DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 September has been entered.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s response with respect to the objection to claim 1 has been fully considered and is accepted. The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1 and 11 alter the scope of the claimed inventions in an attempt to overcome the applied references. Specifically, "deriving non-metal objects behind the opaque surface using the patterns of metals" was deleted, and "further comprising analyzing relational information between ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals" was added.
Upon consideration, it is noted that the remarks filed with the amendment do not clarify what is meant by "analyzing relational information between ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals," nor do the paragraphs specifically called out in the reply use this language. Notably, amended claims 1 and 11 also do not state what the analysis involves or what purpose the analysis is for. The applicant has also failed to provide any support for the assertion that the cited references do not teach such a feature. Accordingly, this assertion is not persuasive, and "analyzing relational information between ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals" is broadly interpreted as corresponding to any type of analysis or processing of such relational information, however superficial it may be. In recording and displaying sensor and location data, the locating device 10 of Watts is understood to analyze relational information between ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals when signals from both types of metals are present in a scan and displayed in areas 12F and 12G of the device 10 as in fig. 4B.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 5-7 and 15-17 have also been considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, applicant argues that the combination of Watts, Rhead, and Balet does not expressly teach the elements of claims 5 and 15, because Hubbard does not teach how the copper pipes behind the wall can be detected and analyzed. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the instant case, it is important to note col. 3, l. 50 to col. 4, l. 34 of the Watts reference. Specifically, here Watts is understood to teach that it is possible to identify specific types of building features within a wall based on the types of sensors that returned signals, and based on physical characteristics obtained from sensor data. The example given is that studs can be identified by their material, width in a wall, and also by the fact that studs are known to be spaced apart at prescribed intervals. ("In other words, if an object is detected that is about 1.5 inches wide, controller 82 may interpret such object to be a stud. Similarly, controller 82 notes that two objects are about 16, 24 or 36 inches apart and made of wood, as wood studs are normally provided at such distances, controller 82 can increase the confidence level for both objects."). Watts states more broadly that "Persons skilled in the art will recognize that controller 82 can also identify the different objects by their width or distance between items." The table in col. 3-4 of Watts lists wood studs, metal studs, ferrous metal pipe, non-ferrous metal pipe, electric wire, and PVC pipe (empty and full) as detectable types of objects, and in this light, clearly, Watts' identification technique is applicable to at least wood studs, metal studs, ferrous metal pipe, non-ferrous metal pipe, electric wire, and PVC pipe (empty and full), though it is no intuitive leap that other objects may similarly be detected based on how they are known to exist within walls.
Hubbard was relied upon to teach one known example of how copper piping (non-ferrous metal piping) is known to be arranged within a wall, and the examiner maintains that it would be obvious to use knowledge of how such piping is arranged within a wall, such as the arrangement taught by Hubbard, to identify said piping from sensor data gathered by the base device of Watts et al.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, the applicant argues that the applied combination "does not expressly teach the element of identifying an intersection of two adjoining drywall sheets based on the patterns of metal fasteners behind the opaque surface". The examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is again noted that these rejections are based on combinations of references, and Smoot teaches the features of performing a determination of whether a building code has been met using information on multiple objects behind an opaque surface (col. 1, Il. 44-67). It was found to be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Watts, Rhead, and Balet such that the analyzing similarly involves performing a determination as to whether a building code has been met using the pattern information for objects behind the opaque surface (i.e., whether applicable codes have been followed) as in Smoot, because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to advantageously non-destructively verify construction techniques (see col. 1, Il. 60-67 of Smoot).
One such building code document is specification GA-216-2010 on the Application and Finishing of Gypsum Panel Products (2010). This document states, in 4.6.4, that "All ends and edges of gypsum panel products, except those described in Sections 4.6.4.1, 4.6.4.2, and 4.6.4.3, shall be located over framing members or other solid backing," and states, in 4.8.2, that "Fasteners at gypsum panel product edges or ends shall be located not less than 3/8 in. (10 mm) from the edge or end." Also see the nailing patterns in fig. 6 & 7.
The examiner maintains that it would be obvious to use knowledge of how such boards are installed to identify said identify said boards or particular features thereof from sensor data, and specifically to use this knowledge such that that the analyzing of the applied references further comprises identifying an intersection of two adjoining drywall sheets based on the patterns of metal fasteners behind the opaque surface (i.e., identify where two rows or columns of fasteners indicate a joint between drywall sheets, based on knowing that fasteners must be located within a given distance from edges), in order to determine whether the drywall sheets are hung according to code.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, the applicant similarly argues that the applied combination "does not expressly teach the analyzing patterns of metals behind the opaque surface further comprising: analyzing nailing patterns of plywood sheets in a structural shear wall behind the opaque surface; and determining whether the building code has been met based on the analysis". The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Smoot is relied upon here in the same manner it was in 6 and 16.
Chapter 23 of the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) (August 2017) by the International Code Council was cited as another document that describes building codes that could be evaluated for compliance. This document teaches, in section 2306.3 ("Wood-frame shear walls"), spacings for fasteners applied to plywood panels in wood-frame shear walls. In particular, see table 2306.3(1).
The examiner maintains that it would be obvious to use knowledge of how such boards are installed to identify said identify said boards or particular features thereof from sensor data, and specifically to use this knowledge such that the analyzing patterns of metals behind the opaque surface further comprises: analyzing nailing patterns of plywood sheets in a structural shear wall behind the opaque surface (determine a fastening pattern based on sensor data); and determining whether the building code has been met based on the analysis (i.e., determine whether the detected fastening pattern satisfies section 2306.3 of the 2018 IBC), in order to be able to evaluate appropriate plywood sheets for code compliance in a structural shear wall without damaging the wall surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,194,950 to Watts et al. (hereinafter referred to as Watts) in view of US 10,209,357 to Rhead et al. (hereinafter referred to as Rhead).
With regards to claim 1, Watts teaches a method for identifying objects behind an opaque surface (col. 1, ll. 26-29), comprising:
generating location data by a location tracker (encoder 78 and/or 80), wherein the location data includes data relative to a point of reference that is linked to the opaque surface (encoder 78 and/or 80 provide location data (distance) from a starting point on a surface being scanned; col. 2, ll. 23-43 & col. 4, l. 66 to col. 5, l. 6);
collecting sensor data, by a sensor device (device 10 comprising sensors 84, 85, 86, 87, 88), of the objects behind the opaque surface corresponding to the location data in parallel, wherein the sensor device comprises one or more sensors and is tracked by the location tracker (sensors 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 collects sensor data during movement across the surface tracked by encoder 78 and/or 80 as per at least col. 4, ll. 48-54, col. 4, l. 66 to col. 5, l. 6, col. 5, ll. 17-20, etc.);
storing, in a memory (memory 83), the sensor data and the location data (see at least "As locating device 10 is moved from a starting point, controller 82 stores data related to the detected objects, the distance of the objects relative to the starting point…" in col. 4, l. 66 to col. 5, l. 6; also see claims 9 & 10);
analyzing, by one or more processors (controller 82), the sensor data and the location data to identify information about the objects behind the opaque surface, the analyzing comprising analyzing patterns of metals behind the opaque surface, and further comprising analyzing relational information between ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals (controller 82 analyzes sensor data and relational data/patterns among multiple detected objects; the detectable objects may include ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals, and at least in displaying the information in areas 12F and 12G in fig. 4B, is understood to analyze patterns of metals and analyze relational information between ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals when both are present in a scan; col. 3, l. 50 to col. 4, l. 34 and col. 5, l. 53 to col. 6, l. 21); and
communicating, via a user interface (display 12 or other haptic or audio means), the information about the objects behind the opaque surface to a user (col. 5, l. 53 to col. 6, l. 32).
Watts does not expressly teach:
the location data including pairs of horizontal and vertical location data.
Rhead teaches the feature of tracking a sensor device in a manner so as to provide pairs of horizontal and vertical location data as the sensor device is moved across a surface (a scanning device comprises a position sensor configured to receive a plurality of signals respectively emitted by a plurality of position markers at known positions on a surface, and determines, based on the plurality of angles and the known positions, the position of the scanning device relative to the surface; see the abstract and claim 1). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Watts such that it generates location data as in Rhead and likewise provides pairs of horizontal and vertical location data as the sensor device is moved across a surface. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of allowing the sensor device to be moved freely across the surface while still generating location data, enabling more freedom of movement during scanning and enabling desired areas to be scanned quickly.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Watts, and Rhead teaches the method of claim 1. In this combination, the generating location data further comprises tracking movements of the sensor device in both horizontal direction and vertical direction (taught by Rhead, e.g., as per fig. 10, 16, etc.); and scanning an area of the opaque surface one time (this is the minimum amount of scanning required to characterize an area of the surface and as such is understood to always be performed when the scanner is used; also, in the example of fig. 10 of Rhead, the surface is scanned in a zig-zag pattern one time), or scanning the area of the opaque surface a predetermined number of times.
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Watts, and Rhead teaches the method of claim 1. Watts further teaches the sensor data comprising at least one of: sensor data collected by one or more capacitive sensors (capacitance sensor 84; col. 3, l. 50 to col. 4, l. 26 & col. 4, ll. 48-54); sensor data collected by one or more metal sensors; sensor data collected by one or more current sensors, or a combination thereof.
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the method of claim 1. Watts further teaches the feature of communicating the information about the objects behind the opaque surface comprising: retrieving the information about the objects behind the opaque surface from the memory at a later time (stored data is retrieved to generate a level of confidence in the sensing that presented to the user; col. 5, ll. 17-26).
With regards to claim 11, Watts teaches an apparatus for identifying objects behind an opaque surface (col. 1, ll. 26-29), comprising:
a location tracker (encoder 78 and/or 80) configured to generate location data, wherein the location data includes data relative to a point of reference that is linked to the opaque surface (encoder 78 and/or 80 provide location data (distance) from a starting point on a surface being scanned; col. 2, ll. 23-43 & col. 4, l. 66 to col. 5, l. 6);
a sensor device (device 10 comprising sensors 84, 85, 86, 87, 88) configured to collect sensor data of the objects behind the opaque surface, wherein the sensor data corresponds to the location data, and wherein the sensor device comprises one or more sensors and is tracked by the location tracker (sensors 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 collects sensor data during movement across the surface tracked by encoder 78 and/or 80 as per at least col. 4, ll. 48-54, col. 4, l. 66 to col. 5, l. 6, col. 5, ll. 17-20, etc.);
a memory (memory 83) configured to store the sensor data and the location data (see at least "As locating device 10 is moved from a starting point, controller 82 stores data related to the detected objects, the distance of the objects relative to the starting point…" in col. 4, l. 66 to col. 5, l. 6; also see claims 9 & 10);
one or more processors (controller 82) configured to analyze the sensor data and the location data to identify information about the objects behind the opaque surface, and further configured to analyze patterns of metals behind the opaque surface, and further configured to analyze relational information between ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals (controller 82 analyzes sensor data and relational data/patterns among multiple detected objects; the detectable objects may include ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals, and at least in displaying the information in areas 12F and 12G in fig. 4B, is understood to analyze patterns of metals and analyze relational information between ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals when both are present in a scan; col. 3, l. 50 to col. 4, l. 34 and col. 5, l. 53 to col. 6, l. 21); and
a user interface (display 12 or other haptic or audio means) configured to communicate the information about the objects behind the opaque surface to a user (col. 5, l. 53 to col. 6, l. 32).
Watts does not expressly teach:
the location data including pairs of horizontal and vertical location data.
Rhead teaches the feature of tracking a sensor device in a manner so as to provide pairs of horizontal and vertical location data as the sensor device is moved across a surface (a scanning device comprises a position sensor configured to receive a plurality of signals respectively emitted by a plurality of position markers at known positions on a surface, and determines, based on the plurality of angles and the known positions, the position of the scanning device relative to the surface; see the abstract and claim 1). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Watts such that it generates location data as in Rhead and likewise provides pairs of horizontal and vertical location data as the sensor device is moved across a surface. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of allowing the sensor device to be moved freely across the surface while still generating location data, enabling more freedom of movement during scanning and enabling desired areas to be scanned quickly.
With regards to claim 12, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the apparatus of claim 11. In this combination, the location tracker is further configured to: track movements of the sensor device in both horizontal direction and vertical direction (taught by Rhead, e.g., as per fig. 10, 16, etc.); and scan an area of the opaque surface one time (this is the minimum amount of scanning required to characterize an area of the surface and as such is understood to always be performed when the scanner is used; also, in the example of fig. 10 of Rhead, the surface is scanned in a zig-zag pattern one time), or scan the area of the opaque surface a predetermined number of times.
With regards to claim 13, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Watts further teaches the sensor data comprising at least one of: sensor data collected by one or more capacitive sensors (capacitance sensor 84; col. 3, l. 50 to col. 4, l. 26 & col. 4, ll. 48-54); sensor data collected by one or more metal sensors; sensor data collected by one or more current sensors, or a combination thereof.
With regards to claim 18, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Watts further teaches the feature of the one or more processors being further configured to: retrieve the information about the objects behind the opaque surface from the memory at a later time (stored data is retrieved to generate a level of confidence in the sensing that presented to the user; col. 5, ll. 17-26).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts and Rhead, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2,964,807 to Kennedy.
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the method of claim 1. This combination further teaches the analyzing patterns of metals behind the opaque surface comprising: using the sensor data and the location data to analyze patterns of ferrous metals behind the opaque surface (e.g., to display the detected ferrous metal features in areas 12F and 12G of the display as per fig. 4B of Watts). However, this combination does not expressly teach identifying locations of studs based on patterns of ferrous metal straps and fasteners behind the opaque surface.
Kennedy teaches the feature of studs being spaced apart and supported using ferrous metal (steel) straps and fasteners (see support members 15 used on studs 39 in fig. 1 and 5, with nails going in holes 30, also col. 2, ll. 30-50).
In view of it thus being known to construct walls using uniform ferrous metal straps and fasteners so as to ensure proper stud spacing, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Watts and Rhead such that it further comprises identifying locations of studs based on patterns of ferrous metal straps and fasteners behind the opaque surface. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the confidence of stud identification based on detected features with construction like that in Kennedy.
With regards to claim 14, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the apparatus of claim 11. This combination further teaches the one or more processors being further configured to: use the sensor data and the location data to analyze patterns of ferrous metals behind the opaque surface (e.g., to display the detected ferrous metal features in areas 12F and 12G of the display as per fig. 4B of Watts). However, this combination does not expressly teach identifying locations of studs based on patterns of ferrous metal straps and fasteners behind the opaque surface.
Kennedy teaches the feature of studs being spaced apart and supported using ferrous metal (steel) straps and fasteners (see support members 15 used on studs 39 in fig. 1 and 5, with nails going in holes 30, also col. 2, ll. 30-50).
In view of it thus being known to construct walls using uniform ferrous metal straps and fasteners so as to ensure proper stud spacing, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Watts and Rhead such that it further identifies locations of studs based on patterns of ferrous metal straps and fasteners behind the opaque surface. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the confidence of stud identification based on detected features with construction like that in Kennedy.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts and Rhead as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 5,050,824 to Hubbard.
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the method of claim 1. This combination further teaches the analyzing patterns of metals behind the opaque surface further comprising: using the sensor data and the location data to analyze patterns of non-ferrous metals behind the opaque surface (e.g., to display the detected patterns of non-ferrous metal features in areas 12F and 12G of the display as per fig. 4B of Watts).
However, this combination does not expressly teach the analyzing patterns of metals behind the opaque surface further comprising: identifying locations of copper pipes based on patterns of non-ferrous metals behind the opaque surface.
That said, Watts states broadly that "Persons skilled in the art will recognize that controller 82 can also identify the different objects by their width or distance between items." The table in col. 3-4 of Watts lists wood studs, metal studs, ferrous metal pipe, non-ferrous metal pipe, electric wire, and PVC pipe (empty and full) as detectable types of objects, and in this light, clearly, Watts' identification technique is applicable to at least wood studs, metal studs, ferrous metal pipe, non-ferrous metal pipe, electric wire, and PVC pipe (empty and full), and it is no intuitive leap that other objects may similarly be detected based on how they are known to exist within walls.
Hubbard teaches the feature of non-ferrous copper pipes 52 being arranged in a stud bay using a steel strap 34 (see fig. 11). In other words, Hubbard teaches one known example of how copper piping (non-ferrous metal piping) is known to be arranged within a wall.
In view of it thus being known to provide plural non-ferrous metal pipes within a stud bay for residential plumbing, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Watts and Rhead such that the analyzing patterns of metals behind the opaque surface further comprises: identifying locations of copper pipes based on patterns of non-ferrous metals behind the opaque surface. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the confidence of copper pipe identification based on detected features with construction like that in Hubbard.
With regards to claim 15, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the apparatus of claim 11. This combination further teaches the one or more processors being further configured to: use the sensor data and the location data to analyze patterns of non-ferrous metals behind the opaque surface (e.g., to display the detected patterns of non-ferrous metal features in areas 12F and 12G of the display as per fig. 4B of Watts).
However, this combination does not expressly teach the one or more processors being further configured to: identify locations of copper pipes based on patterns of non-ferrous metals behind the opaque surface.
That said, Watts states broadly that "Persons skilled in the art will recognize that controller 82 can also identify the different objects by their width or distance between items." The table in col. 3-4 of Watts lists wood studs, metal studs, ferrous metal pipe, non-ferrous metal pipe, electric wire, and PVC pipe (empty and full) as detectable types of objects, and in this light, clearly, Watts' identification technique is applicable to at least wood studs, metal studs, ferrous metal pipe, non-ferrous metal pipe, electric wire, and PVC pipe (empty and full), and it is no intuitive leap that other objects may similarly be detected based on how they are known to exist within walls.
Hubbard teaches the feature of non-ferrous copper pipes 52 being arranged in a stud bay using a steel strap 34 (see fig. 11). In other words, Hubbard teaches one known example of how copper piping (non-ferrous metal piping) is known to be arranged within a wall.
In view of it thus being known to provide plural non-ferrous metal pipes within a stud bay for residential plumbing, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Watts and Rhead such that the one or more processors are further configured to: identify locations of copper pipes based on patterns of non-ferrous metals behind the opaque surface. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the confidence of copper pipe identification based on detected features with construction like that in Hubbard.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts and Rhead as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 9,903,975 to Smoot and specification GA-216-2010 on the Application and Finishing of Gypsum Panel Products (2010) by the Gypsum Association.
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the method of claim 1. This combination further teaches the analyzing patterns of metals behind the opaque surface further comprising: using the sensor data and the location data to analyze patterns of metal fasteners (e.g., nails; see col. 5, ll. 27-36 of Watts) behind the opaque surface (e.g., to detect and display patterns of fasteners such as nails in areas 12F and 12G of the display as per fig. 4B of Watts).
However, this combination does not expressly teach identifying an intersection of two adjoining drywall sheets based on the patterns of metal fasteners behind the opaque surface.
Smoot teaches the feature of performing a determination of whether a building code has been met using information on multiple objects behind an opaque surface (col. 1, ll. 44-67). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Watts and Rhead such that the analyzing similarly involves performing a determination as to whether a building code has been met using the pattern information for objects behind the opaque surface (i.e., whether applicable codes have been followed) as in Smoot. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to advantageously non-destructively verify construction techniques (see col. 1, ll. 60-67 of Smoot).
Specification GA-216-2010 on the Application and Finishing of Gypsum Panel Products (2010) by the Gypsum Association is an example of one such building specification. This document states, in 4.6.4, that "All ends and edges of gypsum panel products, except those described in Sections 4.6.4.1, 4.6.4.2, and 4.6.4.3, shall be located over framing members or other solid backing," and states, in 4.8.2, that "Fasteners at gypsum panel product edges or ends shall be located not less than 3/8 in. (10 mm) from the edge or end." Also see the nailing patterns in fig. 6 & 7. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Watts, Rhead, and Smoot such that the analyzing further comprises identifying an intersection of two adjoining drywall sheets based on the patterns of metal fasteners behind the opaque surface (i.e., identify where two rows or columns of fasteners indicate a joint between drywall sheets, based on knowing that fasteners must be located within a given distance from edges). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to be able establish a better understanding of the construction behind the opaque surface and increase the confidence of sensor data interpretation, as well as determine whether the drywall sheets are hung according to code, such as not having gaps larger than ¼ in therebetween (see 4.6.8 of GA-216-2010).
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the apparatus of claim 11. This combination further teaches the one or more processors being further configured to: use the sensor data and the location data to analyze patterns of metal fasteners (e.g., nails; see col. 5, ll. 27-36 of Watts) behind the opaque surface (e.g., to detect and display patterns of fasteners such as nails in areas 12F and 12G of the display as per fig. 4B of Watts).
However, this combination does not expressly teach identifying an intersection of two adjoining drywall sheets based on the patterns of metal fasteners behind the opaque surface.
Smoot teaches the feature of performing a determination of whether a building code has been met using information on multiple objects behind an opaque surface (col. 1, ll. 44-67). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Watts and Rhead such that the analyzing similarly involves performing a determination as to whether a building code has been met using the pattern information for objects behind the opaque surface (i.e., whether applicable codes have been followed) as in Smoot. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to advantageously non-destructively verify construction techniques (see col. 1, ll. 60-67 of Smoot).
Specification GA-216-2010 on the Application and Finishing of Gypsum Panel Products (2010) by the Gypsum Association is an example of one such building specification. This document states, in 4.6.4, that "All ends and edges of gypsum panel products, except those described in Sections 4.6.4.1, 4.6.4.2, and 4.6.4.3, shall be located over framing members or other solid backing," and states, in 4.8.2, that "Fasteners at gypsum panel product edges or ends shall be located not less than 3/8 in. (10 mm) from the edge or end." Also see the nailing patterns in fig. 6 & 7. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Watts, Rhead, and Smoot such that the one or more processors is further configured to identify an intersection of two adjoining drywall sheets based on the patterns of metal fasteners behind the opaque surface (i.e., identify where two rows or columns of fasteners indicate a joint between drywall sheets, based on knowing that fasteners must be located within a given distance from edges). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to be able establish a better understanding of the construction behind the opaque surface and increase the confidence of sensor data interpretation, as well as determine whether the drywall sheets are hung according to code, such as not having gaps larger than ¼ in therebetween (see 4.6.8 of GA-216-2010).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts and Rhead as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of US 9,903,975 to Smoot and Chapter 23 of the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) (August 2017) by the International Code Council.
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the method of claim 1. This combination further teaches the analyzing patterns of metals behind the opaque surface further comprising: using the sensor data and the location data to analyze patterns nailing patterns behind the opaque surface (e.g., to detect and display patterns of fasteners such as nails (detectable as per col. 5, ll. 27-36 of Watts) in areas 12F and 12G of the display as per fig. 4B of Watts).
However, this combination does not expressly teach analyzing nailing patterns of plywood sheets in a structural shear wall behind the opaque surface and determining whether the building code has been met based on the analysis.
Smoot teaches the features of performing a determination of whether a building code has been met using information on multiple objects behind an opaque surface (col. 1, ll. 44-67). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Watts and Rhead such that the analyzing similarly involves performing a determination as to whether a building code has been met using the pattern information for objects behind the opaque surface (i.e., whether applicable codes have been followed) as in Smoot. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to advantageously non-destructively verify construction techniques (see col. 1, ll. 60-67 of Smoot).
Section 2306.3 ("Wood-frame shear walls") in chapter 23 of the 2018 International Building Code, one such building specification, teaches spacings for fasteners applied to plywood panels in wood-frame shear walls. In particular, see table 2306.3(1). Given that, as noted above, Smoot teaches that it is advantageous to be able to non-destructively perform a determination of whether a building code has been met using information on objects behind an opaque surface, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Watts, Rhead, and Smoot such that the analyzing patterns of metals behind the opaque surface further comprises: using the sensor and the location data to analyze nailing patterns of plywood sheets in a structural shear wall behind the opaque surface (detect and display a fastening pattern based on sensor data); and determining whether the building code has been met based on the analysis (i.e., determine whether the detected fastening pattern satisfies section 2306.3 of the 2018 IBC). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to be able to evaluate appropriate plywood sheets in a structural shear wall without damaging the opaque surface.
With regards to claim 17, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the apparatus of claim 11. However, this combination does not expressly teach the one or more processors are further configured to: analyze nailing patterns of plywood sheets in a structural shear wall behind the opaque surface; and determine whether the building code has been met based on the analysis.
Smoot teaches the features of performing a determination of whether a building code has been met using information on multiple objects behind an opaque surface (col. 1, ll. 44-67). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Watts and Rhead such that the analyzing similarly involves performing a determination as to whether a building code has been met using the pattern information for objects behind the opaque surface (i.e., whether applicable codes have been followed) as in Smoot. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to advantageously non-destructively verify construction techniques (see col. 1, ll. 60-67 of Smoot).
Section 2306.3 ("Wood-frame shear walls") in chapter 23 of the 2018 International Building Code, one such building specification, teaches spacings for fasteners applied to plywood panels in wood-frame shear walls. In particular, see table 2306.3(1). Given that, as noted above, Smoot teaches that it is advantageous to be able to non-destructively perform a determination of whether a building code has been met using information on objects behind an opaque surface, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Watts, Rhead, and Smoot such that the one or more processors are further configured to: use the sensor and the location data to analyze nailing patterns of plywood sheets in a structural shear wall behind the opaque surface (detect and display a fastening pattern based on sensor data); and determine whether the building code has been met based on the analysis (i.e., determine whether the detected fastening pattern satisfies section 2306.3 of the 2018 IBC). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to be able to evaluate appropriate plywood sheets in a structural shear wall without damaging the opaque surface.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts and Rhead as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, and further in view of US 8,854,043 to Candy et al. (hereinafter referred to as Candy).
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the method of claim 8. However, this combination does not expressly teach the method comprising at least one of: displaying the information about the objects behind the opaque surface as a heat map; displaying the information about the objects behind the opaque surface as a contour map; displaying one or more user selected types of material behind the opaque surface; or a combination thereof.
Candy teaches the feature of displaying information about the locations obscured objects and corresponding signal intensities in the form of a heat map (col. 7, l. 40 to col. 8, l. 3). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Watts and Rhead such that the method comprises displaying the information about the objects behind the opaque surface as a heat map, in a manner similar to Candy. Such display would merely provide one known way for displaying information about the objects behind the opaque surface, and nothing about the scanning/analysis functionality in the base references would change. The result of this combination would thus be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination accordingly amounts to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
With regards to claim 19, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the apparatus of claim 18. However, this combination does not expressly teach the user interface being further configured to: display the information about the objects behind the opaque surface as a heat map; display the information about the objects behind the opaque surface as a contour map; display one or more user selected types of material behind the opaque surface; or a combination thereof.
Candy teaches the feature of displaying information about the locations obscured objects and corresponding signal intensities in the form of a heat map (col. 7, l. 40 to col. 8, l. 3). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Watts and Rhead such that the user interface displays the information about the objects behind the opaque surface as a heat map, in a manner similar to Candy. Such display would merely provide one known way for displaying information about the objects behind the opaque surface, and nothing about the scanning/analysis functionality in the base references would change. The result of this combination would thus be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination accordingly amounts to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts and Rhead as applied to claims 9 and 19 above, and further in view of US 8,731,333 to Sieracki et al. (hereinafter referred to as Sieracki).
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the method of claim 9. However, this combination does not expressly teach displaying patterns of ferrous metals based on a user selection; or displaying patterns of non-ferrous metals based on the user selection.
Sieracki teaches the feature of providing a display 442 of a sensing device with a means for selecting and changing parameters such as contrast, color scale, or ranging techniques in order to display fine details or accommodate the presentation of various types of structural information (col. 14, ll. 14-23). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly modify the method of Watts and Rhead such that the display 12 is similarly configurable based on user selections to display any and all detected information as desired, and thereby displays patterns of ferrous metals and/or displays patterns of non-ferrous metals based on the user selection. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to display detected objects in as understandable and efficient manner as possible.
With regards to claim 20, the combination of Watts and Rhead teaches the apparatus of claim 9. However, this combination does not expressly teach the user interface being further configured to display patterns of ferrous metals based on a user selection; or display patterns of non-ferrous metals based on the user selection.
Sieracki teaches the feature of providing a display 442 of a sensing device with a means for selecting and changing parameters such as contrast, color scale, or ranging techniques in order to display fine details or accommodate the presentation of various types of structural information (col. 14, ll. 14-23). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly modify the apparatus of Watts and Rhead such that the user interface is similarly further configurable based on user selections to display any and all detected information as desired, and thereby displays patterns of ferrous metals and/or displays patterns of non-ferrous metals based on the user selection. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to display detected objects in as understandable and efficient manner as possible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,401,532 to Sgarz et al. discloses a related imaging location device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858