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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102 AND 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the current amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the store historical data” should read “wherein the stored historical data”
Claims 25 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“manufacture data” should read “manufacturer data”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sells (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0137755) in view of Green (US Patent Number 8,930,067).
Regarding claim 9, Sells discloses a system for determining mechanical failure in a mobile asset comprising:
one or more sensors (14a-e) attached to a mobile asset (10) [0014];
a dashboard (16) configured to receive data from the one or more sensors and transmit sensor data to one or more connected devices (24 and/or 16)) upon request [0037];
a tracking device (20) connected to the one or more sensors, the tracking device configured to collect and transmit tracking data regarding physical characteristics of the mobile asset [0004, 0017];
a server (22) configured to receive transmitted sensor data and transmitted tracking data and to make determinations of mechanical failures in the mobile asset based on a comparison across time of received sensor data or tracking data [0037, 0039],
wherein the server is configured to compare historical data and new data of received sensor data or tracking data to determine timing and location of a mechanical failure [0037, 0039].
Sells further discloses a user interface 16, that may include a mobile device such as a cellular telephone that is configured to enable viewing by others of the timing of the mechanical failure [0015, 0039], but does not disclose that the mobile device has a software application that enables the viewing.
Sells does not explicitly disclose a software application of the user interface that enables viewing of the timing of the mechanical failure.
Green discloses a user interface that is a mobile device (110) that has a software application (112) that requires a subscription (Col. 7, lines 1-25, as shown in Figure 1).
Green suggests that using a mobile device as the user interface and locating a diagnostic software application thereon lowers costs for the user because it allows the user to use a device that they already possess instead of, for example purchasing a separate diagnostic tool, and improves user convenience since the user won’t have to share the device with other users who presumably also already possess their own mobile devices (Col. 2, lines 21-26). Green teaches mobile device software can be subscribed to and therefore allows the user to purchase only the diagnostic models needed for specific vehicle makes or models as desired, thereby avoiding high, up-front software costs associated with purchases of access to unneeded software (Col. 2, lines 8-21). A subscription allows a third party to bill the user for using the software and to deactivate the software in cases of non-payment (Col. 4, lines 17-33; Col. 14, lines 4-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the programming that enables viewing of the timing of mechanical failure disclosed by Sells, to a mobile device software diagnostic application because a mobile device is a user interface that can wirelessly communicate with the vehicle and a server to perform a diagnostic function using a software application requiring a subscription. As taught by Green, the ubiquity of mobile devices allows a user, such as a technician, to use his own mobile device to receive notifications without the need to share the device with other users which lowers system operating costs. Additionally, as taught by Green, application software can be subscribed to which allows the user to obtain only models for the vehicle they own without the need to purchase unneeded proprietary software, for example, for all models of a specific vehicle make.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sells (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0137755) in view of Boggio (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0130669) and further in view of Green (US Patent Number 8,930,067).
Regarding claims 10 and 26, Sells discloses a system for determining mechanical failure of a mobile asset comprising:
a tracking device (20) comprising one or more sensors (14a-e) attachable to a mobile asset (10), the one or more sensors being configured to collect and transmit characteristic data of status of the mobile asset, the tracking device including a location sensor configured to collect and transmit location data of the mobile asset [0004, 0014, 0017];
a dashboard system (including 16) connected to the tracking device, the dashboard system being configured to receive transmitted characteristic data and location data and to determine whether a mechanical failure of the mobile asset has occurred based on a comparison of received characteristic data and location data to reference data, the dashboard system being configured to output a notification to a user of a mechanical failure [0037];
wherein characteristic data includes historical data and new data and the dashboard system is configured to determine an abnormal activity of the mechanical failure and to provide a timing and a location of a determined abnormal activity [0037, 0039].
wherein the server is configured to compare historical data and new data of received sensor data or tracking data to determine timing and location of a mechanical failure [0037, 0039].
Sells further discloses a user interface 16, that may include a mobile device such as a cellular telephone that is configured to enable viewing by others of the timing of the mechanical failure [0015, 0039], but does not disclose that the mobile device has a software application that enables the viewing Sells does not disclose an application for a mobile device configured to display the timing of the abnormal activity and the timing of the abnormal activity being viewable by other users through a subscription, wherein the historical data does not rely on a library of manufacturer data.
Boggio discloses a user interface configured to display a timing of an abnormal activity in a vehicle, wherein the timing of the abnormal activity is determined by comparing historical data and new data of received sensor data [0037, 0039, 0044]. Boggio teaches that the user interface may be any suitable interface that is coupled to the vehicle through a wired or wireless connection [0030].
Boggio teaches that it has been known in the art to perform a statistical analysis across historical sensor data and new data received from vehicle sensors to predict or identify mechanical failure of a vehicle component without relying on manufacturer data [0002, 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user interface disclosed by Boggio with the vehicle system disclosed by Sells since it has been known to use machine learning to analyze trends in sensor data indicative of abnormal activity in a vehicle and one skilled in the art could predictably apply this method to another vehicle to identify the abnormal activity in other vehicles.
Sells, as modified by Boggio, does not explicitly disclose a software application of the user interface that enables viewing of the timing of the mechanical failure, or that the application requires a subscription.
Green discloses a user interface that is a mobile device (110) that has a software application (112) that requires a subscription (Col. 7, lines 1-25, as shown in Figure 1).
Green teaches that requiring a subscription for use of the software on the mobile device allows a user to purchase only the diagnostic models needed for specific vehicle makes or models as desired, and therefore avoids high, up-front software costs associated with purchases of access to unneeded software (Col. 2, lines 8-21). A subscription allows a third party to bill the user for using the software and to deactivate the software in cases of non-payment (Col. 4, lines 17-33; Col. 14, lines 4-12). Green also suggests that using a mobile device as the user interface lowers costs for the user because it allows the user to use a device that they already possess and makes it more convenient for the user since they do not have to share the device with other users (Col. 2, lines 21-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the programming that enables viewing of the timing of abnormal activity disclosed by Sells, as modified by Boggio, to a mobile device because a mobile device is a user interface that can wirelessly communicate with the vehicle and a server to perform a diagnostic function using a software application requiring a subscription. As taught by Green, the ubiquity of mobile devices allows a user, such as a technician, to use his own mobile device to receive notifications without the need to share the device with other users which lowers system operating costs. Additionally, as taught by Green, application software can be subscribed to which allows the user to obtain only models for the vehicle they own without the need to purchase unneeded proprietary software, for example, for all models of a specific vehicle make.
Regarding claim 11, Sells further discloses wherein the dashboard system is configured to communicate with the mobile device to display status of the mobile asset to the user and optionally display that an abnormal activity is at least one of struck an object, ground and damaged [0014-0015, 0039]. Sells does not disclose that the mobile device has a software application. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a diagnostic software application on the mobile device disclosed by Sells for the reasons specified in reference to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 25, Sells, as modified by Green, discloses the system of claim 9 as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the historical data does not rely on manufacturer data.
Boggio discloses a user interface configured to enable viewing by others of a timing of a mechanical failure in a vehicle, wherein the timing and location of the mechanical failure is determined by comparing historical data and new data of received sensor data [0037, 0039, 0044]. Boggio teaches that the user interface may be any suitable interface that is coupled to the vehicle through a wired or wireless connection [0030].
Boggio teaches that it has been known in the art to perform a statistical analysis across historical sensor data and new data received from vehicle sensors to predict or identify mechanical failure of a vehicle component without relying on manufacturer data [0002, 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user interface disclosed by Boggio with the vehicle system disclosed by Sells since it has been known to use machine learning to analyze trends in sensor data indicative of mechanical failure in a vehicle and one skilled in the art could predictably apply this method to another vehicle to identify failure in similar components.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0019352) in view of Saito (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0020380) in view of Shinohara (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0310412) and further in view of Green (US Patent Number 8,930,067).
Regarding claim 9, Harper discloses a system for determining mechanical failure in a mobile asset comprising:
one or more sensors (130) attached to a mobile asset (12);
a dashboard (110) configured to receive data from the one or more sensors and transmit sensor data to one or more connected devices upon request [0018];
a tracking device connected to the one or more sensors, the tracking device configured to collect and transmit tracking data regarding physical characteristics of the mobile asset [0018];
a server (310) configured to receive transmitted sensor data and to make determinations of the status of the mobile asset based on a comparison across time of received sensor data or tracking data [0009].
Harper does not explicitly disclose the server configured to receive transmitted tracking data. Harper does not disclose the server configured to make determinations of mechanical failures in the mobile asset based on a comparison across time of received sensor data or tracking data, wherein the server is configured to compare historical data and new data of received sensor data or tracking data to determine timing and location of a mechanical failure. Harper teaches that the sensor data is compared to a threshold, and alerts are issued regarding the status of the asset [0018-0019] [0021-0022].
Saito discloses a breakdown warning report system comprising a server (10, 100) configured to make determinations of mechanical failures in a mobile asset (104, 105, 106, 107) based on a comparison across time of received sensor data or tracking data [0014, 0052-0053, 0063-0064, as shown in Figures 19-20],
wherein the server is configured to compare historical data and new data of received sensor data or tracking data to determine a mechanical failure [0014, 0052-0053, 0063-0064, as shown in Figures 19-20].
Saito teaches that the server has the ability to identify the best asset servicing provider for the mechanical failure and/or present different servicing options to the user based on the failure [0014-0015, 0074].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the off-board server disclosed by Harper to make a determination on the mechanical failure of the asset as disclosed by Saito, because the server can be simultaneously connected to different servicing providers that provide servicing options to the user for maintenance in the event that a failure is determined.
Harper, as modified by Saito, does not disclose wherein the server is configured to determine the timing and location of the mechanical failure, the server configured to receive transmitted tracking data.
Shinohara discloses a server (130) configured to receive transmitted tracking data and configured to make determinations of mechanical failures in a mobile asset (110) based on a comparison across time of received sensor or tracking data [0068-0071, 0101, 0176, 0231-0233],
wherein the server is configured to compare historical data and new data of received sensor data or tracking data to determine the timing and location of the mechanical failure [0130-0132, 0178, 0195-0197, 0231-0233, as shown in Figures 20 and 26].
Shinohara teaches that determining the timing of the mechanical failure makes it easier to perform a behavior analysis in the time period where the failure occurs [0012, 0015]. Shinohara teaches that determining the location of the mechanical failure allows a movement locus of the asset to be generated and displayed to a user [0213, 0231].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit tracking data to the server as disclosed by Shinohara in the system disclosed by Harper to make it easier to analyze the period in which the failure occurs as identified by when a specific failure occurs and a visual representation of the asset location during a failure period.
Shinohara does not explicitly disclose a software application that enables viewing of the timing of the mechanical failure.
Green discloses a user interface that is a mobile device (110) that has a software application (112) that requires a subscription (Col. 7, lines 1-25, as shown in Figure 1).
Green suggests that using a mobile device as the user interface and locating a diagnostic software application thereon lowers costs for the user because it allows the user to use a device that they already possess instead of, for example purchasing a separate diagnostic tool, and improves user convenience since the user won’t have to share the device with other users who presumably also already possess their own mobile devices (Col. 2, lines 21-26). Green teaches mobile device software can be subscribed to and therefore allows the user to purchase only the diagnostic models needed for specific vehicle makes or models as desired, thereby avoiding high, up-front software costs associated with purchases of access to unneeded software (Col. 2, lines 8-21). A subscription allows a third party to bill the user for using the software and to deactivate the software in cases of non-payment (Col. 4, lines 17-33; Col. 14, lines 4-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the programming that enables viewing of the timing of mechanical failure disclosed by Sells, to a mobile device software diagnostic application because a mobile device is a user interface that can wirelessly communicate with the vehicle and a server to perform a diagnostic function using a software application requiring a subscription. As taught by Green, the ubiquity of mobile devices allows a user, such as a technician, to use his own mobile device to receive notifications without the need to share the device with other users which lowers system operating costs. Additionally, as taught by Green, application software can be subscribed to which allows the user to obtain only models for the vehicle they own without the need to purchase unneeded proprietary software, for example, for all models of a specific vehicle make.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0019352) in view of Saito (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0020380) in view of Shinohara (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0310412) in view of Boggio (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0130669) and further in view of Green (US Patent Number 8,930,067).
Regarding claim 10, Harper discloses a system for determining a mechanical failure of a mobile asset, comprising:
a tracking device comprising one or more sensors attachable to a mobile asset, the one or more sensors being configured to collect and transmit characteristic data of status of the mobile asset, the tracking device including a location sensor configured to collect and transmit location data of the mobile asset [0018]; and
a dashboard system connected to the tracking device, the dashboard system being configured to receive transmitted characteristic data and location data and based on a comparison of received characteristic data to reference data, the dashboard system configured to output a notification to a user [0019].
Harper teaches that the sensor data is compared to a threshold, and alerts are issued regarding the status of the asset [0018-0019] [0021-0022]. Harper does not disclose the dashboard system configured to determine whether a mechanical failure of the mobile asset has occurred based on a comparison of received characteristic data and location data to reference data, the notification indicating a mechanical failure, wherein characteristic data includes historical data and new data and the dashboard system is configured to determine an abnormal activity of the mechanical failure and to provide a timing and a location of a determined abnormal activity.
Saito discloses a breakdown warning report system comprising a dashboard system (100, 109) configured to receive transmitted characteristic data and to determine whether a mechanical failure of a mobile asset (104, 105, 106, 107) has occurred based on a comparison of received characteristic data to reference data, the dashboard system being configured to output a notification to a user of a mechanical failure [0014, 0052-0053, 0063-0064, as shown in Figures 19-20],
wherein characteristic data includes historical data and new data and the dashboard system is configured to determine an abnormal activity of the mechanical failure [0014, 0052-0053, 0063-0064, as shown in Figures 19-20].
Saito teaches that the server has the ability to identify the best asset servicing provider for the mechanical failure and/or present different servicing options to the user based on the failure [0014-0015, 0074].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the off-board server disclosed by Harper to make a determination on the mechanical failure of the asset as disclosed by Saito, because the server can be simultaneously connected to different servicing providers that provide servicing options to the user for maintenance in the event that a failure is determined.
Harper, as modified by Saito, does not disclose wherein the dashboard system is configured to provide a timing and location of a determined abnormal activity, the dashboard system configured to determine the mechanical failure based on a comparison of location data to reference data.
Shinohara discloses a dashboard system (130, 200) configured to receive location data and configured to determine whether a mechanical failure in a mobile asset (110) has occurred based on a comparison of location data to reference data [0068-0071, 0101, 0176, 0231-0233],
wherein the characteristic data includes historical data and new data and the dashboard system is configured to determine an abnormal activity of the mechanical failure and to provide a timing and location of a determined abnormal activity [0130-0132, 0178, 0195-0197, 0231-0233, as shown in Figures 20 and 26].
Shinohara teaches that determining the timing of the abnormal activity indicating a mechanical failure makes it easier to perform a behavior analysis in the time period where the failure occurs [0012, 0015]. Shinohara teaches that determining the location of the abnormal activity allows a movement locus of the asset to be generated and displayed to a user [0213, 0231].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive location data for comparison to reference data in determining abnormal activity in the asset as disclosed by Shinohara in the system disclosed by Harper to make it easier to analyze the period in which the failure occurs as identified by when a specific failure occurs and a visual representation of the asset location during a failure period.
Harper does not disclose an application for a mobile device configured to display the timing of the abnormal activity and the timing of the abnormal activity being viewable by other users through a subscription, wherein the historical data does not rely on a library of manufacturer data.
Boggio discloses a user interface configured to display a timing of an abnormal activity in a vehicle, wherein the timing of the abnormal activity is determined by comparing historical data and new data of received sensor data [0037, 0039, 0044]. Boggio teaches that the user interface may be any suitable interface that is coupled to the vehicle through a wired or wireless connection [0030].
Boggio teaches that it has been known in the art to perform a statistical analysis across historical sensor data and new data received from vehicle sensors to predict or identify mechanical failure of a vehicle component without relying on manufacturer data [0002, 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user interface disclosed by Boggio with the vehicle system disclosed by Harper since it has been known to use machine learning to analyze trends in sensor data indicative of abnormal activity in a vehicle and one skilled in the art could predictably apply this method to another vehicle to identify the abnormal activity in other vehicles.
Harper, as modified by Boggio, does not explicitly disclose a software application of the user interface that enables viewing of the timing of the mechanical failure, or that the application requires a subscription.
Green discloses a user interface that is a mobile device (110) that has a software application (112) that requires a subscription (Col. 7, lines 1-25, as shown in Figure 1).
Green teaches that requiring a subscription for use of the software on the mobile device allows a user to purchase only the diagnostic models needed for specific vehicle makes or models as desired, and therefore avoids high, up-front software costs associated with purchases of access to unneeded software (Col. 2, lines 8-21). A subscription allows a third party to bill the user for using the software and to deactivate the software in cases of non-payment (Col. 4, lines 17-33; Col. 14, lines 4-12). Green also suggests that using a mobile device as the user interface lowers costs for the user because it allows the user to use a device that they already possess and makes it more convenient for the user since they do not have to share the device with other users (Col. 2, lines 21-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the programming that enables viewing of the timing of abnormal activity disclosed by Harper, as modified by Boggio, to a mobile device because a mobile device is a user interface that can wirelessly communicate with the vehicle and a server to perform a diagnostic function using a software application requiring a subscription. As taught by Green, the ubiquity of mobile devices allows a user, such as a technician, to use his own mobile device to receive notifications without the need to share the device with other users which lowers system operating costs. Additionally, as taught by Green, application software can be subscribed to which allows the user to obtain only models for the vehicle they own without the need to purchase unneeded proprietary software, for example, for all models of a specific vehicle make.
Regarding claim 11, Harper further discloses wherein the dashboard system is configured to communicate with an application (200) of a mobile device (140) to display status of the mobile asset to a user and optionally display that an abnormal activity is at least one of struck an object ground and damaged [0019-0020].
Regarding claim 14, Harper further discloses wherein the application includes a user interface configured to selectively notify a user of a mechanical failure [0019, 0021].
Regarding claim 15, Harper further discloses wherein the dashboard system includes firmware configured to selectively determine how often data is sent from the dashboard system to a server and/or mobile device based on instructions of a user [0022].
Regarding claim 16, Harper discloses a system for determining mechanical failure in a mobile asset, comprising:
one or more sensors (130) attached to a mobile asset (12), wherein the one or more sensors are configured to gather physical characteristic data about the mobile asset [0018];
a dashboard unit (110) configured to receive gathered physical characteristic data and transmit gathered physical characteristic data to devices upon request [0018];
a GPS device configured to collect and transmit location data for the mobile asset [0018];
a server (310) configured to receive transmitted physical characteristic data, to store received characteristic data and to make determinations of the status of the mobile asset based on a comparison of received physical characteristic data across time [0009, 0022];
a mobile application (200) configured to display information regarding a status of the mobile asset, the mobile application configured to receive a notification from the server [0020-0021].
Harper does not explicitly disclose the server configured to receive and store location data. Harper does not disclose the server configured to make determinations of mechanical failures in the mobile asset based on a comparison across time of received physical characteristic data, wherein the server is configured to continuously compare historical data with new data to determine a mechanical failure, and provide an exact timing and an exact location of a determined mechanical failure. Harper teaches that the sensor data is compared to a threshold, and alerts are issued regarding the status of the asset [0018-0019] [0021-0022].
Saito discloses a breakdown warning report system comprising a server (10, 100) configured to make determinations of mechanical failures in a mobile asset (104, 105, 106, 107) based on a comparison across time of received physical characteristic data [0014, 0052-0053, 0063-0064, as shown in Figures 19-20],
wherein the server is configured to store historical data and continuously compare historical data with new data determine a mechanical failure [0014, 0052-0053, 0063-0064, as shown in Figures 19-20].
Saito teaches that the server has the ability to identify the best asset servicing provider for the mechanical failure and/or present different servicing options to the user based on the failure [0014-0015, 0074].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the off-board server disclosed by Harper to make a determination on the mechanical failure of the asset as disclosed by Saito, because the server can be simultaneously connected to different servicing providers that provide servicing options to the user for maintenance in the event that a failure is determined.
Harper, as modified by Saito, does not disclose wherein the server is configured to determine the exact timing and exact location of the mechanical failure, the server configured to receive and store location data to make determinations of mechanical failures in the mobile asset.
Shinohara discloses a server (130) configured to receive location data and configured to make determinations of mechanical failures in a mobile asset (110) based on a comparison across time of location data [0068-0071, 0101, 0176, 0231-0233],
wherein the server is configured to continuously compare historical data with new data to determine a mechanical failure and provide an exact timing and an exact location of the determined mechanical failure [0130-0132, 0178, 0195-0197, 0231-0233, as shown in Figures 20 and 26].
Shinohara teaches that determining the timing of the mechanical failure makes it easier to perform a behavior analysis in the time period where the failure occurs [0012, 0015]. Shinohara teaches that determining the location of the mechanical failure allows a movement locus of the asset to be generated and displayed to a user [0213, 0231].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit tracking data to the server as disclosed by Shinohara in the system disclosed by Harper to make it easier to analyze the period in which the failure occurs as identified by when a specific failure occurs and a visual representation of the asset location during a failure period.
Harper does not disclose an application for a mobile device configured to display the timing of the abnormal activity and the timing of the abnormal activity being viewable by other users through a subscription, wherein the historical data does not rely on a library of manufacturer data.
Boggio discloses a user interface configured to display a timing of an abnormal activity in a vehicle, wherein the timing of the abnormal activity is determined by comparing historical data and new data of received sensor data [0037, 0039, 0044]. Boggio teaches that the user interface may be any suitable interface that is coupled to the vehicle through a wired or wireless connection [0030].
Boggio teaches that it has been known in the art to perform a statistical analysis across historical sensor data and new data received from vehicle sensors to predict or identify mechanical failure of a vehicle component without relying on manufacturer data [0002, 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user interface disclosed by Boggio with the vehicle system disclosed by Sells since it has been known to use machine learning to analyze trends in sensor data indicative of abnormal activity in a vehicle and one skilled in the art could predictably apply this method to another vehicle to identify the abnormal activity in other vehicles.
Harper, as modified by Boggio, does not explicitly disclose a software application of the user interface that enables viewing of the timing of the mechanical failure, or that the application requires a subscription.
Green discloses a user interface that is a mobile device (110) that has a software application (112) that requires a subscription (Col. 7, lines 1-25, as shown in Figure 1).
Green teaches that requiring a subscription for use of the software on the mobile device allows a user to purchase only the diagnostic models needed for specific vehicle makes or models as desired, and therefore avoids high, up-front software costs associated with purchases of access to unneeded software (Col. 2, lines 8-21). A subscription allows a third party to bill the user for using the software and to deactivate the software in cases of non-payment (Col. 4, lines 17-33; Col. 14, lines 4-12). Green also suggests that using a mobile device as the user interface lowers costs for the user because it allows the user to use a device that they already possess and makes it more convenient for the user since they do not have to share the device with other users (Col. 2, lines 21-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the programming that enables viewing of the timing of abnormal activity disclosed by Harper, as modified by Boggio, to a mobile device because a mobile device is a user interface that can wirelessly communicate with the vehicle and a server to perform a diagnostic function using a software application requiring a subscription. As taught by Green, the ubiquity of mobile devices allows a user, such as a technician, to use his own mobile device to receive notifications without the need to share the device with other users which lowers system operating costs. Additionally, as taught by Green, application software can be subscribed to which allows the user to obtain only models for the vehicle they own without the need to purchase unneeded proprietary software, for example, for all models of a specific vehicle make.
Claim(s) 12-13, 17-21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0019352) in view of Saito (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0020380) in view of Shinohara (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0310412) in view of Boggio (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0130669) and further in view of Green (US Patent Number 8,930,067) in view of Plickys (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0169961) and further in view of Motsenbocker (US Patent Number 6,676,460).
Regarding claims 12-13, Harper discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the dashboard system is configured to transmit received characteristic data and location data to a server [0019] as discussed above, but does not disclose the server being configured to determine whether the mechanical failure is a propeller strike of a boat based on an amount of change of at least a portion of received characteristic data and location of where a change occurred, wherein the one or more sensors include a vibration sensor configured to generate vibration data of the mobile asset, and wherein the server is configured to identify a propeller strike based on one or more of how much change occurred in harmonics of vibration data and propeller balance data over time.
Plickys discloses a vibration sensor (32) that measures physical vibration of a propeller rotor (20) and provides data regarding the measured physical characteristic to a controller (30) to determine a mechanical failure, wherein the failure comprises the propeller determined to be operating in an unbalanced state, and stops motion of propeller counterweights (46, 52) when the mechanical failure is detected [0010] [0012].
Motsenbocker teaches that watercraft typically contain propellers as a propulsion device (Col. 1, lines 17-23). Plickys teaches that propeller rotors are subject to vibration and imbalance and that the controller can be used to correct the imbalance [0003].
Motsenbocker teaches that when the propeller strikes a solid objects such as rocks, the propeller blades tend to quickly shear or grind down (Col. 1, lines 59-65). Motsenbocker teaches that detecting the collision of the propeller with the solid object allows a control to intervene and stop movement of a propeller motor to limit damage (Col. 2, lines 11-36). Motsenbocker that this detection is particularly useful when installed on a rental watercraft where the detection system may record instances of sensed propeller collisions so that a fee may be charged to careless users and/or to alert the boat owner or custodian via wireless transmission (Col. 5, lines 3-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric control circuit disclosed by Motsenbocker with the server disclosed by Harper, as modified by Plickys, in order to limit damage to a boat propulsion system, wirelessly notify a boat owner or custodian, or to charge a damage fee to a user renting the boat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vibration sensor and control functions disclosed by Plickys with the boat and server disclosed by Harper, such that the measured physical characteristic is provided to the server to identify an imbalance in the boat propulsion device and take corrective action.
Regarding claims 17-20, Harper discloses the system of claim 16 as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the sensors include one or more of the following: accelerometer, heat probe, vibration, sound and harmonics sensors.
Plickys discloses a vibration sensor (32) that measures physical vibration of a propeller rotor (20) and provides data regarding the measured physical characteristic to a controller (30) determines a mechanical failure, wherein the failure comprises the propeller determined to be operating in an unbalanced state, and stops motion of propeller counterweights (46, 52) when the mechanical failure is detected [0010] [0012].
Motsenbocker teaches that watercraft typically contain propellers as a propulsion device (Col. 1, lines 17-23). Plickys teaches that propeller rotors are subject to vibration and imbalance and that the controller can be used to correct the imbalance [0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vibration sensor and control functions disclosed by Plickys with the boat and server disclosed by Harper to identify an imbalance in the boat propulsion device and take corrective action.
Regarding claim 21, Harper, as modified by Plickys, discloses the system of claim 19 as discussed above but does not disclose the mechanical failure includes the propeller has struck an object or the ground while under power.
Motsenbocker discloses an electric control circuit that determines mechanical failure related to a propeller when the propeller has struck an object or the ground while under power (Col. 2, lines 29-36).
Motsenbocker teaches that when the propeller strikes a solid objects such as rocks, the propeller blades tend to quickly shear or grind down (Col. 1, lines 59-65). Motsenbocker teaches that detecting the collision of the propeller with the solid object allows a control to intervene and stop movement of a propeller motor to limit damage (Col. 2, lines 11-36). Motsenbocker that this detection is particularly useful when installed on a rental watercraft where the detection system may record instances of sensed propeller collisions so that a fee may be charged to careless users and/or to alert the boat owner or custodian via wireless transmission (Col. 5, lines 3-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric control circuit disclosed by Motsenbocker with the server disclosed by Harper, as modified by Plickys, in order to limit damage to a boat propulsion system, wirelessly notify a boat owner or custodian, or to charge a damage fee to a user renting the boat.
Regarding claim 24, Harper, as modified by Saito, Shinohara, Plickys and Motsenbocker discloses the system of claim 18 as discussed above. Harper further discloses wherein the server can compare one type of data or various types of data through a complex algorithm to determine scenarios of an abnormal activity [0018-0022], but does not disclose the determination of a location of a mechanical failure.
Shinohara discloses a server (130) configured to receive location data and configured to make determinations of scenarios of abnormal activity in order to determine the location of a mechanical failure in a mobile asset (110) [0130-0132, 0178, 0195-0197, 0231-0233, as shown in Figures 20 and 26].
Shinohara teaches that determining the timing of the mechanical failure makes it easier to perform a behavior analysis in the time period where the failure occurs [0012, 0015]. Shinohara teaches that determining the location of the mechanical failure allows a movement locus of the asset to be generated and displayed to a user [0213, 0231].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the algorithm disclosed by Shinohara in the system having a server disclosed by Harper for the reasons specified in reference to claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0019352) in view of Saito (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0020380) in view of Shinohara (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0310412) in view of Boggio (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0130669) and further in view of Green (US Patent Number 8,930,067) in view of Plickys (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0169961) in view of Motsenbocker (US Patent Number 6,676,460) and further in view of Ito (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0201031).
Regarding claim 22, Harper, as modified by Plickys, discloses the system of claim 19 as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the propeller shaft, lower unit bearings, couplings or the gimble gears are operating in a faulty manner.
Ito discloses a boat and its propulsion unit (Title) having a control microcomputer (64) with a failure detector (73) that determines mechanical failure due to damage to a propeller shaft rotational speed sensor (77) causing a propeller shaft to operate in a faulty manner [0090].
Ito teaches that the failure determination allows the system to operate in a prescribed mode that ensures the boat can be driven while preventing shocks on gears in meshing engagement with each other and abrupt movement of the boat [0019-0020] [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the determination disclosed by Ito with the server disclosed by Harper to prevent gear shock resulting in abrupt movement of the boat when the failure is detected and to allow the boat to continue to be driven.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0019352) in view of Saito (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0020380) in view of Shinohara (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0310412) in view of Boggio (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0130669) and further in view of Green (US Patent Number 8,930,067) in view of Plickys (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0169961) in view of Motsenbocker (US Patent Number 6,676,460) and further in view of Yamazaki (US Patent Application Publication 2002/0019294).
Regarding claim 23, Harper, as modified by Plickys, discloses the system of claim 18 as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the mechanical failure determined by the server is damage to the clutch, including roller, weights, or belt failure.
Yamazaki discloses an apparatus and method for determining a state of a power train (Title) in which a control unit (36) detects mechanical failure by determining damage to a clutch (8), including roller, weights or belt failure [0099, as shown in Figures 6 or 7].
Yamazaki teaches that this control allows a specific state of failure to be determined and for a driver to recognize the failure [0105].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control disclosed by Yamazaki with the server disclosed by Harper to determine damage to the clutch so that the driver can be notified using the mobile application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8215. The examiner
can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571) 272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where
this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-
direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA CAMPBELL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747