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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/3/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn, however new rejections are presented below.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim 9 is not rejected for reciting a practical application of the location system warning the user about entering the danger area.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims alter the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and applicant’s arguments are moot.
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 9-15 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 claim 9, this claim recites “one UWB tag ascertained”. It is unclear if “one UWB tag ascertained” in claim 9 refers to the UWB tag on the marking apparatus or the UWB tag carried by the user, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “one UWB tag ascertained” in claim 9 to mean any one of the UWB tags.
Regarding claims 10-15, these claims depend from claim 9 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 9 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 9 noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 9-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo (US 20240293933 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Mayer (US 20170144635 A1, cited in a previous office action), Kim (US 20210402600 A1, cited in a previous office action), and Fyfe (US 20180160943 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Longo discloses a work machine system placed on a construction site, the work machine system comprising (Paragraphs 0027, 0029);
a marking apparatus that is handleable by a user and is operable by the user (Paragraphs 0032-0035);
when the marking apparatus is operated (Paragraphs 0030-0034; “indicating working points, carried out manually by the operator O”);
Longo does not specifically state a truck-mounted concrete pump having outriggers and a moving boom; a control unit of the truck-mounted concrete pump that is designed so as.
However, Mayer teaches a truck-mounted concrete pump having outriggers and a moving boom (Paragraphs 0024-0026; “The truck-mounted concrete pump 10 shown in FIG. 1 comprises a vehicle with a chassis 12, a four-armed concrete-distributing boom 14 arranged thereon and serving as a carrier for a concrete delivery pipe, four laterally extendable support arms 16”);
a control unit of the truck-mounted concrete pump that is designed so as (Paragraph 0024; “a computer-aided safety device 20”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with a truck-mounted concrete pump with a control unit of Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the boom of a truck-mounted concrete pump can be controlled remotely or by a marking apparatus. A control unit is necessary to determine the range of the boom to ensure stability of the truck and capacity of the gears. One would have been motivated to combine Longo with Mayer as this achieves safety and stability of the truck. As stated in Mayer, “a concrete-distributing boom to variable work locations, the boom arms being moved, generally in a remote-controlled manner, by means of swivel drives. In order to ensure the required static stability, the machines must be supported during the working and pumping operation” (Paragraph 0003).
Longo does not specifically state an ultra-wideband (UWB) system comprising a number of UWB tags and a number of UWB anchors; one of the number of UWB tags being mounted on the marking apparatus; and another one of the number of UWB tags is carried by the user; store positions of the one UWB tag ascertained by the UWB system at the time of the operation; UWB system and UWB tags.
However, Kim teaches an ultra-wideband (UWB) system comprising a number of UWB tags and a number of UWB anchors (Paragraphs 0053-0056);
One of the number of UWB tags being mounted on the marking apparatus (Paragraphs 0055, 0081, 0140; Kim modifies the pointer element 4 of the marking apparatus of Longo to a UWB tag);
And another one of the number of UWB tags is carried by the user (Kim - Paragraphs 0055, 0081, 0140) “The tag device 500a is usually carried or worn by a user”
store positions of the one UWB tag ascertained by the UWB system at the time of the operation (Abstract, Paragraphs 0050, 0054, 0064, 0121);
UWB system and UWB tags (Kim - Paragraphs 0053-0056) “When the positioning sensor 210 uses ultra-wideband (UWB), a user may carry the tag device 500 adapted to send predetermined signals to the positioning sensor 210”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with UWB tags on the end of the marking apparatus and on a user, UWB anchors, and storing positions of the UWB tags of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tags can be placed on the marking apparatus and a user, and anchors on the work machine to create a UWB positioning system. The work machine is able to store positions of the UWB tag in order to recreate the trajectory of the tag. UWB signals are more reliable and penetrate through obstacles more effectively, which improves the position tracking of the UWB tag at the end of the marking apparatus. One would have been motivated to combine Longo with Kim as this achieves a reliable UWB position tracking system. As stated in Kim, “The embodiments of the present disclosure may be applied to the tracking robot, such as a delivery robot, a cart robot, and the like, which moves following a user, to improve reliability in tracking a user position” (Paragraphs 0155-0157).
Longo does not specifically state a location system storing positions of danger areas, and warning users carrying the tags that they are about to enter the danger area.
However, Fyfe teaches and a location system storing positions of danger areas in a form of obstacles and areas that cannot be entered within the construction site (Fyfe - Paragraphs 0068, 0090, 0092) “Pod 102 may be configured with, or have access to, layout data for an area (e.g., a building) in which it operates, where the area constrains the possible movement possible of the pod… approaching or have moved into the hazardous areas”
wherein when the location system using the
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with storing positions of danger areas, and warning users carrying the tags that they are about to enter the danger area of Fyfe with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Longo and Fyfe both describe hazards associated with a working environment. One would have been motivated to combine as this prevents users from entering a hazardous environment (Fyfe – Paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 10, Longo discloses the control unit is further designed to control a movement of the boom on the basis of the stored positions (Paragraphs 0029, 0042-0043, 0050, 0065, Claim 15).
Regarding claim 13, Longo discloses the marking apparatus comprises an operating device by which the marking apparatus is operable (Paragraphs 0043, 0053; Operating device is mapped to activation button 8).
Regarding claim 14, Longo discloses the marking apparatus comprises a rod (Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0053, 0062, Fig. 3);
the operating device is mounted at one end of the rod (Paragraphs 0043, 0053).
Longo does not specifically state the UWB tag is mounted at an opposite end of the rod.
However, Kim teaches the UWB tag is mounted at an opposite end of the rod (Paragraphs 0055, 0081, 0140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with UWB tags on the end of the rod of the marking apparatus of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tags can be placed on the marking apparatus and anchors on the work machine to create a UWB positioning system. The work machine is able to store positions of the UWB tag in order to recreate the trajectory of the tag. UWB signals are more reliable and penetrate through obstacles more effectively, which improves the position tracking of the UWB tag at the end of the marking apparatus. One would have been motivated to combine Longo with Kim as this achieves a reliable and intuitive UWB position tracking system. As stated in Kim, “The embodiments of the present disclosure may be applied to the tracking robot, such as a delivery robot, a cart robot, and the like, which moves following a user, to improve reliability in tracking a user position” (Paragraphs 0155-0157).
Regarding claim 15, Longo discloses the rod is telescopable (Paragraphs 0034, 0053, 0062).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo, Mayer, Kim, and Fyfe, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cassano (US 20130110288 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 11, Longo discloses a control unit designed to control a movement of the boom on the basis of the stored position.
Longo does not specifically state the control unit is further designed to control movement of the boom such that the boom does not adopt a boom position that corresponds to stored positions indicative of an obstacle.
However, Cassano teaches the control unit is further designed to control movement of the boom such that the boom does not adopt a boom position that corresponds to stored positions indicative of an obstacle(Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0038, 0040; “In the working spaces of the robots objects are also present (for example, the fixed workbench 2) that render altogether inaccessible to the robots the corresponding regions of their working space”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with controlling movement of the boom so the boom does not adopt the stored position of Cassano with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interference regions can be set up as locations where the robotic arm cannot move to. This can be because there might be other robots or objects in that interference region that pose a collision hazard. One would have been motivated to combine Longo with Cassano as this achieves reducing robotic arm interference risks. As stated in Cassano, “prohibited interference regions (PIRs), defined as regions of space where the presence of the robot must without fail always be inhibited, for example, on account of the permanent presence of one or more objects with which the robot must not interfere” (Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 12, Longo discloses a control unit and a boom.
Longo does not specifically state the control unit is further designed to generate a warning signal when the boom approaches a stored position indicative of an obstacle.
However, Cassano teaches the control unit is further designed to generate a warning signal when the boom approaches a stored position indicative of an obstacle (Paragraph 0026-0027; “In the working spaces of the robots objects are also present (for example, the fixed workbench 2) that render altogether inaccessible to the robots the corresponding regions of their working space”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with generating a warning signal when the boom approaches the stored position of Cassano with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interference regions can be set up as locations where the robotic arm cannot move to. This can be because there might be other robots or objects in that interference region that pose a collision hazard. Warning signals can be generated when the boom approaches the interference regions in order to stop the boom and warn the operator that the robotic arm has an interference risk. One would have been motivated to combine Longo with Cassano as this achieves reducing robotic arm interference risks. As stated in Cassano, “prohibited interference regions (PIRs), defined as regions of space where the presence of the robot must without fail always be inhibited, for example, on account of the permanent presence of one or more objects with which the robot must not interfere” (Paragraph 0014).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.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 (tollfree). 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 HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights