the measured power spectral density, respective frequency bands for the first wireless link and the second wireless link that reduce noise or co-channel interference relative to non-selected frequency bands (¶148-149 - measured reference signal receive power (RSRP) corresponding to the recited power spectral density to select a frequency band based on the criteria that a strongest cell will provide better signal integrity being less susceptible to noise and interference).
The combination of the vehicle remote control communication range extending system of Grinstead in view of Murphy with the radio frequency repeater configuration for extending communication range of user equipment including frequency band signal power assessment of Abedini fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the vehicle remote control communication range extending system of Grinstead in view of Murphy with the radio frequency repeater configuration for extending communication range of user equipment including frequency band signal power assessment of Abedini in order to provide better signal integrity being less susceptible to noise and interference (Abedini - ¶149).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Grinstead does not explicitly disclose operating within a certain frequency band range however Abedini further discloses wherein respective frequency bands for the first wireless link and the second wireless link are selected to be in a range of 5.5 GHz to 6 GHz (¶30 and ¶125 – communications utilizing sub-6 GHz radio waves which includes the range of 5.5 GHz to 6 GHz).
The combination of the vehicle remote control communication range extending system of Grinstead in view of Murphy with the radio frequency repeater configuration for extending communication range of user equipment including specific frequency band ranges of Abedini fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the vehicle remote control communication range extending system of Grinstead in view of Murphy with the radio frequency repeater configuration for extending communication range of user equipment including specific frequency band ranges of Abedini in order to penetrate a wall of a building or a structure to provide coverage to an area on an opposite side of the wall from a base station that communicates using the sub-6 GHz radio waves (Abedini - ¶125).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
L. G. Stolarczyk and R. L. Chufo, "System Design and Performance of an MF Radio Communication System for Underground Mining," 1981 Annual Meeting Industry Applications Society, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1981, pp. 105-110. discloses systems and applications of wireless radio repeaters utilized in mining operations. (Introduction)
L. G. Stolarczyk and H. Dobroski, "Medium frequency vehicular control and communication systems for underground mines," 34th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1984, pp. 316-321 discloses a communications network system utilizing base stations, repeaters, mobile transceivers , and personnel transceivers and their evaluation in both mining and non-mining applications (Objective)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights