DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025 and 08/27/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, the claims recite contingent limitations (e.g., “when the movement is not detected” and “when the movement by the predefined distance is detected” in Claim 7, and “when there is a predefined distance dependency between the sub-objects” in Claim 8). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 211.04 II.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the object detection module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as referring to the “object recognition module” recited in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “summarizing sub-objects detected and classified at various positions of the measuring device relative to the wall, based on radar data to a contiguous object.” It is unclear whether “based on radar data” applies to “summarizing sub-objects” or to “detected and classified.” For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as meaning that sub-objects detected and classified based on radar data acquired at various positions of the measuring device relative to the wall are summarized into a contiguous object.
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “computing unit comprising: a computer program including instructions” (i.e., software per se).
Regarding Claim 12, the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “computer program product comprising instructions” (i.e., software per se).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 7 of co-pending Application No. 19/071,101. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the subject matter claimed in the co-pending application.
Regarding instant Claim 1, Claim 7 of the application, as it depends from Claim 1, recites a computer-implemented method of operating a measuring device, comprising: receiving radar data of a radar sensor unit of the measuring device, wherein the radar data depicts a wall on which diagnostics are to be performed; and performing wall diagnostics by performing an analysis of the radar data and providing diagnostic results by a diagnostic module of the measuring device, wherein the performing wall diagnostics comprises: performing a wall type classification and determining a wall type of the wall by way of the diagnostic module, wherein the diagnostic results comprise at least the wall type of the wall; providing the diagnostic results by the diagnostic module to a display unit of the measuring device; and displaying the diagnostic results in the display unit; and wherein the performing wall diagnostics further comprises: performing an object recognition of an object located in the wall using the diagnostic module, wherein the object recognition comprises an object detection and an object classification. Therefore, instant Claim 1 is anticipated by Claim 7 of the application.
Claim(s) 1 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 5 of co-pending Application No. 19/072,486. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the subject matter claimed in the co-pending application.
Regarding instant Claim 1, Claim 5 of the application, as it depends from Claim 1, recites a computer-implemented method of operating a measuring device, comprising: receiving radar data of a radar sensor unit of the measuring device, wherein the radar data depicts a wall on which diagnostics are to be performed; and performing wall diagnostics by performing an analysis of the radar data and providing diagnostic results by a diagnostic module of the measuring device, wherein the performing wall diagnostics comprise: performing a wall type classification and determining a wall type of the wall by way of the diagnostic module, wherein the diagnostic results comprise at least the wall type of the wall; and/or performing an object recognition of an object disposed in the wall using the diagnostic module, wherein the object recognition comprises an object detection and an object classification and determining an object position in the wall and an object type of the object, and wherein the diagnostic results comprise at least the object position and/or the object type; and determining feedback information, wherein the feedback information describes whether the diagnostic results match a current state of the wall, wherein each of the plurality of diagnostic results is displayed in a display unit of the measuring device. Therefore, instant Claim 1 is anticipated by Claim 5 of the application.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10, and 12 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1-, 6-7, and 11 of co-pending Application No. 19/073,864. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the subject matter claimed in the co-pending application.
Regarding instant Claim 1, Claim 1 of the application recites a method of operating a measuring device, comprising: receiving radar data of a radar sensor unit of the measuring device, wherein the radar data depicts a wall to be diagnosed; performing wall diagnostics by performing an analysis of the radar data and providing diagnostic results with a diagnostic module of the measuring device, wherein the performing wall diagnostics comprises: performing an object recognition of an object disposed in the wall using the diagnostic module, wherein the object recognition comprises an object detection and an object classification, and wherein the diagnostic results comprise at least one object position in the wall and/or an object type of the object; and determining uncertainty values of the diagnostic results using the diagnostic module, wherein the uncertainty values of the diagnostic results describe the probability values that the diagnostic results match an actual state of the wall to be diagnosed, and comprise at least one probability value of the object position and/or one probability value of the object type of the object; providing the diagnostic results and the uncertainty values by the diagnostic module to a display unit of the measuring device; and displaying the diagnostic results and the uncertainty values in the display unit. Therefore, instant Claim 1 is anticipated by Claim 1 of the application.
Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 2 of the application recites performing wall type classification and determining a wall type of the wall using the diagnostic module.
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 2 of the application recites performing an object depth determination and determining an object depth of the object in the wall using the diagnostic module, wherein the object depth is defined as a distance of the object to a surface of the wall.
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 2 of the application recites performing an object extension determination and determining an object extension of the object along a predefined direction using the diagnostic module.
Regarding instant Claim 9, Claim 6 of the application recites wherein the measuring device further comprises at least one of an induction sensor and/or an eddy current sensor and/or a capacitance sensor and/or an AC current sensor and/or an NMR sensor and/or an ultrasonic sensor for providing additional sensor data, and wherein the diagnostic module is configured to perform the wall diagnosis by taking into account the additional sensor data.
Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 7 of the application recites wherein the diagnostic module comprises at least one correspondingly trained artificial intelligence configured to perform object recognition and/or a wall classification and/or an object depth determination based on the radar data and/or the additional sensor data.
Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 11 of the application recites a computer program product comprising instructions that, when the program is executed by a data processing unit, cause the latter to perform the method for operating a measuring device according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 12 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 10 of co-pending Application No. 19/073,631. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the subject matter claimed in the co-pending application.
Regarding instant Claim 1, Claim 1 of the application recites a computer-implemented method of operating a measuring device, comprising: receiving radar data of a radar sensor unit of the measuring device, wherein the radar data depicts a wall to be diagnosed; performing a wall diagnostics by performing an analysis of the radar data and generating diagnostic results using a diagnostic module of the measuring device, wherein the performing the wall diagnostics comprises: performing a wall type classification and providing wall type classification results of a wall type of the wall using the diagnostic module based on the radar data; performing an object recognition of an object disposed in the wall using the diagnostic module based on the radar data and taking into account the wall type classification results of the wall type, wherein the object recognition comprises an object detection and an object classification; and providing the diagnostic results of the diagnostic module to a display unit of the measuring device for displaying the diagnostic results to a user of the measuring device, wherein the diagnostic results comprise at least one object position of the object in the wall and an object type of the object and/or the wall type of the wall. Therefore, instant Claim 1 is anticipated by Claim 1 of the application.
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 6 of the application recites wherein: the radar data is received for a plurality of positions of the measuring device relative to the wall, and the method further comprises receiving movement data of a movement detection unit of the measuring device, wherein the movement data represents a movement of the measuring device relative to the wall between the plurality of positions of the measuring device relative to the wall.
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 7 of the application recites checking, based on the movement data of the movement detection unit, whether a movement of the measuring device relative to the wall by a predefined distance has been detected; if no movement has been detected, storing the radar data and performing the check again; and if movement by the predefined distance has been detected, performing the wall diagnostics based on the radar data using the diagnostic module.
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 8 of the application recites wherein the wall diagnostics further comprises: summarizing sub-objects detected and classified at various positions of the measuring device relative to the wall, based on radar data to a contiguous object, if there is a predefined distance dependency between the sub-objects.
Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 10 of the application recites a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a data processing unit, cause the data processing unit to perform the steps of the method for operating a measuring device according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 1 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/071,470. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are an obvious variation of the subject matter claimed in the co-pending application.
Regarding instant Claim 1, Claim 1 of the application recites a measuring device, comprising: at least one radar sensor unit configured to provide radar data of a wall for which diagnostics are to be performed; a diagnostic module configured to perform wall diagnostics based on the radar data and to generate diagnostic results; and a display unit configured to display the diagnostic results to a user of the measuring device, wherein the diagnostic module is configured to detect an object formed in the wall based on the radar data, and wherein the detecting of the object comprises a determination of an object position and a classification of an object type for the object.
Instant Claim 1 differs from application Claim 1 in that instant Claim 1 is directed to a method while patent Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of application Claim 1 to perform the method of instant Claim 1, because using the apparatus of the application would naturally result in performing each step of the claimed method.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or
in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b),
in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and
was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skultety-Betz (US 2007/0296955).
Regarding Claim 1, Skultety-Betz discloses: A computer-implemented method of operating a measuring device configured as a wall diagnostic device ([0033]: “a wall that is to be examined”), comprising:
receiving radar data of a radar sensor unit of the wall diagnostic device, the radar data depicting a wall to be diagnosed ([0025]: “In an exemplary method according to the present invention, the detected signals of an entire series of sensors are employed for evaluation. In addition to the infrared sensor these sensors can be, for example, radar sensors”; [0068]: “the antenna assemblage of radar sensor 60 possessing a transmitting antenna 86 and a receiving antenna 88”; [0072]: “In contrast to infrared devices of the existing art, the infrared measuring device according to the present invention makes possible by way of the combination of multiple sensor principles, for example, rapid and high-performance localization and surveying of heated or cooled pipes in walls, ceilings, or floors.”);
performing wall diagnostics by performing an analysis of the radar data and providing diagnostic results with a diagnostic module of the measuring device ([0025]; [0047]: “A unit for data processing and a display 78 are located after evaluation unit 76. The data of evaluation unit 76 are processed and are converted into a type of presentation that is intuitively accessible to the user.”; [0072]), the wall diagnostics comprising:
performing an object recognition of an object disposed in the wall using the diagnostic module, the object recognition including object detection and object classification ([0014]: “detect whether the heating pipes of an underfloor heating system are metal pipes or, as more commonly used today, plastic pipe”; [0026]: “If, however, an additionally present radar sensor detects further objects, these additional objects are plastic pipes of the underfloor heating system.”; [0074]: “location, depth, and width and, for example, about type of material and temperature”); and
providing the diagnostic results from the diagnostic module to a display unit of the measuring device for displaying the diagnostic results to a user of the measuring device, the diagnostic results including at least one object position in the wall and an object type of the object ([0033]: “The measurement results are presented to the user in an intuitively and easily accessible graphical depiction, directly on a display of the measuring device, so that the user can take a direct look into the wall being examined”; [0047]: “graphical depiction of the current measurement situation”).
Regarding Claim 2, Skultety-Betz discloses: the performing of the wall diagnostics further comprising:
performing a wall type classification and determining a wall type of the wall using the diagnostic module ([0021]: “a capacitive sensor recognizes a wooden single-panel wall by measuring the dielectric impedance. The radar sensor integrated into the device can then be operated so that air inclusions are measured, but are not displayed on the device's display.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Skultety-Betz discloses: the performing of the wall diagnostics further comprising:
performing an object depth determination and determining an object depth of the object in the wall using the diagnostic module ([0013]: “quantitative determination of the depth at which an object is enclosed in a medium”),
wherein the object depth is defined as a distance of the object to a surface of the wall ([0013]: “quantitative determination of the depth at which an object is enclosed in a medium”; [0024]: “material thickness measurements”).
Regarding Claim 4, Skultety-Betz discloses: the analysis of the radar data further comprising:
performing an object extension determination and determining an object extension of the object along a predefined direction using the diagnostic module ([0059]: “associating a local coordinate with each measured value”; [0074]: “inform the user both as to location, depth, and width”).
Regarding Claim 5, Skultety-Betz discloses: the performing of the wall diagnostics further comprising:
performing a pre-processing of radar data of the radar sensor unit and providing input data to a wall type classification module of the diagnostic module using a first pre-processing module ([0021]: “a capacitive sensor recognizes a wooden single-panel wall by measuring the dielectric impedance”; [0046]: “evaluate the detected signals of all active sensors”; [0070-0071]: disclosing signal and data processing systems);
performing the wall type classification based on the input data provided by the first pre-processing module and providing wall type information using a wall type classification module of the diagnostic module ([0021]: “a capacitive sensor recognizes a wooden single-panel wall by measuring the dielectric impedance”; [0070-0071]);
performing pre-processing of the radar data and providing input data to an object recognition module of the diagnostic module, taking into account the wall type information using a second pre-processing module of the diagnostic module ([0021]: “The radar sensor integrated into the device can then be operated so that air inclusions are measured, but are not displayed on the device’s display.”; “the signal processing system downstream from the radar sensor averages out the signals of the air inclusions”; [0070-0071]); and
performing the object recognition based on the input data provided by the second pre-processing module and providing diagnostic results using the object detection module ([0021]: “The radar sensor integrated into the device can then be operated so that air inclusions are measured, but are not displayed on the device’s display.”; [0072-0074]: disclosing using software or hardware to process signals from multiple sensors to determine locations and properties of objects).
Regarding Claim 6, Skultety-Betz discloses: wherein:
the receiving of the radar data includes receiving the radar data from a plurality of positions of the measuring device relative to the wall ([0059]: “Rollers or other rolling elements, with which the measuring device can be moved, for example, over a wall”; “associating a local coordinate with each measured value”), and
the method further comprises receiving movement data of a movement detection unit of the measuring device, the movement data representing a movement of the measuring device relative to the wall between the plurality of positions of the measuring device relative to the wall ([0059]: “a displacement sensor apparatus so that the distance traveled with the measuring device along a wall or the like can be measured.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Skultety-Betz discloses: wherein:
the measuring device further comprises at least one of an induction sensor, an eddy current sensor, a capacitance sensor, an AC current sensor, a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) sensor, and an ultrasonic sensor configured to provide additional sensor data ([0025]: “capacitive sensors, inductive sensors, or even ultrasonic sensors”; [0040]), and
the diagnostic module is configured to perform the wall diagnostics by taking into account the additional sensor data ([0025]: “the detected signals of an entire series of sensors are employed for evaluation”; [0072-0074]: disclosing using software or hardware to process signals from multiple sensors to determine locations and properties of objects).
Regarding Claim 10, Skultety-Betz discloses: wherein the diagnostic module comprises at least one correspondingly trained artificial intelligence configured to perform at least part of the wall diagnostics based on the radar data and/or additional sensor data ([0048]: “In the context of data processing, provision can be made, for example, to evaluate all the sensor signals by principal-component analysis of neural networks and, via a pattern recognition system, to output the most probable result via the display.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Skultety-Betz discloses: A computing unit comprising:
a computer program including instructions that, when executed by a data processing unit, cause the wall diagnostic device to perform the method of claim 1 ([0071]: “By way of a corresponding data processing system (software), the measurement results of the individual sensors can complement one another and thus result in a maximally complete picture of the enclosed object.”; [0074]: “software or hardware”).
Regarding Claim 12, Skultety-Betz discloses: A computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a data processing unit, cause the data processing unit to perform the method for operating the wall diagnostic device according to claim 1 ([0071]: “By way of a corresponding data processing system (software), the measurement results of the individual sensors can complement one another and thus result in a maximally complete picture of the enclosed object.”; [0074]: “software or hardware”).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skultety-Betz (US 2007/0296955), as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Sjostrom (US 2003/0012411).
Regarding Claim 7, Skultety-Betz teaches the method further comprising:
checking, based on the movement data of the movement detection unit, a movement of the measuring device relative to the wall ([0059]: “The measuring device according to the present invention possesses a displacement sensor apparatus so that the distance traveled with the measuring device along a wall or the like can be measured.”); and
storing the radar data and performing the check again; and performing the wall diagnostics based on the radar data using the diagnostic module ([0059]: “signal profiles moreover can be acquired and displayed by associating a local coordinate with each measured value.”).
Skultety-Betz does not explicitly teach:
checking, based on the movement data of the movement detection unit, whether a movement of the measuring device relative to the wall by a predefined distance has been detected;
when the movement is not detected, storing the radar data and performing the check again; or
when the movement by the predefined distance is detected, performing the wall diagnostics based on the radar data using the diagnostic module.
However, Sjostrom is in the field of ground-penetrating radar (Sjostrom [Abstract]) and teaches:
Checking whether all grid lines of a survey grid have been surveyed by a GPR (Sjostrom [0121]: “When all the grid lines have been surveyed”);
when all grid lines have not been surveyed, storing the radar data and performing the next survey (Sjostrom [0119]: “When the GPR sensor cart has moved the maximum line length, data collection will stop and the GPR data file will be saved automatically. The operator then moves the GPR sensor cart to the start of survey line 2”);
when all grid lines have been surveyed, assembling the radar data into a single file for later processing and display (Sjostrom [0121]: “When all the grid lines have been surveyed and saved, the operator can select the assemble grid button 920. This action assembles each survey grid file into a single file for later processing and display.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Skultety-Betz and check whether the measuring device has moved a predefined distance relative to a wall, to store acquired radar data and repeat the distance check until the measuring device has moved a predefined distance, and to perform diagnostics when the measuring device has moved a predefined distance, with a reasonable expectation of success. Skultety-Betz teaches repeatedly moving a measuring device over a wall while continuously recording displacement amount and radar data ([0059]), and Sjostrom teaches repeatedly moving a GPR device and storing radar data until an entire survey grid has been surveyed (Sjostrom [0119-0121]). The combination of Skultety-Betz and Sjostrom yields the predictable result of checking whether the measuring device of Skultety-Betz has moved a predetermined distance, repeating the distance check until the measuring device has moved a predetermined distance, and performing diagnostics when the measuring device has moved a predetermined distance in order to ensure that an entire area, such as a wall, has been scanned by the device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skultety-Betz (US 2007/0296955), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Raufi (US 2023/0029746).
Regarding Claim 8, Skultety-Betz does not explicitly teach: the performing of the wall diagnostics further comprising:
summarizing sub-objects detected and classified at various positions of the measuring device relative to the wall, based on radar data to a contiguous object, when there is a predefined distance dependency between the sub-objects.
However, Raufi is in the field of ground-penetrating radar (Raufi [0007]) and teaches:
summarizing sub-objects detected and classified at various positions of the measuring device relative to the wall, based on radar data to a contiguous object (Raufi [0011]: “identifying a structure that comprises a first portion in a first local map and a second portion in the second local map and aligning the subdivisions so as to establish continuity between the first and second portions”), when there is a predefined distance dependency between the sub-objects (Raufi [0079]: “The first and second local maps 76 of the pair are either adjoining, overlapping, or sufficiently close so that the probability that the first and second structures 90 are parts of the same structure 90 is higher than a pre-determined probability.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Skultety-Betz and summarize sub-objects detected and classified at various positions of the measuring device relative to the wall, based on radar data, to a contiguous object when there is a predefined distance dependency between the sub-objects, as taught by Raufi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Raufi’s subdivision alignment technique to Skultety-Betz’s wall measuring device yields the predictable result of aligning subdivisions of a single detected object, when the subdivisions are sufficiently close, in order to provide a single global image to a user (Raufi [0010]).
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least Claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights