DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 received on 11/21/2024 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-11 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024, 09/29/2025 and 02/19/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
Claim 1-11: construction assistance device (generic placeholder) generates (function)
Claim 1: underground search machine (generic placeholder) measures (function)
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “construction assistance device”, it is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure comprising of a processor and equivalents thereof as supported by FIG. 1 and portion of paragraph [0011] and [0049] of the specification reproduced below:
[0011] Each component of the construction assistance device 10 is configured of a calculation processing device (a single-core processor, or a multi-core processor or a processor core constituting the same), reads necessary data and software.
[0049] construction assistance image data generation element 122 generates construction assistance image data as “construction assistance data”
Regarding “underground search machine”, it is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure comprising of a sensor or radar and equivalents thereof as supported by FIG. 1 and portion of paragraph [0028] of the specification reproduced below:
[0028] The depth position measurement element 611 is configured of an underground radar device and measures the depth position of an underground buried object from the ground surface.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the depth positions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-9 are dependent on claim 2, and fail to cure the deficiencies thereof, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the three-dimensional object". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The issues above arise due to introduction a singular noun parameter on each of “plurality of areas/objects”, and then later referring to multiple singular noun parameters, or vice-versa, is raising antecedent issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to an apparatus, i.e. a machine.
Claim 11 are directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-11 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A construction assistance device, comprising an underground search machine, wherein
the underground search machine measures a depth position from a ground surface in each of a plurality of underground search areas, and
construction assistance data is generated that includes a plurality of objects each representing the depth position from the ground surface, the objects each being arranged in each of the plurality of underground search areas.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim limitation of generating construction assistance data is equivalent to a mental process of judgement based on observation. For example, a person can generate a map with depth information based on provided measurements.
Accordingly, claims 1-11 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A construction assistance device, comprising an underground search machine, wherein
the underground search machine measures a depth position from a ground surface in each of a plurality of underground search areas, and
construction assistance data is generated that includes a plurality of objects each representing the depth position from the ground surface, the objects each being arranged in each of the plurality of underground search areas.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “measures a depth position from a ground surface in each of a plurality of underground search areas” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a “sensor” for mere data gathering. In particular, the “sensor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely performs its intended function, thus simply being an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a generic computer to “generating construction assistance data” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “measures a depth position”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the generating construction assistance data or the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above.
Therefore, claims 1-11 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUYA (JP 2021189127 A), in view of Blanchard (US20150347637A1).
YUYA is cited in the IDS received on 11/21/2024.
The Espacenet English translation of YUYA referenced by the Examiner is attached.
Regarding claim 1, YUYA teaches a construction assistance device,
comprising an underground search machine, wherein the underground search machine measures a depth position from a ground surface (FIGs. 1A-1E; para. [0008]: “Figures 1A to 1E show the excavation support system 1 for the work machine. […] coordinating a ground-penetrating exploration device 30 having a radar 35 for searching for buried objects U underground”; para. [0034]: “a first acquisition unit 62a that acquires the allowable depth d1 of the radar 35 of the ground-penetrating device 30, and a second acquisition unit 62b that acquires the position (excavation position) where the radar 35 of the ground-penetrating device 30 has conducted an exploration”) in each of a plurality of underground search areas (FIG. 2; FIG. 4A-4B; FIG. 5; para. [0038]: “workspace map M1 is a mesh-type map that divides a single workspace into multiple areas Qn (n = 1, 2, 3...n). […] ”, wherein multiple areas indicates each of a plurality of underground search areas), and
construction assistance data is generated that includes a plurality of values each representing the depth position from the ground surface, the values each being arranged in each of the plurality of underground search areas (FIG. 2; FIG. 4A-4B; para. [0037]-[0038]: “the first display unit 61 associates the excavation location with the depth of the buried object U from the ground surface S if the depth of the buried object U detected at the excavation location is less than the allowable depth d1 […] the work area map M1 is a map in which multiple groups (multiple ranks) indicating exploration results and allowable depth d1 are assigned to each of the segmented data D1n (n = 1, 2, 3...n) corresponding to multiple areas Qn, according to the size (value) of the segmented data D1n. In other words, in the work area map M1, each of the multiple areas Qn is designated with a pre-assigned group (rank) and indicated by color, numbers, letters, etc., so that the group (rank) can be identified. In the example shown in Figure 2, the numerical values indicated within multiple areas Qn on the work area map M1 represent the exploration results and the allowable depth d1”; para. [0040]: “Figure 2, a configuration was described in which each segmented data is assigned a group according to the allowable depth d1 and displayed. However, the system is not limited to this configuration, and it may also display numerical values for the allowable depth or the depth of the buried object”), but fails to specifically teach plurality of objects.
However, Blanchard teaches plurality of objects each representing the depth position from the ground surface (FIG. 4; para. [0040]: “Therefore, portion 414 illustrated in red denotes a region at which the worksite's elevation is above grade, blue portions 416 illustrate areas of the worksite that have elevations below grade, and green portions 418 illustrates areas of the worksite that are on grade.”; FIG. 7; para. [0059]: “FIG. 7 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a 3D visualisation of the 3D model that was illustrated in a 2D plan view in FIG. 4. […] Similarly, bars below the design surface which correspond to differences in elevation that diverge from the design elevation by more than a negative deviation limit are indicated in blue as shown at 718. Bars having a magnitude between these positive and negative elevation deviation limits are indicated by green bars 720.”, wherein the 2D model has squares with color to show the elevation, and 3D model has bars to depict elevation).
YUYA is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the detection of buried objects and their depths. Blanchard is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of visualization of data in various formats. 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 values in the meshed map (FIG. 2) of YUYA with the bars in the 2D and 3D visualizations of Blanchard, including a bar depicting the object depth corresponding to the location. Doing so will allow an alternative visualization to providing numbers, and provide a visual model of the depth map, thus the user can clearly visualize the depth in the map.
Regarding claim 2, YUYA in view of Blanchard teaches the construction assistance device according to claim 1. YUYA further teaches wherein construction assistance data is generated such that each of the depth positions represents a representative depth position of an underground search point group consisting of one or more underground search points of a measured underground buried object (para. [0043]: “Here, if there are multiple allowable depths d1 or exploration results that fall into area Qn, the first map calculation unit 62c, for example, averages the data values (buried object depth or allowable depth d1) and assigns the average depth as the segmented data D1n corresponding to area Qn. Furthermore, if there is only one data point to enter area Qn, the first map calculation unit 62c assigns that data point as the segmented data D1n corresponding to area Qn.”; para. [0040]: “Figure 2, […] it may also display numerical values for the allowable depth or the depth of the buried object”, wherein average depth of multiple allowable depths d1 indicates representative depth position of an underground search point group consisting of one or more underground search points of a measured underground buried object).
Regarding claim 3, YUYA in view of Blanchard teaches the construction assistance device according to claim 2 YUYA in view of Blanchard further teaches wherein construction assistance image data is generated as the construction assistance data, the construction assistance image data representing an image including the plurality of objects (YUYA FIG. 2; YUYA para. [0037]-[0038]: “the first display unit 61 can display a work area map M1, which shows a map of the area surrounding the work area where the work device 5 performs excavation work. […] The work site map M1 displayed by the first display unit 61 shows at least the excavation location (exploration location) and the allowable depth d1.”; Blanchard FIG. 4 and FIG. 7; Blanchard para. [0059]: “Bars having a magnitude between these positive and negative elevation”).
Regarding claim 4, YUYA in view of Blanchard teaches the construction assistance device according to claim 3. The combination of YUYA in view of Blanchard further teaches wherein the construction assistance image data is generated that represents an image including a plurality of closed surfaces as the plurality of objects (YUYA FIG. 2; Blanchard FIG. 4 and FIG. 7; Blanchard para. [0059]: “Bars having a magnitude between these positive and negative elevation”, wherein “bars” indicate plurality of closed surfaces), the plurality of closed surfaces each being arranged at the representative depth position in each of the plurality of underground search areas (YUYA FIG. 2; YUYA para. [0038]: “the workspace map M1 is a mesh-type map that divides a single workspace into multiple areas Qn (n = 1, 2, 3...n).”).
Regarding claim 6, YUYA in view of Blanchard teaches the construction assistance device according to claim 4. The combination of YUYA in view of Blanchard further teaches wherein the construction assistance image data is generated that represents an image including the plurality of closed surfaces having the same shape (YUYA FIG. 2; Blanchard FIG. 4 and 7, wherein 2D and 3D model shows same grid or bars having the same shape).
Regarding claim 7, YUYA in view of Blanchard teaches the construction assistance device according to claim 3. The combination of YUYA in view of Blanchard further teaches wherein the plurality of objects are classified into a plurality of object groups depending on a relative arrangement aspect of each of the plurality of objects (YUYA Table 1; YUYA para. [0038]: “with a pre-assigned group (rank) and indicated by color, numbers, letters, etc., so that the group (rank) can be identified”; YUYA para. [0039]: “the segmented data D1n is divided into five groups according to its numerical value, with the smallest group assigned to "Group 1 G1" and the largest group assigned to "Group 5". Between "Group 1 G1" and "Group 5 G5," the groups with the lowest numerical values are assigned in descending order: "Group 2 G2," "Group 3 G3," and "Group 4 G4." Note that the grouping of the divided data D1n is arbitrary and not limited to the example described above. The numerical values shown in Figure 3 are for illustrative purposes only and are not limiting. In this embodiment, the "fifth group" indicates the allowable depth d1. Furthermore, "Groups 1 to 4" indicate the depth from the ground surface S of buried object U (buried object depth) when buried object U is detected as a result of the radar 35's survey.”; Blanchard FIG. 5; Blanchard para. [0048]: “The colour scale 500 maps a defined range of altitudes to a palette of colours that varies continuously and smoothly across the range of altitudes. In this way each elevation value or altitude has a corresponding colour.”), and the construction assistance image data is generated that represents an image in which each of the plurality of objects is identifiable by a design corresponding to one object group to which the object belongs (YUYA FIG. 2; Blanchard FIG. 7, wherein depth is used to determine one object group to which the object belongs).
Regarding claim 8, YUYA in view of Blanchard teaches the construction assistance device according to claim 3. The combination of YUYA in view of Blanchard further teaches wherein the construction assistance image data is generated that represents an image including a plurality of three-dimensional objects as the plurality of objects, the plurality of three-dimensional objects each extending from a ground surface to the representative depth position in each of the plurality of underground search areas (YUYA FIG. 2; Blanchard FIG. 7; Blanchard para. [0059]: “Bars having a magnitude between these positive and negative elevation”).
Regarding claim 9, YUYA in view of Blanchard teaches the construction assistance device according to claim 8. The combination of YUYA in view of Blanchard further teaches wherein the construction assistance image data is generated that represents an image including the plurality of three- dimensional objects having a same shape or a same shape resulting from projecting the three-dimensional object onto a horizontal plane (YUYA FIG. 2; Blanchard FIG. 7; Blanchard para. [0059]: “Bars having a magnitude between these positive and negative elevation”, wherein the bars have the same shape).
Regarding claim 11, it recites a construction assistance method comprising claim limitations similar to those performed by the construction assistance device of claim 2, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUYA, in view of Blanchard, and further in view of Olsson (US9465129B1).
Regarding claim 5, YUYA in view of Blanchard teaches the construction assistance device according to claim 4. The combination of YUYA in view of Blanchard further teaches wherein the construction assistance image data is generated that represents an image including a single closed surface as part of the plurality of objects, the single closed surface corresponding to a result (YUYA FIG. 2; YUYA para. [0043]: “if there are multiple allowable depths d1 or exploration results that fall into area Qn, the first map calculation unit 62c, for example, averages the data values (buried object depth or allowable depth d1) and assigns the average depth as the segmented data D1n corresponding to area Qn. Furthermore, if there is only one data point to enter area Qn, the first map calculation unit 62c assigns that data point as the segmented data D1n corresponding to area Qn”; Blanchard FIG. 7), but fails to specifically teach synthesizing a plurality of the closed surfaces in each of overlapping underground search areas among the plurality of underground search areas.
However, Olsson teaches synthesizing a plurality of the closed surfaces in each of overlapping underground search areas among the plurality of underground search areas (FIG. 2; FIG. 3A; FIG. 3B; col 5 lines 5-15: “FIG. 3B a series of location flags 311 represents a sampling of the detection data captured by the locator indicating the path of the pipe 306 and a branch pipe 308. Increased resolution may be achieved in areas of overlaps through the process of variable-pixel linear reconstruction, known in the art as drizzling”).
Olsson is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the detection of buried objects and their depths. Therefore, 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 each area Qn of YUYA in view of Blanchard with the teachings of Olsson, and measure depth in overlapping areas. Doing so will allow increase resolution by getting multiple detection data (Olsson, col 5 lines 5-15).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUYA, in view of Blanchard, and further in view of Otsuki (JP2004109084A).
Otsuki is cited in the IDS received on 11/21/2024.
Google English translation of Otsuki referenced by the Examiner is attached.
Regarding claim 10, YUYA in view of Blanchard teaches the construction assistance device according to claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the plurality of underground search areas are spaced apart from each other.
However, Otsuki teaches wherein the plurality of underground search areas are spaced apart from each other (FIG. 4; FIG. 8; para. [0024]: “Then, the measurer moves from the position directly above the manhole (1) to the position immediately above the manhole (2) to the next measuring point further separated by a predetermined distance, and performs measurement by the above-described processing operation of the PDA 11. Is repeated until just above the manhole (2). At this time, the PDA 11 can display, by operation of the measurer, a longitudinal section and a cross section displaying depth information shown in FIGS. 8 and 9 at the stage when at least two points have been measured. That is, the PDA 11 reads the depth information and the GPS information at the plurality of measurement points, and displays the information on the display unit by connecting the two closest measurement points.”).
Olsson is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the detection of buried objects and their depths. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify measurement period of YUYA in view of Blanchard with the teachings of Otsuki, and separate by a predetermined distance. Doing so allows adjusting the frequency of measurement, thus a longer measurement interval, resulting in saving time while maintaining resolution by interpolating via the closest measurements available.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LEE (KR 102399227 B1) teaches creating a virtual underground facility by means of a GPS-AR device, it is possible to provide the location and information of the underground facility in the construction site to the worker through the GPS-AR device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights