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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “capable of” in “wherein the evaluation device is capable of receiving signals…”and “the evaluation device is capable of providing position information…”. This limitation should be amended so that the claim recites, “wherein the evaluation device receives signals…”and “the evaluation device provides position information…”. The same objection applies to claim 6 which should amend the limitation “capable of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 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 2, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,4,6,7,9 and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to claims 3,4,6,7,9 and 10, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claims 3,4,6,7,9 and 10.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolarczyk et al. (US 20160097879 A1) in view of Bosnar (US 20090295391 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stolarczyk discloses [Note: what Stolarczyk fails to disclose is strike-through]
A detection device for detecting an explosive target object which is arranged up to maximally 6 m deep below a ground surface (see Fig. 2, data collection vehicle 202), comprising a first measuring device for a magnetic field measuring method with at least one gradiometer (see Fig. 2, and an electro-magnetic gradiometer (EMG) 212), a second measuring device (see Fig. 2, camera 208) (see Fig. 2, a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) 210) and an evaluation device (see Fig. 3, image processing of 312, further see paragraph 0045), wherein a measurement surface of each measuring device is arranged at least adjacently to at least one measurement surface of one of the two other measuring devices (see Fig. 1, further see paragraph 0045, “Essentially, only one electronic voxel of a vertical column of earth 102 can be collected at a time as stacked tiles 111-114, and so many snapshots are needed to be collected before a survey area abstract 106 can be fully painted or rendered into an informational display. Here, stacked tiles 111-114 comprise GPS location fixes 111, a photograph 112, a GPR measurement 113, and an EMG measurement 114, all mutually registered with one another. Together these are electronically assembled by image processors into a composite tile 116. Such has neighboring composite tiles 117-119.”), wherein the evaluation device is capable of receiving signals of the first, second and third measuring device and of evaluating them each in real-time (see Figs. 1-3, further see paragraph 0125, “The real-time position of the VMG at the time of the validated hits are logged and used to paint a map and/or sound an operator alarm.”), and the evaluation device is capable of providing position information of the target object below a detection surface which was situated in the measurement surfaces of all three measuring devices, from a combination of the evaluated signals of the first, second and third measuring device (see Figs. 1-3, further see paragraph 0071, “Sensors 206, 208, 210, and 212 are simultaneously operated point-by-point in a search area to obtain their respective data outputs for each point on surface 204 that data collection vehicle 202 visits in a survey. The method objective is to locate by sensing, and map by combination of their outputs, the depths and locations of pipes, conduits, wires, structures, and other buried objects 214 beneath surface 204.”).
Bosnar discloses,
a second measuring device for an electromagnetic measuring method from the field of time-domain methods (see Fig. 1, 12, 14, 16 and see paragraph 0022, “The EM pulse sensor of combined device 10 includes an EM controller 12 which is connected to a primary EM pulse transmitter coil 14 and an EM pulse sensor or receiver coil 16.”), and the evaluation device is capable of providing position information of the target object below a detection surface which was situated in the measurement surfaces of all measuring devices, from a combination of the evaluated signals of the measuring devices (see Fig. 1, Device controller, further see paragraph 0022, “he EM transmitter coil 14, receiver coil 16, magnetometer sensor 24 and compensation coil 26 collectively are part of a transmitter and sensor assembly 38, and the EM controller 12 and magnetometer controller 22 are part of a device controller 36. The device controller 36 may also include a logging computer 34 for receiving and storing field survey data from both the EM controller 12 and magnetometer controller 22.”, further see paragraph 0021, “The combined device 10 is configured for on-ground or submersible detection of ferrous and non-ferrous objects, and includes an EM pulse sensor for detecting the secondary electromagnetic field created by nearby objects in response to an electromagnetic pulse, and a magnetometer for detecting perturbations in the ambient magnetic field caused by nearby objects.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Bosnar into the invention of Stolarczyk. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the detection of underground objects using a device with a plurality of different types of sensors. Stolarczyk discloses a device which surveys underground to detect objects where the device comprises three different types of sensors; however, Stolarczyk fails to disclose the use of “device for an electromagnetic measuring method from the field of time-domain methods”. This feature is disclosed by Bonsar where an EM induction sensor using an EM pulse transmitter coil and receiver coil in conjunction with a magnetometer sensor. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize multiple different types of sensors for accurate object detection.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Stolarczyk and Bosnar further discloses
The detection device according to claim 1, wherein the detection device comprises a control device which sets a temporal sequence of measurements of the first and of the second measuring device (NOTE: both the first and second measuring device must include some kind of control device which steps the sequence of measurements as both types of sensors using the transmission of signals), wherein in particular the control device sets a main cycle for measuring cycles of 1 Hz to 10 kHz (this limitation is indefinite).
Regarding claim 5, Stolarczyk further discloses
The detection device according to claim 1, wherein the third measuring device is designed for an application of an impulse radar method as a ground radar method (see Fig. 2, Ground Penetrating Radar, 210 is an impulse radar as it utilize channel impulse responses in radar data; Note this is how radar works, further see paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Stolarczyk and Bosnar discloses [Note: what Stolarczyk fails to disclose is strike-through]
The detection device according to claim 1,
Bosnar discloses,
wherein the second measuring device is designed for an application of a pulse induction method as an electromagnetic measuring method, wherein with regard to the pulse induction method an evaluation of an attenuation time of the feedback impulse is effected (see paragraph 0024, “The pulse EM induction sensor and the magnetometer operate using detection principles that are generally known in the art. In particular, the EM controller 12 includes an electrical pulse generator 40 (shown in FIG. 2) that applies pulses that are one or both of periodic and time varying to the EM transmitter coil 14. The pulse induction sensor coil 14 senses the resulting secondary magnetic field generated by the terrain and objects on or embedded in the terrain, allowing the EM controller 12 to detecting the rate of decay of the magnetic field produced by nearby objects in response to the electromagnetic pulses generated by the transmitter coil 14. Different rates of decay of this field indicate different inductive properties of nearby objects.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Bosnar into the invention of Stolarczyk. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the detection of underground objects using a device with a plurality of different types of sensors. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for the sensors to be placed close to one another while canceling out mutual interference (see paragraph 0007 of Bosnar).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights