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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed 11/24/2023. Claims 1-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Benefit is given to the priority document PCT/EP2021/063903 and the effective filing date of 05/25/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19 and 28 are objected to for the use of bullet points in the claims. As stated in MPEP 608.01(m), “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps.”
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to for using the acronym “GPR” without definition of the acronym. Upon first recitation, GPR should be written as “ground penetrating radar (GPR)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 5, 6 and 8-29 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.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 6, 8-12, 15, 18, 21-22, 26 and 28, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes:
“in particular” will be omitted in the reading of claim 2
“in particular” will be omitted in the reading of claim 5
“in particular” will be read as “and/or” in line 4 of claim 6
“in particular” will be omitted in the read of line 5 of claim 6
“in particular” will be omitted in the reading of claim 8
“in particular” will be read as “including” in claim 9
“in particular with legs” will be omitted in the reading of claim 10
Dependent claim 11 also claims a robot with legs
Dependent claim 23 claims a robot with wheels or chains for locomotion
The instant specification page 14, lines 13-16 indicates that the robot may have either legs or, alternatively, wheels or chains, but not both
To avoid putting claim 23 in conflict with the specification, “in particular with legs” must therefore be omitted in the reading of claim 10
“in particular four” will be omitted in the reading of claim 11
“in particular a GNSS receiver” will be omitted in the reading of claim 12
“in particular” will be read as “and” in claim 15
“in particular” will be omitted in the reading of claim 21
“in particular” will be omitted in the reading of claim 22
“in particular six” will be omitted in the reading of claim 26
“in particular in” will be read as “of” in claim 28, line 4
“in particular roots” will be omitted in the reading of claim 28, line 6.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the connector" in line 3 and “the cart” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as claim 1 does not recite a connector or a cart. For purposes of examination, claim 6 will be read as dependent on claim 5, which recites a connector and a cart.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the legs of the robot” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as claim 1, on which claim 8 depends, does not recite legs of the robot. For purposes of examination, “the legs” will be read as “legs”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “move the robot on the surface along a survey path in a walking mode by the legs” in lines 5-6. It is not understood what “by the legs” means in this context. For purposes of examination, “by the legs” will be read as “by means of the legs”. Examiner notes that the proposed phrasing will not invoke USC 112(f).
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the legs” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claims 10 and 16, on which claim 19 depends, are not being interpreted to recite legs (see above regarding claim 10). For purposes of examination, “the legs” will be read as “legs”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the connector” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 15, on which claim 20 depends, does not recite a connector. The connector of claim 20 will be interpreted in light of claim 16, and appropriate clarification of claim dependency is requested.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the cart” on page 6, line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claims 11, on which claim 21 depends, does not recite a cart. For purposes of examination, claim 21 will be read as dependent on claim 15, which recites a cart.
Claim 28 recites “A method… for…” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the following bullets are steps in the method, or what the method is used for. In the latter interpretation, no steps of the method are positively recited. For purposes of examination, “for” in line 2 will be read as “comprising”. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 27 and 29 are also rejected since the claims are dependent on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12-16, 23-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Chan et al. (US-20170336507-A1; hereinafter Chan).
Regarding claim 1, Chan discloses:
A method for autonomously (see at least [0038]; “In some configurations, the vehicle is at least partially autonomous and is capable of navigating a predefined mapping pattern based on location feedback from the on-board GPS sensor and computerized control of the vehicle's throttle and steering mechanisms.”) conducting a GPR survey of a subsurface bounded by a surface by a GPR device (see at least [0025]; “In one embodiment, radar unit 204 is a non-insertion soil-penetrating radar unit. Alternatively, radar unit includes an antenna that inserts into soil 206. Radar unit 204 emits electromagnetic radio waves into soil 206. As the waves travel through soil 206, portions of the waves are reflected back at different strengths depending on the composition of soil 206 and the presence and depths of objects within soil 206. Radar unit 204 is capable of detecting the presence and depth of rocks 208, soil water 209, buried delivery and/or drainage pipes 210, and any other objects within soil 206 based on reflected radio wave signatures (i.e., extrinsic characteristics).”),
wherein the GPR device is mechanically connected to an autonomous robot (see at least Fig. 2a, where radar unit 204 is mechanically connected to ground-driven vehicle 201), the method comprising:
defining a survey path on the surface in a survey geometry (see at least [0038]; “The operating parameters may include a detailed mapping pattern over a designated area of land, such as a predefined vehicle path.”),
causing the robot to autonomously move along the survey path (see at least [0039]; “The user begins navigating the vehicle over the area of land to be mapped (e.g., by following the suggested vehicle path) (step 422). Alternatively, if the vehicle is at least partially autonomous, the user instructs the vehicle to begin the mapping process.”), thereby controlling a position of the GPR device (see at least [0039]; “As the vehicle follows the mapping pattern, the vehicle is configured to detect soil characteristics and chart the detected soil characteristics on a map (step 423). The vehicle includes a soil-penetrating radar unit.”), and
via the GPR device, transmitting radar waves into the subsurface and recording their echoes as GPR data (see at least [0039]; “The radar unit detects the presence and depth of rocks, soil water, buried delivery and/or drainage pipes, and any other objects within the soil. The radar unit emits high-frequency radio waves (e.g., frequencies between 300 MHz and 3000 MHz, frequencies in excess of 3000 MHz, etc.) into the soil. The radar unit captures a series of high resolution scans of the soil (e.g., depth slices, time slices, three-dimensional image blocks, etc.), and to detect soil characteristics (e.g., soil composition, soil density), the presence of soil water, the depth of the soil water, the amount of soil water, the presence and type of minerals present in soil, the presence and amount of humus in soil, and other soil characteristics.”) together with position data indicative of the position of the GPR device (see at least [0039]; “The controller combines the radar scan information with information from the GPS receiver to create a dimensional map of the area traversed by the vehicle. The map created by the system is a collection of data points coupled to location information, that when processed, may be reproduced into a visual representation of the map (e.g., for viewing by an operator through a display) or a set of data and location points for use by a system controller in further processing (e.g., the controller of a system may process the map data to instruct plant or seed placement).”).
Regarding claim 2, Chan discloses the method of claim 1. Chan further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving the survey geometry,
wherein the step of receiving the survey geometry comprises obtaining map data defining the survey geometry (see at least [0038]; “Alternatively, the user may select a plot of land from a mapping service (e.g., MapQuest, Google Maps, etc.), and the controller of the system automatically computes a suggested vehicle path for complete mapping of the plot of land. The suggested vehicle path is presented to the user for verification. The user can then accept, reject, or modify (e.g., change a portion of the suggested vehicle path) the suggested vehicle path.”).
Regarding claim 3, Chan discloses the method of claim 2. Chan further teaches:
Wherein the receiving the survey geometry comprises detecting delimiters of the survey geometry using sensors (see at least [0038]; “In some configurations, the vehicle is at least partially autonomous and is capable of navigating a predefined mapping pattern based on location feedback from the on-board GPS sensor and computerized control of the vehicle's throttle and steering mechanisms.”).
Regarding claim 8, Chan discloses the method of claim 1. Chan further teaches:
further comprising:
controlling a distance between the GPR device and the surface to be below a threshold by moving legs of the robot to adjust the distance (see at least [0025]; “Alternatively, radar unit includes an antenna that inserts into soil 206. Radar unit 204 emits electromagnetic radio waves into soil 206.” Examiner interprets the antenna that inserts to be legs of the robot and the threshold to be the surface of the soil.).
Regarding claim 9, Chan discloses the method of claim 1. Chan further teaches:
wherein the survey geometry comprises a survey area and further survey parameters including a measurement spacing (see at least [0038]; “The user programs operating parameters into the system (step 421). The operating parameters may include a desired map depth (e.g., a designated number of feet or meters beneath the surface of the soil) and a map resolution indication. In certain situations, it is desirable to have a high resolution map created (e.g., a map indicating detected objects and soil characteristic variances for every inch of lateral or vertical travel).”),
wherein defining the survey path comprises
generating the survey path to cover the survey area and to take into account the further survey parameters including the measurements spacing (see at least [0038]; “The operating parameters may include a detailed mapping pattern over a designated area of land, such as a predefined vehicle path. The user may provide the mapping pattern by drawing a vehicle path overlay on a screen representing the area of land to be mapped. Alternatively, the user may select a plot of land from a mapping service (e.g., MapQuest, Google Maps, etc.), and the controller of the system automatically computes a suggested vehicle path for complete mapping of the plot of land. The suggested vehicle path is presented to the user for verification. The user can then accept, reject, or modify (e.g., change a portion of the suggested vehicle path) the suggested vehicle path.”).
Regarding claim 10, Chan discloses:
An autonomous (see at least [0038]; “In some configurations, the vehicle is at least partially autonomous and is capable of navigating a predefined mapping pattern based on location feedback from the on-board GPS sensor and computerized control of the vehicle's throttle and steering mechanisms.”) GPR system for acquiring GPR data of a subsurface bounded by a surface (see at least [0025]; “In one embodiment, radar unit 204 is a non-insertion soil-penetrating radar unit. Alternatively, radar unit includes an antenna that inserts into soil 206. Radar unit 204 emits electromagnetic radio waves into soil 206. As the waves travel through soil 206, portions of the waves are reflected back at different strengths depending on the composition of soil 206 and the presence and depths of objects within soil 206. Radar unit 204 is capable of detecting the presence and depth of rocks 208, soil water 209, buried delivery and/or drainage pipes 210, and any other objects within soil 206 based on reflected radio wave signatures (i.e., extrinsic characteristics).”), comprising:
an autonomous robot (see at least [0039]; “The user begins navigating the vehicle over the area of land to be mapped (e.g., by following the suggested vehicle path) (step 422). Alternatively, if the vehicle is at least partially autonomous, the user instructs the vehicle to begin the mapping process.”), and
a GPR device (see at least [0039]; “The vehicle includes a soil-penetrating radar unit.”).
Regarding claim 12, Chan discloses the system of claim 10. Chan further teaches:
further comprising:
a position determining unit (see at least Fig. 2A, GPS receiver 203),
wherein the GPR device comprises
a GPR antenna configured to transmit and receive radar waves (see at least [0025]; “In one embodiment, radar unit 204 is a non-insertion soil-penetrating radar unit. Alternatively, radar unit includes an antenna that inserts into soil 206. Radar unit 204 emits electromagnetic radio waves into soil 206.”),
a GPR control unit (see at least Fig. 2B, controller 220) connected to the GPR antenna and the position determination unit (see at least [0026]; “Controller 220 includes processing circuit 221. Processing circuit 221 includes processor 222 and memory 223. Processing circuit 221 communicates with GPS receiver 203, radar unit 204, planting device 202, user input 224, user output 225, and network interface 226.”), and comprising a data recorder recording the GPR data received from the GPR antenna together with corresponding position data received from the position determination unit (see at least [0026]; “Memory 223 stores necessary programming modules that when executed by processor 222, control the operation of planting device 202 and the creation of the three-dimensional map of soil 206 based on settings, parameters, and feedback signals received through user input 224, GPS receiver 203, and radar unit 204.”).
Regarding claim 13, Chan discloses the system of claim 12. Chan further teaches:
wherein the position determining unit is mechanically mountable on the GPR device (see at least Fig. 4A, where GPS receiver 403 is mechanically mounted on the ground penetrating radar unit 404 via mapping unit 402).
Regarding claim 14, Chan discloses the system of claim 12. Chan further teaches:
wherein the position determining unit is mechanically mountable on the robot (see at least Fig. 2A, where GPS receiver is shown mounted on vehicle 201),
wherein the position data includes a position (see at least [0024]; “GPS receiver 203 receives signals from GPS satellites 205 and is configured to provide a feedback signal used to track the location of vehicle 201.”) and orientation of the robot (see at least [0035]; “In alternative embodiments, other location sensors can be employed instead of, or in conjunction with, GPS. For instance, mapping unit 402 can include inertial navigation equipment, which is initialized with respect to a field reference site, and which may be updated during the mapping/planting session.”).
Regarding claim 15, Chan discloses the system of claim 12. Chan further teaches:
wherein the GPR device comprises a cart with wheels (see at least Fig. 4A, where mapping system 400 comprises vehicle 401, which may be considered a cart with wheels) or a sledge, to which the GPR antenna is mounted (see at least Fig. 4A; GPR unit 404 is mounted to vehicle 401), and
wherein the cart or sledge comprises a handle (see at least Fig. 4A, where a handle is visible on vehicle 401).
Regarding claim 16, Chan discloses the system of claim 10. Chan further teaches:
further comprising:
a connector configured to removably connect the GPR device to the robot (see at least [0035]; “Referring to FIG. 4A, a stand-alone mapping system 400 is shown according to an exemplary embodiment. System 400 includes vehicle 401 (shown as a pickup truck) and mapping unit 402. Mapping unit 402 is an attachment to vehicle 401 (e.g., configured to fit into a bed of a pickup truck, towed by another vehicle, etc.). Although mapping unit 402 is shown as an attachment to vehicle 401, it should be understood that a mapping unit 402 may be fully integrated into a vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 23, Chan discloses the system of claim 10. Chan further teaches:
wherein the autonomous robot comprises wheels or chains for locomotion (see at least Fig. 2A, where vehicle 201 comprises wheels).
Regarding claim 24, Chan discloses the system of claim 16. Chan further teaches:
wherein the GPR device is directly mountable to the robot by the connector (see at least Fig. 4A, where GPR unit 404 is mounted to the vehicle 401 via the connection of the mapping unit 402), and
wherein the GPR device, in an operating position, is not in contact with the surface (see at least [0035]; “Radar unit 404 is similar to radar unit 204 of system 200. Accordingly, radar unit 404 is a non-insertion soil-penetrating radar unit or an insertion radar unit and emits radar waves into soil 406.”).
Regarding claim 25, Chan discloses the system of claim 16. Chan further teaches:
wherein the robot control unit is configured to control a position and an orientation of the GPR device (see at least [0030]; “If the user accepts or modifies the suggested vehicle path, the system begins autonomous operation of the vehicle by tracking the location of the vehicle through the GPS receiver and making steering and throttle adjustments such that the vehicle remains on the vehicle path.”).
Regarding claim 27, Chan discloses the system of claim 10. Chan further teaches:
wherein the robot control unit is adapted to
define a survey path on the surface in a survey geometry (see at least [0030]; “Alternatively, the user may select a template vehicle path from a set of predefined vehicle path templates (e.g., a template corresponding to rows forming a rectangle, a template corresponding to rows forming a square, a template corresponding to rows forming a triangle, etc.). Upon selection of the vehicle path template, the system analyzes the selection, analyzes the land to be planted, and processes a suggested vehicle path according to the template and the specific land parameters (e.g., the size of the land, the presence of any trees, the presence of any lakes, etc.).”),
cause the robot to autonomously move along the survey path (see at least [0030]; “If the user accepts or modifies the suggested vehicle path, the system begins autonomous operation of the vehicle by tracking the location of the vehicle through the GPS receiver and making steering and throttle adjustments such that the vehicle remains on the vehicle path.”), thereby controlling a position of the GPR device, by the GPR device, transmitting radar waves into the subsurface and recording their echoes as GPR data (see at least [0031]; “The vehicle includes a soil-penetrating radar unit (e.g., an insertion radar unit or a non-insertion radar unit). The radar unit detects the presence and depth of rocks, soil water, buried materials (e.g., materials buried to help retain water in the soil), delivery and/or drainage pipes, and any other objects within the soil or on the surface of the soil (i.e., extrinsic soil characteristics). The radar unit emits radio waves having a high-frequency waves (e.g., frequencies between 300 MHz and 3000 MHz, frequencies in excess of 3000 MHz, etc.) into the soil. The radar unit utilizes reflected wave data to create a series of high resolution scans of the soil…”) together with position data indicative of the position of the GPR device (see at least [0031]; “While the radar unit scans the soil, a GPS receiver of the vehicle tracks the location of the vehicle and provides feedback signals to the controller indicating the location of the vehicle. The controller combines the radar scan information with information from the GPS receiver to create a map of the area traversed by the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 28, Chan discloses the system of claim 10. Chan further teaches:
A method of operating the system of claim 10 comprising at least one of:
mapping geological features in the subsurface (see at least [0027]; “Controller 220 processes these feedback signals into a detailed three-dimensional map of soil 206. The three-dimensional map includes location specific information pertaining to the composition of soil 206 (e.g., chemical composition, moisture amount, density, humus presence, etc.), the presence of objects (e.g., buried rocks, pipes, etc.), and other information pertaining to soil 206 up to a specified depth beneath the surface of soil 206.”),
locating man-made features or defects in the subsurface of a construction or pavement,
estimating an amount of biomass in the subsurface.
Regarding claim 29, Chan discloses the system of claim 10. Chan further teaches:
A method of operating the GPR device from the GPR system of claim 10 for conducting a GPR survey without the autonomous robot by manually controlling a movement of the GPR device along a survey path (see at least [0031]; “Further referring to FIG. 3, the user then navigates the vehicle through the planting pattern (step 302). The vehicle path is displayed to the user such that the user can manually operate the vehicle to follow the path… The vehicle includes a soil-penetrating radar unit (e.g., an insertion radar unit or a non-insertion radar unit). The radar unit detects the presence and depth of rocks, soil water, buried materials (e.g., materials buried to help retain water in the soil), delivery and/or drainage pipes, and any other objects within the soil or on the surface of the soil (i.e., extrinsic soil characteristics).”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan.
Regarding claim 4, Chan discloses the method of claim 1. Chan further teaches [Note: what Chan fails to disclose is strike-through]:
wherein the GPR device is adapted to perform a GPR survey in connection with but also without the autonomous robot (see at least [0031]; “Further referring to FIG. 3, the user then navigates the vehicle through the planting pattern (step 302). The vehicle path is displayed to the user such that the user can manually operate the vehicle to follow the path. Alternatively, if the vehicle is at least partially autonomous, the user instructs the vehicle to begin the planting and mapping process.”),
Chen does not explicitly teach:
the method further comprising carrying out several surveys and, for each survey,
mechanically connecting the GPR device to the autonomous robot, after recording the GPR data, disconnecting the GPR device from the autonomous robot.
However, Chan teaches that the autonomous robot may be a multipurpose vehicle (see at least [0035]; “System 400 includes vehicle 401 (shown as a pickup truck) and mapping unit 402.”), and that the GPR device may be removably attached to the vehicle (see at least [0035]; “Mapping unit 402 is an attachment to vehicle 401 (e.g., configured to fit into a bed of a pickup truck, towed by another vehicle, etc.). Although mapping unit 402 is shown as an attachment to vehicle 401, it should be understood that a mapping unit 402 may be fully integrated into a vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to attach the GPR device to the multipurpose vehicle to use during surveys, and to remove the GPR attachment between surveys. Such a use is suggested by the removeable nature of the GPR attachment and the multipurpose nature of the vehicle.
Claims 5, 7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of “Adam Savage’s Spot Robot Rickshaw Carriage!”, retrieved on Nov. 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyaocKS3sfg, video publication date Feb. 13, 2020, hereinafter, “Savage”.
Regarding claim 5, Chan discloses the method of claim 1. Chan further teaches:
wherein the GPR device comprises a radar antenna (see at least [0025]; “In one embodiment, radar unit 204 is a non-insertion soil-penetrating radar unit. Alternatively, radar unit includes an antenna that inserts into soil 206. “) (see at least [0035]; “Although mapping unit 402 is shown as an attachment to vehicle 401, it should be understood that a mapping unit 402 may be fully integrated into a vehicle.”),
the method further comprising
towing the GPR device behind the autonomous robot along the survey path (see at least [0035]; “Mapping unit 402 is an attachment to vehicle 401 (e.g., configured to fit into a bed of a pickup truck, towed by another vehicle, etc.).”).
However, Chan does not explicitly teach whether the towed attachment is a cart or a sledge, nor the type of connector used.
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR. Savage uses a robot to tow a rickshaw. Savage teaches:
wherein the device comprises a cart with wheels (see at least Savage, timestamp 22:59, where the wheeled rickshaw is visible, see screenshot below) which is mechanically connected to the autonomous robot via a connector (see at least Savage, timestamp 22:59, where a connector between the rickshaw and robot is visible), wherein the connector comprises a ball joint (see at least Savage, timestamp 12:44-13:26, showing the assembly of the ball joint connector, screenshot included below),
the method further comprising
towing the cart behind the robot (see at least Savage, timestamp 26:55, where the robot tows the rickshaw, see screenshot below).
Screenshots:
Savage, timestamp 22:59, cart with wheels and connector to robot:
PNG
media_image1.png
798
1150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Savage, timestamp 12:44, assembly of the ball joint connector:
PNG
media_image2.png
794
1352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Savage, timestamp 26:55, robot tows rickshaw:
PNG
media_image3.png
776
1028
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR device, but does not specify whether the towed device has wheels or the connector used to attach to the robot. Savage uses a robot to tow a cart and uses a ball joint as a connector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wheeled cart and ball-joint connector to tow the GPR device of Chan. Such a solution would have been obvious because, as demonstrated by the device of Savage, these techniques were known in the art of towing.
Regarding claim 7, Chan discloses the method of claim 1. However, Chan does not teach:
wherein the autonomous robot is a robot with legs,
wherein causing the robot to move along the survey path comprises moving the legs of the robot, thereby moving the robot along the survey path.
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR. Savage uses a robot to tow a rickshaw. Savage teaches:
wherein the robot is a robot with legs (see at least Savage, timestamp 22:59, where the four-legged robot is visible, see screenshot above regarding claim 5),
wherein causing the robot to move along the path comprises moving the legs of the robot, thereby moving the robot along the path (see at least Savage, timestamp 26:55, where the robot advances along the path due to motion of the legs, see screenshot above regarding claim 5).
Chan uses an autonomous wheeled robot to tow a GPR device along a survey path. Savage uses a four-legged robot to tow a cart along a path. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chan to use a robot with legs instead of a robot with wheels because both options were known in the art, as shown by Savage.
Regarding claim 17, Chan discloses the system of claim 16. However, Chan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the connector comprises a ball joint.
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR. Savage uses a robot to tow a rickshaw. Savage teaches:
wherein the connector comprises a ball joint (see at least Savage, timestamp 12:44-13:26, showing the assembly of the ball joint connector, screenshot included with the discussion of claim 5).
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR device, but does not specify the connector used to attach to the robot. Savage uses a robot to tow a cart and uses a ball joint as a connector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ball-joint connector to tow the GPR device of Chan. Such a solution would have been obvious because, as demonstrated by the device of Savage, these techniques were known in the art of towing.
Regarding claim 18, Chan discloses the system of claim 16. However, Chan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the connector exhibits three rotational degrees of freedom between the robot and the GPR device,
and wherein the connector is rigid along three translational degrees of freedom between the robot and the GPR device.
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR. Savage uses a robot to tow a rickshaw. Savage teaches:
wherein the connector exhibits three rotational degrees of freedom between the robot and the GPR device,
and wherein the connector is rigid along three translational degrees of freedom between the robot and the GPR device (see at least Savage, timestamp 12:44-13:26, showing the connector to be a ball joint connector, screenshot included with the discussion of claim 5. Ball joint connectors provide three rotational degrees of freedom and are rigid in the three translational degrees of freedom.).
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR device, but does not specify the connector used to attach to the robot. Savage uses a robot to tow a cart and uses a ball joint as a connector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ball-joint connector to tow the GPR device of Chan. Such a solution would have been obvious because, as demonstrated by the device of Savage, these techniques were known in the art of towing.
Regarding claim 19, Chan discloses the system of claim 16. Chan further teaches:
wherein the robot further comprises
a main body having a bottom side and a top side (see at least Fig. 4A, where the vehicle 401 has a bottom side and a top side),
However, Chan does not teach:
wherein legs extend from the main body beyond the bottom side,
wherein the connector is arranged on the top side.
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR. Savage uses a robot to tow a rickshaw. Savage teaches:
a main body having a bottom side and a top side,
wherein legs extend from the main body beyond the bottom side,
wherein the connector is arranged on the top side (see at least Savage, timestamp 22:59, where the robot visibly has a bottom side, a top side, legs extending beyond the bottom side, and a connector arranged on the top side, see screenshot included with the discussion of claim 5).
Chan uses an autonomous wheeled robot to tow a GPR device along a survey path. Savage uses a four-legged robot to tow a cart along a path. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chan to use a robot with legs instead of a robot with wheels because both options were known in the art, as shown by Savage.
Regarding claim 20, Chan discloses the system of claim 15. However, Chan does not teach:
wherein the connector comprises a clamp configured to removably hold the handle.
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR device. Savage uses a robot to tow a rickshaw. Savage teaches:
wherein the connector comprises a clamp configured to removably hold the handle (see at least Savage, timestamp 22:49, where clamps are shown that attach the connector bracket to the handles of the rickshaw, see screenshot below).
Screenshots:
Savage, timestamp 22:49, clamps attach connector to rickshaw handles:
PNG
media_image4.png
600
810
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR device, but does not specify the connector used to attach to the robot. Savage uses a robot to tow a cart and uses clamps to attach the connector to a handle of the cart. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the connection method taught by Savage in towing the GPR device of Chan. Such a solution would have been obvious because, as demonstrated by the device of Savage, these techniques were known in the art of towing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Savage, further in view of Willett (US-4263977-A; hereinafter, Willett).
Regarding claim 6, Chan in view of Savage discloses the method of claim 5. However, Chan does not teach:
further comprising:
lowering or raising the connector dependent on a position of the GPR device on the survey path and/or in bends along the survey path, thereby lifting a part of the wheels of the cart from the surface.
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR device. Willett is directed to a vehicle that can attach to a lawn mower to convert it into a rider-mower. Willett teaches:
lowering or raising the connector dependent on a position of the device on the survey path and/or in bends along the survey path, thereby lifting a part of the wheels of the cart from the surface (see at least col. 3, lines 30-36; “When the vehicle is steered to left or to right, the cam bar 43 advances the cam follower 42 to tilt the standard 41, lifting arm carrier bar 40 and lifting arms 44, so that three front wheels 47 of the mower are raised clear of the ground. Otherwise, when the vehicle is being driven straight forward, the mower 45 rides on its own front and rear wheels.”).
Both Chan and Willett couple together vehicles, where at least one vehicle has wheels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chan to include an attachment mechanism to lift the front wheels of an attached cart during a turn, as taught by Chan. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to lift the front wheels during a turn in order to avoid dragging the wheels sideways, as taught by Willett (see at least Abs; “…means are provided for automatically lifting the mower's front wheels above the ground when the vehicle's front wheel is turned to steer to one side or the other, so as to prevent the mower wheels from being dragged sideways across the ground.”).
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Perkins et al. (US-9594377-B1; hereinafter, Perkins).
Regarding claim 11, Chan discloses the system of claim 10. However, Chan does not teach:
wherein the robot comprises:
at least two legs with actuators,
a robot control unit configured to control the actuators to autonomously move the robot on the surface along a survey path in a walking mode by means of the legs.
Chan is directed to GPR scanning, including embodiments with an autonomous vehicle, and Perkins is directed to foot placement for legged robots. Perkins teaches:
wherein the robot (see at least Fig. 2, quadruped robot 200) comprises:
at least two legs (see at least Fig. 2, legs 204) with actuators (see at least col. 6, lines 3-8; “As a few examples, the robotic system 100 may include physical members such as leg(s), arm(s), and/or wheel(s). The physical members or other parts of robotic system 100 may further include actuators arranged to move the physical members in relation to one another.”),
a robot control unit configured to control the actuators (see at least col. 12, lines 28-31; “To cause a legged robot to take a step, a control system may control actuators to perform a series of actuations in which a foot of the robot is lifted from the ground, swung forward (or backward), and lowered back to the ground.”) to autonomously (see at least col. 4, lines 29-31; “The robotic system 100 may be configured to operate autonomously, semi-autonomously, and/or using directions provided by user(s).”) move the robot on the surface along a path in a walking mode by means of the legs (see at least col. 5, lines 52-59; “As another illustration, a control system may receive an input indicating an instruction to move to a particular geographical location. In response, the control system 118 (perhaps with the assistance of other components or systems) may determine a direction, speed, and/or gait based on the environment through which the robotic system 100 is moving en route to the geographical location.”).
Chan teaches attaching a GPR to an autonomous wheeled robot. Perkins teaches an autonomous robot with legs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system used in Chan to include a robot with legs instead of wheels because both options were known in the art, as shown by the teaching of Perkins.
Regarding claim 22, Chan in view of Perkins teaches the system of claim 11. Chan further teaches:
wherein the robot control unit is configured to generate the survey path based on a survey area and further survey parameters comprising a measurement spacing and/or resolution (see at least [0038]; “The user programs operating parameters into the system (step 421). The operating parameters may include a desired map depth (e.g., a designated number of feet or meters beneath the surface of the soil) and a map resolution indication…The operating parameters may include a detailed mapping pattern over a designated area of land, such as a predefined vehicle path. The user may provide the mapping pattern by drawing a vehicle path overlay on a screen representing the area of land to be mapped. Alternatively, the user may select a plot of land from a mapping service (e.g., MapQuest, Google Maps, etc.), and the controller of the system automatically computes a suggested vehicle path for complete mapping of the plot of land. The suggested vehicle path is presented to the user for verification. The user can then accept, reject, or modify (e.g., change a portion of the suggested vehicle path) the suggested vehicle path.”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Savage and Perkins.
Regarding claim 21, Chan discloses the system of claim 15. However, Chan does not teach:
wherein the robot comprises a lift drive connected to the robot control unit and configured to lower or raise the connector,
wherein the lift drive is adapted to move the connector between a first and a second vertical position, thereby tilting the cart between a first and second tilting position.
Chan uses a robot to tow a GPR. Savage uses a robot to tow a rickshaw. Savage teaches:
wherein the robot comprises a lift drive,
wherein the lift drive is adapted to move the connector between a first and a second vertical position, thereby tilting the cart between a first and second tilting position (see at least screenshots below taken at 22:55, 23:01 and 23:07, where the robot legs compress and the rickshaw tilts forward when the passenger climbs in, then the legs straighten and lift the rickshaw to the original position after the passenger is seated. The lift drive is mapped to the synchronized bending of the four legs acting to raise and lower the robot body.).
Screenshots:
Savage, timestamps 22:55, 23:01 and 23:07, showing the robot legs compressing and decompressing in response to a passenger mounting the cart:
PNG
media_image5.png
804
1000
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
798
980
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
784
986
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, neither Chan nor Savage explicitly teach a lift drive connected to the robot control unit.
Perkins teaches a control unit controlling the movements of a four-legged robot (see at least col. 5, lines 24-28; “The control system 118 may monitor and physically change the operating conditions of the robotic system 100. In doing so, the control system 118 may serve as a link between portions of the robotic system 100, such as between mechanical components 110 and/or electrical components 116.”).
Both Savage and Perkins teach the use of four-legged robots. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that a controller directed the mechanical and electrical components in the robots shown in Savage, as taught by Perkins is a similar context.
Claim 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Struckman (US-6377872-B1; hereinafter, Struckman).
Regarding claim 26, Chan discloses the system of claim 15. However, Chan does not teach:
wherein the connector comprises an arm with at least one arm actuator connected to the robot control unit,
wherein the at least one arm actuator is configured to move the GPR device in at least five degrees of freedom relative to a main body of the robot.
Chan discloses a GPR unit mounted on or towed by a vehicle for use in agriculture, and Struckman is directed to a GPR unit mounted on a robot arm for use in detecting land mines. Struckman teaches:
wherein the connector comprises an arm (see at least Fig. 1, robotic arm 14) with at least one arm actuator connected to the robot control unit (see at least col. 4, lines 65-67; “There is an electronics box 20 on vehicle 11 having: (1) a robotic arm controller 21 (not shown) to control the operation of robotic arm 14 responsive to signals sent from remote control and display unit 12 via cable link 13”),
wherein the at least one arm actuator is configured to move the GPR device (see at least col. 5, lines 11-20; “In operation, robotic arm 14 is scanned left and right as vehicle 11 moves slowly forward. At the same time GPR signals of a type described in more detail further in this detailed description are transmitted and received to detect land mines buried in the ground beneath antennas 18 and 19 mounted respectively in spades 16 and 17 of auger 15. In addition, while ground penetrating radar signals are being transmitted and received, auger 15 is rotated about its axis for polarization scanning and is rotated about an offset axis for area scanning.”) in at least five degrees of freedom relative to a main body of the robot (see at least col. 5, lines 44-47; “In addition, responsive to other signals from remote control and display unit 12, robotic arm controller 21 on vehicle 11 controls robotic arm 14 (not shown in this Figure) to move it in all directions.”).
Both Chan and Struckman perform scans using GPR. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle used in Chan to include a robotic arm to house the GPR, as taught by Struckman. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a robotic arm in order to be able to move the GPR device in all directions, as recognized by Struckman (see Struckman at least col. 5, lines 44-47).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley B. Raynal whose telephone number is (703)756-4546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ASHLEY BROWN RAYNAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648