DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 5.9.24. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are now pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “a lengthening actuator configured to adjust a length of the telescoping pole in response to a third control signal provided by the controller". It is not clear from the specification whether this actuator is same as first or second actuator or if it is a separate actuator. If it is a separate actuator , neither specification nor drawing is showing this configuration. In order to further prosecution, Examiner is interpreting a telescopic pole whose length can be changed by any actuating device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crain et al(US20040000622A1), hereinafter Crain.
Regarding Claim 11, Crain discloses (Figs 1-2,13) a method (method is in structure), comprising:
extending a telescopic hot stick (3) while secured to an adjustable bipod system (1), wherein the telescopic hot stick and the adjustable bipod system form a tripod (Fig 2)[Para 0104];
maneuvering an upper end (5) of the telescopic hot stick (3) into a target region by adjusting at least one of a first length of a first leg (19) of the adjustable bipod system via a first motor (171) or a second length of a second leg (21) of the adjustable bipod system via a second motor (171);
performing an operational function (Abstract) with the upper end (5) of the telescopic hot stick (3) in the target region; and
retracting [0080] the telescopic hot stick while secured to the adjustable bipod system upon completion of the operational function.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
656
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
662
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Crain discloses the method of claim 11. Crain further discloses further comprising securing the telescopic hot stick (3) to the adjustable bipod system (1) by closing a clasp (9) of the adjustable bipod system around the telescopic hot stick.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 5, 8-10, 13-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crain et al(US20040000622A1), hereinafter Crain in view of Brown et al (US20170291270A1), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding Claim 1, Crain discloses (Figs 1-2,13) a bipod system, comprising:
a first leg (19) comprising a first actuator (171)[Para 0099] configured to change the length (19 is extendable and retractable) of the first leg in response to a first control signal (Examiner interprets same as Instant specification “change the length of the first leg in response to a first control signal, wherein changing the length of the first leg moves the elongated pole in a first direction” which is same as Crain in Fig 2 where based on input from 15,13, length of 19 is adjusted to achieve a certain position) ;
a second leg (21) comprising a second actuator (171) configured to change the length of the second leg in response to a second control signal Examiner interprets same as Instant specification “change the length of the second leg in response to a second control signal, wherein changing the length of the second leg moves the elongated pole in a second direction” which is same as Crain in Fig 2 where based on input from 15,13, length of 21 is adjusted to achieve a certain position);
a connector (17,201) configured to secure an elongated pole (3) to the bipod system; and
a user input to move the elongated pole (3) based on a change to the length of at least one of the first leg (19) and the second leg (21) but does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to generate the first control signal and the second control signal in response to a user input.
Brown discloses (Fig 1) a controller (60) configured to generate the first control signal and the second control signal in response to a user input [Para 0023 discloses “singly actuated” or “multiply actuated”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed bipod system of Crain with controller controlling the lengths of first and second legs as taught by Brown in order to easily and accurately use the surveying equipment for taking measurements.
PNG
media_image4.png
442
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 1. Crain in view of Brown further discloses wherein the first actuator (Crain, 171) is a first linear actuator and the second actuator (171) is a second linear actuator (Examiner is interpreting “linear” as actuation in a linear direction such as telescopic actuation similar to instant specification Para 0014 “ a bipod system capable of manipulating the position of the end of the pole by adjusting the lengths of the legs of the bipod (e.g., via a system of linear actuators, etc)”.
Regarding Claim 3, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 1. Crain in view of Brown further discloses wherein the first leg (Crain, 19) is coupled to the connector (17,201) by a first joint (Fig 13) and the second leg (21) is coupled to the connector (17,201) by a second joint (Fig 13) but does not explicitly disclose a ball joint connection.
Brown discloses (Fig 1) a ball joint connection (34) [Para 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed bipod system of Crain in view of Brown with ball joint connection as further taught by Brown in order to have the degrees of freedom desired for positioning the target area.
Regarding Claim 5, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 1. Crain in view of Brown further discloses further comprising user controls (Actuators 171 are controlled by user) that receive the user input (Input from prism 15 and or level 13), wherein the user controls comprise physical control features (171 is a physical part ) that facilitate the user input as manual user inputs (Actuators 171 are manually operated based on input from prism 15 and or level 13).
Regarding Claim 8, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 1. Crain in view of Brown further discloses wherein the connector (Fig 13, 201)comprises a clasp (9) configured to secure the elongated pole to the bipod system by closing around the elongated pole (3).
Regarding Claim 9, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 1. Crain in view of Brown further discloses further comprising at least one of a camera, a distance sensor, or a laser pointer [Crain, Para 0080 discloses “a prism 15 at the top of the pole 3 is used to sight or determine positions with laser, modulated infrared, angular and/or GPS position locators or the like”] to provide user feedback regarding a position [0080] of the upper end (15) of the elongated pole (3).
Regarding Claim 10, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 8. Crain in view of Brown further discloses wherein the elongated pole (Crain, 3) and the adjustable bipod system (1) form a tripod (Fig 2)[Para 0104].
Regarding Claim 13, Crain discloses the method of claim 11. Crain further discloses wherein at least one of the first length (19 extension or retraction) or the second length (21 extension or retraction) is adjusted in response to a user input (Input from prism 15 and or level 13) associated with the bipod system but does not disclose user input received by an electronic control system.
Brown discloses (Fig 1) user input received by an electronic control system (60) [Para 0023 discloses “singly actuated” or “multiply actuated”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed bipod system of Crain with user input received by electronic control system as taught by Brown in order to easily and accurately use the surveying equipment for taking measurements.
Regarding Claim 14, Crain discloses (Figs 1-2,13) a bipod system, comprising:
a first leg (19) comprising a first actuator (171)[Para 0099] configured to change the length (19 is extendable and retractable) of the first leg in response to a first control signal (Examiner interprets same as Instant specification “change the length of the first leg in response to a first control signal, wherein changing the length of the first leg moves the elongated pole in a first direction” which is same as Crain in Fig 2 where based on input from 15,13, length of 19 is adjusted to achieve a certain position) ;
a second leg (21) comprising a second actuator (171) configured to change the length of the second leg in response to a second control signal [Examiner interprets same as Instant specification “change the length of the second leg in response to a second control signal, wherein changing the length of the second leg moves the elongated pole in a second direction” which is same as Crain in Fig 2 where based on input from 15,13, length of 21 is adjusted to achieve a certain position);
an elongated pole (3) that is secured to the bipod system via a connector (17,201); and
a user input to move the elongated pole (3) based on a change to the length of at least one of the first leg (19) and the second leg (21) but does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to generate the first control signal and the second control signal in response to a user input.
Brown discloses (Fig 1) a controller (60) configured to generate the first control signal and the second control signal in response to a user input [Para 0023 discloses “singly actuated” or “multiply actuated”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed bipod system of Crain with controller controlling the lengths of first and second legs as taught by Brown in order to easily and accurately use the surveying equipment for taking measurements.
Regarding Claim 15, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 14. Crain in view of Brown further discloses wherein the first actuator (Crain, 171) is a first linear actuator and the second actuator (171) is a second linear actuator (Examiner is interpreting “linear” as actuation in a linear direction such as telescopic actuation similar to instant specification Para 0014 “ a bipod system capable of manipulating the position of the end of the pole by adjusting the lengths of the legs of the bipod (e.g., via a system of linear actuators, etc)”.
Regarding Claim 16, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 14. Crain in view of Brown further discloses wherein the first leg (Crain, 19) is coupled to the connector (17,201) by a first joint (Fig 13) and the second leg (21) is coupled to the connector (17,201) by a second joint (Fig 13) but does not explicitly disclose a ball joint connection.
Brown discloses (Fig 1) a ball joint connection (34) [Para 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed bipod system of Crain in view of Brown with ball joint connection as further taught by Brown in order to have the degrees of freedom desired for positioning the target area.
Regarding Claim 18, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 14. Crain in view of Brown further discloses further comprising user controls (Actuators 171 are controlled by user) that receive the user input (Input from prism 15 and or level 13), wherein the user controls comprise physical control features (171 is a physical part ) that facilitate the user input as manual user inputs (Actuators 171 are manually operated based on input from prism 15 and or level 13).
Regarding Claim 19, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 14. Crain in view of Brown further discloses wherein the connector (Crain, Fig 13, 201)comprises a clasp (9) configured to secure the elongated pole to the bipod system by closing around the elongated pole (3).
Regarding Claim 20, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 14. Crain in view of Brown further discloses wherein the elongated pole (Crain,3) is a telescoping pole [0080], the bipod system further comprising a lengthening actuator (See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section) configured to adjust a length of the telescoping pole in response to a third control signal (can be height or angle as system possesses multiple degrees of freedom. Specification does not provide any detail of third control signal, therefore interpretation can be broad) provided by the controller (Brown, 60).
Claims 4,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crain in view of Brown and Hartman et al (US4767090A), hereinafter Hartman.
Regarding Claim 4, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 1. Crain in view of Brown does not explicitly disclose further comprising a flexible tether interconnecting the first leg and the second leg to limit a maximum distance between the first leg and the second leg.
Hartman discloses (Fig 33) comprising a flexible tether (398) interconnecting the first leg (44) and the second leg (44) to limit a maximum distance between the first leg and the second leg [Col 20, 36-38].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed bipod system of Crain in view of Brown with flexible tether between first and second leg as taught by Hartman in order to limit the extent to which legs can be spread thereby preventing any inadvertent damage to equipment.
PNG
media_image5.png
418
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 14. Crain in view of Brown does not explicitly disclose a lower end of the first leg is coupled to a lower end of the second leg by a flexible material that limits a maximum distance between the lower end of the first leg and the lower end of the second leg.
Hartman discloses (Fig 33) a lower end of the first leg (44) is coupled to a lower end of the second leg (44) by a flexible material (398) that limits a maximum distance between the lower end of the first leg and the lower end of the second leg [Col 20, 36-38].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed bipod system of Crain in view of Brown with flexible material between first and second leg as taught by Hartman in order to limit the extent to which legs can be spread thereby preventing any inadvertent damage to equipment.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crain in view of Brown and Hotz et al (US20220011105A1), hereinafter Hotz.
Regarding Claim 6, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 5. Crain in view of Brown does not explicitly disclose wherein the user controls comprise a multi-axis joystick.
Hotz discloses [Para 0006] wherein the user controls comprise a multi-axis joystick [Para 0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed bipod system of Crain in view of Brown with user controls comprising a joystick as taught by Hotz in order to have a convenient way for positioning the target area.
Regarding Claim 7, Crain in view of Brown discloses the bipod system of claim 1. Crain in view of Brown discloses further comprising user controls (Crain, Actuators 171 are controlled by user) that receive the user input (Input from prism 15 and or level 13) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the user controls comprise a touchscreen that facilitates the user input as one or more of a touch or a gesture.
Hotz discloses [Para 0006] wherein the user controls comprise a touchscreen [0006] that facilitates the user input as one or more of a touch or a gesture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed bipod system of Crain in view of Brown with user controls comprising a touchscreen as taught by Hotz in order to have a convenient way for positioning the target area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights