FINAL REJECTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that:
“Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, that the vision-based sensor is arranged to capture at least one image of the concrete surface in response to actuation of the trigger. In other words, claim 1 requires a trigger arranged to receive a command from an operator of the inspection tool. The vision-based sensor according to claim 1 is arranged to capture at least one image of the concrete surface in response to actuation of the trigger.
Applicants respectfully submit that Scwartz fails to disclose that the vision-based sensor is arranged to capture at least one image of the concrete surface in response to actuation of the trigger. In this regard, Scwartz discloses an onboard communication system 86 that "enables a user to remotely provide commands to the power trowel such as, for example but not limited to, power the power source on or off and the like, remotely provide information such as, for example but not limited to, a desired path to be taken and the like, remotely view information such as, for example but not limited to, view images from cameras and the like, and remotely receive information form the power trowel such as, for example but not limited to, receive warnings, status updates, and the like." (Scwartz, [0043]). The cameras described by Scwartz appear to continuously monitor and provide a sort of "live image" feed of the concrete surface. There is no disclosure in Scwartz of a vision-based sensor which is selective in that it captures at least one image of the concrete surface in response to actuation of a trigger. More specifically, Scwartz does not identify a (manually operable) trigger that receives a command from the operator and causes image acquisition in response to the command. Scwartz discloses the operator being able to access and receive the image data, but not that the operator initiates the image acquisition. Receiving or viewing images generated by continuously operating inspection cameras is not equivalent to actuating a trigger which initiates a high-resolution image capture. Scwartz does not suggest that any type of image capture event begins when the user requests it. Rather, Scwartz suggests the cameras are already generating image data and the user may receive that data through real time "live images".
Finally, the workflow described by the automatic detection of Scwartz is the opposite of what is taught by the claimed trigger-based workflow of claim 1. Claim 1 recites a discrete sequence- an operator-initiated command, trigger actuation, and image capture responsive to the trigger actuation. In contrast, Scwartz's workflow looks more like- inspection cameras view concrete surface, controller automatically detects blemishes, controller automatically takes corrective action. Thus, Scwartz relies on automated monitoring rather than operator triggered inspection. Applicants respectfully submit that Scwartz fails to teach that the vision-based sensor is arranged to capture at least one image of the concrete surface in response to actuation of the trigger. Thus, Applicants further respectfully submit that independent claim 1 is patentable over Scwartz.” (pages 8-9, remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Scwartz teaches that the onboard communication system 86 enables communication between the onboard controller 12 and remote communication devices 18, 20 that may be a users mobile device, and the onboard communication system 86 enables the user to remotely provide commands to the power trowel 11 including power the power source 82 on or off (paragraph 43). The powering on/off of the trowel 11 by the onboard communication system 86 and the inspection camera 90 are interpreted as the claimed “trigger arranged to receive a command from the operator” where the inspection camera 90 is powered on (triggered), thereby being arranged to “capture at least one image of the concrete surface in response to actuation of the trigger”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 of the claim reads “according to claim1” and it should read --according to claim 1--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-10, 14, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scwartz U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0140181.
With respect to claims 1 and 30, Scwartz teaches an inspection tool for inspection of a concrete surface (autonomous power trowel 11 having a frame 76, figure 4), the inspection tool comprising a vision-based sensor arranged to be directed at a section of the concrete surface (inspection camera 90, paragraph 38), guiding means for allowing an operator to move the vision-based sensor over the concrete surface (at least one rotor 78 to finish the concrete and to selectively operate the at least one actuator 84 to tilt the at least one rotor 78 to steer the frame and to move the frame 76 in a desired direction, paragraph 38), a trigger arranged to receive a command from the operator, wherein the vision-based sensor is arranged to capture at least one image of the concrete surface in response to actuation of the trigger (the onboard communication system 86 enables communication between the onboard controller 12 and remote communication devices 18, 20 and the onboard communication 86 system enables the user to remotely provide commands to the power trowel 11 to remotely provide information such as a desired path to be taken and the like and remotely view images from cameras, paragraph 43), a control system arranged to analyze the at least one image of the concrete surface in terms of a surface quality of the section of the concrete surface (the onboard inspection cameras 90 provide a view of an upper surface of the concrete in order to detect blemishes in the surface of the concrete and the onboard inspection cameras 90 are connected to the onboard controller 12 so that the onboard controller 12 can automatically detect blemishes in the surface of the concrete, paragraph 47), and a data interface and/or a display unit arranged to output and/or to present a result of the surface quality analysis to the operator (the images can be sent to the user remote device 20 for viewing and detecting surface blemishes by the user, paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 2, Swartz teaches wherein the surface quality analysis comprises (Further defining the “surface quality analysis” further defines a function of the claimed control system and an a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114 II). Therefore, the described functions are not required in the prior art and the prior art only need be capable of performing the described functions.) presence of scratch marks, cracks in the surface, and/or a level of surface gloss (interpreted as detecting blemishes, paragraph 47), or (alternative language means the prior art does not need be capable of the following function) wherein the surface quality analysis comprises a suitable grinding tool grit for processing the surface.
With respect to claim 5, Scwartz teaches a surface cleaning arrangement (interpreted as watering system 118, paragraph 48) arranged to remove dust from the surface prior to capture of the at least one image of the concrete surface by the vision-based sensor (the watering system is interpreted as being capable of removing dust), or (the alternative language means the watering system does not have to be capable of performing the following function) a lens cleaning arrangement arranged to remove dust from a lens of the vision-based sensor prior to capture of the at least one image of the concrete surface by the vision-based sensor.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Scwartz teaches a positioning system arranged to position the inspection tool on the concrete surface (interpreted as the at least one actuator 84 to tilt the at least one rotor 78 to steer the frame and to move the frame 76 in a desired direction, paragraph 38), and wherein the positioning system is based on determination of an angle of departure of a laser beam emitted by a laser transmitter arranged to be supported at a pre-determined distance above a base plane of the concrete surface (The terms “based on” are interpreted as further defining a function of the claimed positioning system not the structure of the apparatus and an a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114 II). Therefore, the described functions are not required in the prior art and the prior art only need be capable of performing the described functions. Further, the claimed “a laser beam” and “laser transmitter” are not positively recited in the claim, thereby the configuration of the above elements into the claimed function is interpreted as not being required in the prior art.).
With respect to claim 10, Scwartz teaches an electrical energy storage device arranged to provide electrical power to the inspection tool (power source 82 can alternatively be of any other suitable type such as, for example but not limited to, an electric motor powered by an onboard battery or batteries 104, paragraph 41), an internal data storage device configured to store an amount of data associated with the concrete surface (onboard computer or controller 12, paragraph 29), or an input/output circuit for data, and/or a wireless communications transceiver (communication system 24, paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 14, Scwartz teaches wherein the guiding means comprises: manual guiding means comprising a handle arranged attached to the vision-based sensor at a distal end of the handle, a trolley supporting the vision-based sensor on a bottom part of the trolley, or a sled arranged to be slidably supported on the concrete surface, or a remote controlled robot or a robot arranged to move autonomously over the concrete surface, or wherein the inspection tool is integrated in concrete surface processing equipment, such as a floor grinder, a power trowel, or a dust extractor (The concrete inspection is part of a power trowel, figure 4. The alternative language means only one limitation is required in the prior art.).
With respect to claims, 19-21, Scwartz teaches wherein the control system (the controller 12 is interpreted as being capable of the following functions) is arranged to control the light sources and the at least one image sensor in a shape from shadow, SFS, process to generate a 3D representation of a section of the concrete surface, wherein the control system is arranged to generate a plurality of 3D representations of the section of the concrete surface by a plurality of image sensors, where the control system is arranged to perform a stereoscopic procedure to determine a 3D representation of the concrete surface comprising depth information, wherein the control system is arranged to perform a plurality of SFS processes and corresponding stereoscopic process for each elevation angle out of a predetermined plurality of elevation angles (The term “arranged to” are interpreted as further defining a function of the claimed control system not the structure of the apparatus and an a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114 II). Therefore, the described functions are not required in the prior art and the prior art only need be capable of performing the described functions.).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scwartz U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0140181 in view of Yamamoto JP2016176203 (citations from translation).
With respect to claim 4, Scwartz teaches the claimed invention except a height detection system arranged to detect a height of the inspection tool relative to a reference height, wherein the height detection system comprises an array of photodiodes.
Yamamoto teaches an unevenness adjusting robot 10 includes a chassis 12, left and right wheels 14A and 14B, left and right wheel motors 16A and 16B, auxiliary wheels 18 (page 2), and a level sensor 28 that detects a laser reference surface 44 (FIG. 3) formed along a horizontal plane at a predetermined height, thereby detecting the height of the chassis 12 (page 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device Scwartz with the a sensor that detects height of the framing as taught by Yamamoto in order to provide a more reliable autonomous device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scwartz U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0140181 in view of Watterson et al. U.S. Patent 5,879,626.
With respect to claim 7, Scwartz teaches the claimed invention except a pressurized gas system for dispensing pressurized gas, such as air or carbon dioxide, into an interior of the 3D camera sensor and/or onto the concrete surface and/or onto a lens of the vision-based sensor.
Watterson teaches a photoelectric sensor having a dust removal apparatus wherein when the lens 22 of the photoelectric sensor 20 becomes obstructed by dust, the programmable controller 12 opens a valve 18 which causes a pulse of air to be directed toward the lens 22 of the photoelectric sensor 20 (col. 3 lines 53-59).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Scwartz and provide a dust removal dispensing of air on the lens as taught by Watterson in order to restore the lens to an optimal level of operation (col. 3 line 59, Watterson).
Claim(s) 13 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scwartz U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0140181 in view of Yuge et al. WO2019176733 (translation used for citations).
With respect to claims 13 and 25, Scwartz teaches the claimed invention except a durometer and/or a device arranged to form a scratch in the concrete surface, wherein the durometer and/or the device is arranged to determine a surface hardness level of the concrete surface, and an analog or electronic spirit level arranged to indicate an angle of the inspection tool relative to a vertical reference axis.
Yuge teaches a concrete finishing device wherein a surface sensor 38 and the camera 39 obtain information for a trowel frame 3, and the surface sensor 38, a non-contact type 3D scanner such as a laser scanner or a surface hardness meter can be used (page 6), and the control device 33 further includes a leveling condition acquisition unit 33f that determines a level of the blade and thereby the apparatus 2 (pages 7-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Scwartz with the surface hardness meter and determining a surface hardness as well as the leveling determination of the device as taught by Yuge in order to provide a more reliable finishing device.
Claim(s) 16, 22, 24, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scwartz U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0140181 in view of Huang U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0321582.
With respect to claims 16, 22, 24, 26, and 28, Scwartz teaches the claimed invention except wherein the vision-based sensor comprises a 3D camera sensor arranged closer than about 30 cm from the concrete surface, and wherein the 3D camera sensor comprises a plurality of spatially separated light sources and one or more image sensors or a plurality of image sensors arranged for stereoscopic vision, a projector component of the structured light image sensor is arranged to operate in a defocused mode of operation, at least one laser transmitter arranged to be supported at a pre-determined distance above a base plane of the concrete surface and distanced from the guiding means, or (alternative language means the following limitation is not required in the prior art) wherein a light shield is configured to enclose the vision-based sensor and the section of the concrete surface, wherein the vision-based sensor comprises an image sensor with a resolution at or above 13 megapixels or wherein the vision-based sensor comprises a structured light image sensor, and wherein the vision-based sensor comprises at least one light source such as one or more light emitting diodes, LED, and/or a projector device arranged to project an image onto the concrete surface, and at least one detector arranged to capture an image of the surface, where the light source and the detector are spatially separated from each other, and wherein the light source is arranged to illuminate a section of the concrete surface from a first angle and where the detector is arranged to observe the section of the concrete surface from a second angle different from the first angle.
Huang teaches a 3D surface measurement system 100 for measuring surface features that includes pattern projector 110 at a first angle and at least one digital imaging devices 120a and 120b at a second angles mounted close to a test surface (paragraph 45, figure 1) and image processing device 130, where the lens may be out of focus (paragraph 38), where the pattern projector may project a pattern of light 140 on surface 150 of object 160 (paragraphs 35-36), and an optical mirror 190 where the mirror may be used to change the light direction from the pattern projector and extend the length of the optical path of the pattern projector (paragraph 45).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Scwartz with the surface measurement method of image gathering of Huang in order to provide more accurate measurement of pavement texture and other features would be highly desirable (paragraph 8, Huang).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scwartz U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0140181 in view of Okkonen et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0381687.
With respect to claim 30, Scwartz teaches an inspection tool for inspection of a concrete surface (autonomous power trowel 11 having a frame 76, figure 4), the inspection tool comprising a vision-based sensor arranged to be directed at a section of the concrete surface (inspection camera 90, paragraph 38), guiding means for allowing an operator to move the vision-based sensor over the concrete surface (at least one rotor 78 to finish the concrete and to selectively operate the at least one actuator 84 to tilt the at least one rotor 78 to steer the frame and to move the frame 76 in a desired direction, paragraph 38), a trigger arranged to receive a command from the operator, wherein the vision-based sensor is arranged to capture at least one image of the concrete surface in response to actuation of the trigger (the onboard communication system 86 enables communication between the onboard controller 12 and remote communication devices 18, 20 and the onboard communication 86 system enables the user to remotely provide commands to the power trowel 11 to remotely provide information such as a desired path to be taken and the like and remotely view images from cameras, paragraph 43), a control system arranged to analyze the at least one image of the concrete surface in terms of a surface quality of the section of the concrete surface (the onboard inspection cameras 90 provide a view of an upper surface of the concrete in order to detect blemishes in the surface of the concrete and the onboard inspection cameras 90 are connected to the onboard controller 12 so that the onboard controller 12 can automatically detect blemishes in the surface of the concrete, paragraph 47), and a data interface and/or a display unit arranged to output and/or to present a result of the surface quality analysis to the operator (the images can be sent to the user remote device 20 for viewing and detecting surface blemishes by the user, paragraph 47).
Scwartz fails to teach a light shield configured to enclose the vision-based sensor and the section of the concrete surface and engaging the light shield with the section of the concrete surface to shield the vision-based sensor and the section of the concrete surface from ambient light.
Okkonen teaches a method and apparatus for determining the quality of concrete comprising a sampling device 1 having computer system 10 for controlling an imaging device 12 having a photosensitive sensor and optics 13, and the camera 12 and the optics 13 may be located in a housing 14 (interpreted as a shield) where the housing is partly submerged in fresh concrete 17 (engaged with the concrete) and may be located in a suitable vessel (paragraphs 38-39, figure 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the location and structure of the camera of Scwartz (operational direction and location of the camera may be modified, paragraph 47, Scwartz) with the camera shielding housing of as taught by Okkonen in order to protect the camera and provide more accurate images from the camera for inspection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 10/9/2026
