DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 4/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, and 22 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-23 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 to correct informalities. Objections to claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 due to minor informalities are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1, 11 and 19. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but were not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-23 are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.12-13] that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea since “they integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application and provide an improvement in a technical field”, the improvements “achieved by the claimed process are improvements to the technical field of predicting wear on construction machines.” Applicant argues [Pg.15] “when looking at the additional limitations of claim 1 as an ordered combination, the Applicant's claims are patent-eligible”, then argues MPEP 2106.05(c) transformation factors “indicate integration of any judicial exception into a practical application”. Applicant also makes the argument [Pg.16] the claims recite a combination of features which amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. After careful reconsideration, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 21 are directed towards a method, therefore fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 11-13, 16-18, and 22 are directed towards a system, therefore fall within the statutory category of machine. Claims 19, 20 and 23 are directed towards a computer readable medium (CRM), therefore fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 11 and 19 are all directed towards an abstract idea (mental processes and/or mathematical concepts) – see 35 USC §101 analysis below.
Step 2A (Prong 2)/Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre/post solution activity) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.” Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".” Additionally, “in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described [ ] were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946”, which is significantly similar to the claimed invention.
Also, per MPEP 2106.05(g), “when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. [ ] the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(c) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing [ ] It is noted that while the transformation of an article is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility [ ] All claims must be evaluated for eligibility using the two-part test from Alice/Mayo [ ] if a claim fails the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is directed to an exception at Step 2A and does not amount to significantly more than the exception in Step 2B), then the claim is ineligible even if it passes the M-or-T test.”
Due to the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1, 11, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar rationale for dependent claim rejections is provided below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1, 11 and 19. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but were not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-23 are maintained.
Note: Significant amendments to claims warrant new grounds of rejection. See Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 section below.
Applicant argues [Pg.18] that referenced art does not disclose “all the elements of the claims at least as amended”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant cites the following amended limitation (BOLDED) as not disclosed by referenced art, but as can be seen below McElhinney does disclose the amended limitation.
generating a second wear condition of the first component or the second component based on feedback regarding the replacement or the inspection of the first component or the second component (“the remote computing system may be configured to receive feedback data from one or more output systems and then intelligently perform one or more operations based on this feedback data. For example, as noted above, the remote computing system may be configured to recommend and/or trigger various types of preventative actions for a given asset. In this example, the remote computing system may be configured to receive feedback data indicating whether a preventative action successfully prevented an asset failure and then update the health metric model and/or the actions triggered by the health metric based on this feedback data.” [Col.4 Ln.59]).
Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-23 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 independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 19, the claims recite “generating a
[ ] wear condition”. The use of “generating” unclear. Applicant fails to clearly disclose how wear conditions are “generated”. Are the wear conditions data received from the communication channels and then manipulated/calculated in some way? Or, is the Applicant referring to “predicting” wear conditions as mentioned in claims 6, 16, and 19? Applicant’s Specification doesn’t provide clarity. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “generating” to mean “predicting”.
The dependent claims 2-3, 6-10, 12-13, 16-18, and 20-23 included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 1-3, 6-13, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 21 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 11-13, 16-18, and 22 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Claims 19, 20 and 23 are directed to a CRM, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims recite performing Mental Processes on a generic computer and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the amended claim recites the limitations of:
determining, by the computing system, derived variables based on the
received wear measurements and physics-based features derived from the wear measurements, wherein the derived variables include a pedal travel difference correlating to the first travel distance and the second travel distance; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)) which are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as subtraction) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. Specifically, the limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate received wear measurements and physics-based features and then determine (i.e. observe, evaluate, judge) derived variables, with/without the aid of pen and paper. Also, a person can reasonably evaluate and then subtract pedal travel distances to determine a pedal travel difference as a derived variable.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting, pre/post-solution activity) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
receiving, by a computing system, wear measurements from a plurality of
source machines, wherein the wear measurements are associated with a first set of components of undercarriages of the plurality of source machines, wherein the wear measurements include a first data object corresponding to a first travel distance of a first pedal, and wherein the wear measurements include a second data object corresponding to a second travel distance of a second pedal; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
establishing a first set of communication channels between the computing system and a first target machine (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the limitation fails to recite details of how a first set of communication channels are established.), collecting, via the first set of communication channels, first time series data relating to operation of a first undercarriage of the first target machine in a set of target machines (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g));
establishing a second set of communication channels between the computing system and a second target machine (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the limitation fails to recite details of how a second set of communication channels are established.),
collecting, via the second set of communication channels, second time series data relating to operation of a second undercarriage of the second target machine in the set of target machines (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
generating a first wear condition of a first component of a track assembly of the first target machine or a second component of the track assembly of the second target machine based on the derived variables and at least a portion of the first time series data and the second time series data (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the limitation fails to recite details of how a first wear condition is generated.);
in response to generating the first wear condition, sending at least one command to the first target machine or the second target machine regarding replacement or inspection of the first component of the track assembly of the first target machine or the second component of the track assembly of the second target machine (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting, post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g));
and generating a second wear condition of the first component or the second component based on feedback regarding the replacement or the inspection of the first component or the second component (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the limitation fails to recite details of how a second wear condition is generated.).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are directed towards insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions to apply an exception.
Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.” Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".” Additionally, “in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described [ ] were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946”, which is significantly similar to the claimed invention.
Also, per MPEP 2106.05(g), “when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. [ ] the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claims 11 and 19 recite substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Claim 11 further recites a processor; a memory communicably coupled to the processor, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: and claim 19 further recites One or more computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations. The additional limitations are directed towards limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Field of Use and Technological Environment) per MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Therefore, claims 11 and 19 are rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 2 recites wherein the wear measurements include an idle state, service hours, a travel state, a travel mode, a pedal state, a pitch angle, a roll angle, a swing angle, a body inertial measurement unit (IMU) vertical acceleration, a pump pressure, a pump dispensing state, and/or an engine speed. The additional limitation further elaborates on the wear measurements; thus, the limitation further amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) - MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Amended Claim 3 recites wherein the physics-based features of the first target machine include a total travel time, an estimate odometer state, travel hours per steering, travel hours per slope, travel hours per speed, travel hours per load, and/or travel hours per ground condition. The additional limitation further elaborates on the physics-based features derived from the wear measurements; thus, the limitation further amounts to Mental Processes performed on a computer and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101
Claims 4 and 5 were canceled.
Amended Claim 6 recites wherein coefficients of a statistical model to predict a set of wear conditions are determined at least based on the first time series data or the second time series data, and wherein the statistical model is established based on the derived variables from the received wear measurements. The additional limitations are directed towards performing mental processes on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate received wear measurements, derive variables, then establish a statistical model, then evaluate time series data, and then determine coefficients of the statistical model, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 7 recites wherein the derived variables from the received wear measurements include an average pedal travel distance, a drive torque, an undercarriage pitch angle, a vibration level, a pump flow, and/or a steering state. The additional limitation further elaborates on the derived variables; thus, the limitation further amounts to Mental Processes performed on a computer and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 8, which is dependent on claim 6, recites wherein the derived variables from the received wear measurements include travel hours, a travel speed, a travel slope, and/or a ground condition. The additional limitation further elaborates on the derived variables from the received wear measurements; thus, the limitation further amounts to performing mental processes on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Amended Claim 9 recites wherein the first wear condition of the first target machine is based on the first time series data or the second time series data includes analyzing parameters associated with data objects associated with the wear measurements associated with the first set of components. The additional limitation further amounts mental process performed on a computer per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), since “analyzing parameters” is inherent to mental processes as it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 10, which is dependent on claim 9, recites wherein the data objects associated with the wear measurements include an idle state, service hours, a travel state, a travel mode, a pedal state, a pitch angle, a roll angle, a swing angle, a vertical acceleration, a pump pressure, a pump dispensing state, and an engine speed. The additional limitation further elaborates on the data objects, thus further amounts to a mental process performed on a computer per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 12-13 and 16-18 (claims 14-15 have been canceled) recite significantly the same subject matter as claims 2-3 and 6-8, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, claims 12-13 and 16-18 are considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as claims 7 and 8 and is rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 21 recites wherein the first time series data, the second time series data, or both include inspection data. The additional limitation elaborates on the time series data of claim 1, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 22-23 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 21 and are rejected under similar rationale. Therefore, the claims are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-13, 16, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McElhinney et al. US Patent No. 9471452 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “McElhinney”) in view of Recker et al. US Pub No. 20170356164 A1, (hereinafter referred to as “Recker”).
Regarding (amended) independent Claim 1, McElhinney discloses A method for wear prediction of an undercarriage of a target machine, the method comprising: (“Disclosed herein are systems, devices, and methods related to assets and asset operating conditions. In particular, examples involve defining and executing predictive models for outputting health metrics that estimate the operating health of an asset or a part thereof” [Abstract]. Examiner interprets “asset” as “machine” because “Today, machines (also referred to herein as “assets”) are ubiquitous in many industries [...] some assets may include multiple subsystems that must operate in harmony for the asset to function properly (e.g., an engine, transmission, etc. of a locomotive)” [Col. 1 Ln. 25-33]. Examiner interprets “a part thereof” to include undercarriage because “a subsystem 202 may include a group of related components that are part of the asset 200...in the context of transportation assets, examples of subsystems 202 may include engines, transmissions, drivetrains, fuel systems, battery systems, exhaust systems, braking systems, electrical systems, signal processing systems, generators, gear boxes, rotors, and hydraulic systems, among numerous other examples.” [Col. 10 Ln. 9-22]. Examiner interprets “subsystem” (which includes engines, transmissions, drivetrains, fuel systems, gear boxes, rotors, hydraulic systems, among other numerous examples) as “undercarriage” per Applicant’s disclosure “The undercarriage includes various components including ground engaging members which provide propulsion to the machine” Spec Para [0002] as well as references to pump pressure, engine speed, drive torque, etc. Spec Para [0018]. Examiner also interprets health metrics “to include wear prediction” because “the remote computing system may also be configured to determine individual “health scores” for respective subsystems of the given asset based on operating data from the asset, where each individual health score indicates a single, aggregated parameter that reflects whether a failure will occur at the particular subsystem of the given asset within a certain period of time into the future.” [Col. 3 Ln. 50-57]. “Health metric” and “health score” are considered to be synonymous because “the remote computing system may be configured to determine a health metric (also referred to herein as a “health score”) of a given asset” [Col. 2 Ln. 32-34])
receiving, by a computing system, wear measurements from a plurality of source machines, wherein the wear measurements are associated with a first set of components of undercarriages of the plurality of source machines, (“In one aspect, a computing system is provided [...] (a) receive a plurality of operating data indicating one or more instances of an abnormal condition at one or more assets” [Col. 5 Ln. 56-64]. Examiner interprets “one or more assets” to include “a first set of components of undercarriages of the plurality of source machines” because of Applicant’s undercarriage disclosure (Spec [P.0017]) and “Generally, a subsystem 202 may include a group of related components that are part of the asset 200 [...] in the context of transportation assets, examples of subsystems 202 may include engines, transmissions, drivetrains, fuel systems, battery systems, exhaust systems, braking systems, electrical systems, signal processing systems, generators, gear boxes, rotors, and hydraulic systems, among numerous other examples.” [Col.10 Ln.9-23]. Examiner also interprets “operating data” to include wear measurements associated with undercarriage components because “As suggested above, the asset 200 may be outfitted with various sensors 204 that are configured to monitor operating conditions of the asset 200 [...] the group of sensors 204 may be configured to monitor operating conditions of the particular subsystem 202.” [Col.10 Ln.23-29]. “In general, a sensor 204 may be configured to detect a physical property, which may be indicative of one or more operating conditions of the asset 200 [...] In operation, the sensors 204 may be configured to obtain measurements continuously, periodically (e.g., based on a sampling frequency), and/or in response to some triggering event.” [Col.10 Ln.30-37].)
wherein the wear measurements include a first data object corresponding to a first travel distance of a first pedal, and wherein the wear measurements include a second data object corresponding to a second travel distance of a second pedal; (“aggregate response variables associated with any set of sensor measurements (i.e. first and second pedal travel distances) that occur” [Col.21 Ln.63-64]. Examiner interprets the set of sensor measurements to include a first and second pedal travel distance because “operator variables may include any variable associated with the person or persons that operate an asset ... such as average braking distance” [Col.33 Ln.54-64]. The examiner interprets “braking distance” to include brake pedal travel distance and “average” to imply multiple data objects since to calculate an average requires multiple inputs. Also see above limitation for more context.)
determining, by the computing system, derived variables based on the received wear measurements and physic-based features derived from the wear measurements, (“the analytics system 400 may be configured to determine any or all of the variables discussed above for the given asset, or the analytics system 400 may be configured to make this determination for a select subset of the variables” [Col.34 Ln.60-64]. Examiner interprets the analytics system to include wear measurements because “the method 1200 may involve the analytics system 400 receiving sensor data (i.e. wear measurements) indicating at least one operating condition of an asset” [Col.37 Ln.33-35]. Examiner interprets sensor data to include “wear measurements and physics-based features derived from wear measurements” because “sensors 204 may be configured to measure physical properties such as the location and/or movement of the asset 200, in which case the sensors may take the form of GNSS sensors, dead-reckoning-based sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, pedometers, magnetometers, or the like.” [Col.10 Ln.51-56])
wherein the derived variables include a pedal travel difference correlating to the first travel distance and the second travel distance; (“Examples of operator variables may include... average braking distance” [Col.33 Ln.54-63]. Examiner interprets the average braking distance to include multiple brake pedal travel distances since at least two inputs are necessary to determine an average. Examiner also interprets “travel difference” to include “average braking distance” due to Applicant’s disclosure Spec. [P.0019])
establishing a first set of communication channels between the computing system and a first target machine (“a network configuration may include a communication network that facilitates communications between one or more assets, a remote computing system, one or more output systems, and one or more data sources.” [Col.2 Ln.21-24]), collecting, via the first set of communication channels, first time series data relating to operation of a first undercarriage of the first target machine in a set of target machines; (“FIG. 15 depicts a flow diagram of an example method 1500 for modifying the handling of operating data (i.e. time-series data) that normally result in an abnormal-condition indicator that may be performed by the analytics system 400. At block 1502, the method 1500 may involve the analytics system 400 receiving a plurality of operating data (i.e. collecting via communication channels) indicating one or more instances of an abnormal condition at one or more assets (e.g., the assets 102).” [Col.38 Ln.41]. Operating data is interpreted as time-series data because “the asset 200 may transmit operating data periodically based on a particular frequency (e.g., daily, hourly, every fifteen minutes, once per minute, once per second, etc.), or the asset 200 may be configured to transmit a continuous, real-time feed of operating data.” [Col.15 Ln.13])
establishing a second set of communication channels between the computing system and a second target machine (“a network configuration may include a communication network that facilitates communications between one or more assets, a remote computing system, one or more output systems, and one or more data sources.” [Col.2 Ln.21-24]), collecting, via the second set of communication channels, second time series data relating to operation of a second undercarriage of the second target machine in the set of target machines (“FIG. 15 depicts a flow diagram of an example method 1500 for modifying the handling of operating data (i.e. time-series data) that normally result in an abnormal-condition indicator that may be performed by the analytics system 400. At block 1502, the method 1500 may involve the analytics system 400 receiving a plurality of operating data (i.e. collecting via communication channels) indicating one or more instances of an abnormal condition at one or more assets (e.g., the assets 102).” [Col.38 Ln.41]. Operating data is interpreted as time-series data because “the asset 200 may transmit operating data periodically based on a particular frequency (e.g., daily, hourly, every fifteen minutes, once per minute, once per second, etc.), or the asset 200 may be configured to transmit a continuous, real-time feed of operating data.” [Col.15 Ln.13]),
generating a first wear condition of a first component of a track assembly of the first target machine or a second component of the track assembly of the second target machine based on the derived variables and at least a portion of the first time series data and the second time series data; ((See Examiner’s “generating” interpretation above.) “the data science system 404 may analyze historical operating data (i.e. includes time-series data) for a group of one or more assets to identify past occurrences of a given failure from the set of failures. At block 506, the data science system 404 may identify a respective set of operating data that is associated with each identified past occurrence of the given failure (e.g., sensor data from a given timeframe prior to the occurrence of the given failure). At block 508, the data science system 404 may analyze the identified sets of operating data associated with past occurrences of the given failure to define a relationship (e.g., a failure model) between (1) the values for a given set of operating metrics and (2) the likelihood of the given failure occurring within a given timeframe in the future (e.g., the next two weeks). Lastly, at block 510, the defined relationship for each failure in the defined set (e.g., the individual failure models) may then be combined into a model for predicting (i.e. generating a first wear condition) the overall likelihood of a failure occurring.” [Col.17 Ln.22])
in response to generating the first wear condition, sending at least one command to the first target machine or the second target machine regarding replacement or inspection of the first component of the track assembly of the first target machine or the second component of the track assembly of the second target machine (“the remote computing system may be configured to use the health metric to trigger various types of preventative actions. For example, in the event that the health metric has reached a health threshold, the remote computing system may be configured to facilitate causing an output device to display one or more recommended actions that may affect the health metric, facilitate generating a work order to repair the asset, facilitate ordering a part for the asset, and/or transmit to the asset one or more commands that cause the asset to modify its operation. Other preventative actions are also possible.” [Col.3 Ln.38]);
generating a second wear condition of the first component or the second component based on feedback regarding the replacement or the inspection of the first component or the second component (“the remote computing system may be configured to receive feedback data from one or more output systems and then intelligently perform one or more operations based on this feedback data. For example, as noted above, the remote computing system may be configured to recommend and/or trigger various types of preventative actions for a given asset. In this example, the remote computing system may be configured to receive feedback data indicating whether a preventative action successfully prevented an asset failure and then update the health metric model and/or the actions triggered by the health metric based on this feedback data.” [Col.4 Ln.59]).
McElhinney fails to specifically disclose a track assembly.
However, analogous art of Recker, discloses a track assembly (“a wear prediction and notification system for a plurality of components mounted on a machine includes a usage sensor for generating usage signals indicative of an extent of usage of the machine” Recker [P.0006]. The machine is interpreted to include a track assembly because “Machines are used to perform various operations in different industries, such as construction, mining, transportation, and the like. Such machines may include an upper frame supported on an undercarriage [ ] Each component of the undercarriage may undergo wear due to contact with other components of the track assembly” Recker [P.0002])
McElhinney and Recker are analogous art as they both relate to monitoring assets, collecting data (usage or condition), and generating alerts or notifications based on prediction analysis. McElhinney discloses “herein are systems, devices, and methods related to assets and asset operating conditions. In particular, examples involve defining and executing predictive models for outputting health metrics that estimate the operating health of an asset or a part thereof, analyzing health metrics to determine variables that are associated with high health metrics, and modifying the handling of abnormal-condition indicators in accordance with a prediction of a likely response to such abnormal-condition indicators” McElhinney [Abstract]. And Recker discloses “a wear prediction and notification system for a plurality of components mounted on a machine” Recker [P.0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McElhinney to include a track assembly, as Recker discloses, in order “for evaluating machine usage and predicting wear of components (i.e. track assembly)” Recker [P.0001].
Regarding claim 2, McElhinney in view of Recker disclose the limitations of claim 1, McElhinney further discloses wherein the wear measurements include an idle state, service hours, a travel state, a travel mode, a pedal state, a pitch angle, a roll angle, a swing angle, a body inertial measurement unit (IMU) vertical acceleration, a pump pressure, a pump dispensing state, and/or an engine speed. (“Additionally, various sensors 204 may be configured to measure other operating conditions of the asset 200, examples of which may include temperatures, pressures, speeds, friction, power usages, fuel usages, fluid levels, runtimes, voltages and currents, magnetic fields, electric fields, and power generation, among other examples. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that these are but a few example operating conditions that sensors may be configured to measure. Additional or fewer sensors may be used depending on the industrial application or specific asset.” McElhinney [Col.10 Ln.57-67])
Regarding (amended) Claim 3, McElhinney in view of Recker disclose the limitations of claim 1, McElhinney further discloses wherein the physics-based features of the first target machine include a total travel time, an estimate odometer state, travel hours per steering, travel hours per slope, travel hours per speed, travel hours per load, and/or travel hours per ground condition. (“the analytics system 400 may be configured to analyze historical health metric data to identify variables associated with assets”, “variables that may influence health metrics may include asset variables that indicate characteristics of a given asset and the operation thereof” McElhinney [Col.33 Ln 28-33], “Examples of asset variables may include asset brand, asset model, asset travel schedules, asset payloads, and asset environment, among others.”, “Asset travel schedules may indicate routes that a given asset traverses, which may include an indication of elevations, terrain, and/or travel durations. Asset payloads may indicate type and/or amount (e.g., weight) of cargo or the like that an asset hauls. Asset environment may indicate various characteristics about the environment in which a given asset is operated, such as geospatial location, climate, average ambient temperature or humidity, and/or proximity of sources of electrical interference, among other examples.” McElhinney [Col.33 Ln.39-53]. Examiner interprets variables as “features” because of Applicant’s disclosure “physic-based features are determined based on derived variables (e.g., Figure 5) from the wear measurements.” Spec. [P.0009])
Claims 4 and 5 were canceled.
Regarding (amended) Claim 6, McElhinney in view of Recker disclose the limitations of claim 1, McElhinney further discloses wherein coefficients of a statistical model to predict a set of wear conditions are determined at least based on the first time series data or the second time series data, (“defining a failure model may involve the data science system 404 generating a response variable based on the historical operating data (i.e. time-series data) identified at block 506. Specifically, the data science system 404 may determine an associated response variable for each set of sensor measurements received at a particular point in time [...] The response variable may be a binary-valued response variable (i.e. coefficient) such that if the given set of sensor measurements is within any of determined timeframes (i.e. time series), the associated response variable is assigned a value of one (i.e. coefficient), and otherwise, the associated response variable is assigned a value of zero (i.e. coefficient).” McElhinney [Col.19 Ln.55 – Col.20 Ln.5]. The response variables (i.e. coefficients) are interpreted as being of a statistical model to predict the set of wear conditions because “training with the historical operating data (i.e. time-series data) identified at block 506 and the generated response variable may result in variable importance statistics for each sensor. A given variable importance statistic may indicate the sensor's relative effect on the probability that a given failure will occur within the period of time into the future.” McElhinney [Col.20 Ln.25-30])
and wherein the statistical model is established based on the derived variables from the received wear measurements. (“the data science system 404 may then define the failure model (i.e. statistical model) that receives as inputs various sensor data (i.e. wear measurements)” McElhinney [Col.20 Ln.19-21]. Examiner interprets the failure model to include derived variables from the wear measurements because “defining a failure model based on a response variable... the generated response variable may result in variable importance statistics for each sensor” McElhinney [Col.20 Ln.15-27])
Regarding Claim 8, McElhinney in view of Recker disclose the limitations of claim 8, McElhinney further discloses wherein the derived variables from the received wear measurements include travel hours, a travel speed, a travel slope, and/or a ground condition. (“Additionally, various sensors 204 may be configured to measure other operating conditions of the asset 200, examples of which may include temperatures, pressures, speeds, friction, power usages, fuel usages, fluid levels, runtimes, voltages and currents, magnetic fields, electric fields, and power generation, among other examples. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that these are but a few example operating conditions that sensors may be configured to measure. Additional or fewer sensors may be used depending on the industrial application or specific asset.” McElhinney [Col. 10 Ln. 57-67]. Examiner interprets “speeds” as the “derived variable” per Applicant’s disclosure “As shown in Figure 5, examples of the derived variables (including travel states) can include... travel speed (e, m, n)” Spec. [P.0019]. Examiner interprets “sensors” to include “wear measurements”.)
Regarding (amended) claim 9, McElhinney in view of Recker disclose the limitations of claim 1, McElhinney further discloses wherein the first wear condition of the first target machine is based on the first time series data or the second time series data includes analyzing parameters associated with data objects associated with the wear measurements associated with the first set of components. (“the remote computing system may determine a failure model for the given subsystem based on operating data (i.e. time-series data) that is particular to the given subsystem” McElhinney [Col. 3 Ln. 58-65], “the remote computing system may also be configured to determine individual “health scores” for respective subsystems (i.e. first set of components) of the given asset (i.e. the first target machine) based on operating data (i.e. time-series data) from the asset, where each individual health score indicates a single, aggregated parameter that reflects whether a failure will occur (i.e. predicting the first wear condition) at the particular subsystem of the given asset within a certain period of time into the future.” McElhinney [Col.3 Ln.50-57]. Examiner interprets “health score” to “include parameters associated with data objects associated with the wear measurements associated with the first set of components” because “determining a health metric (i.e. health score. See Col.2 Ln.31-33) may involve a “machine-learning” phase, during which the remote computing system may analyze historical operating data for one or more assets to define a model for predicting asset failures” McElhinney [Col. 2 Ln. 42-45])
Regarding claim 10, McElhinney in view of Recker disclose the limitations of claim 9, McElhinney further discloses wherein the data objects associated with the wear measurements include an idle state, service hours, a travel state, a travel mode, a pedal state, a pitch angle, a roll angle, a swing angle, a vertical acceleration, a pump pressure, a pump dispensing state, and an engine speed. (“various sensors 204 may be configured to measure other operating conditions of the asset 200, examples of which may include temperatures, pressures, speeds, friction, power usages, fuel usages, fluid levels, runtimes, voltages and currents, magnetic fields, electric fields, and power generation, among other examples. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that these are but a few example operating conditions that sensors may be configured to measure.” McElhinney [Col.10 Ln.57-67]. Examiner interprets “operating conditions” as “data objects” because of Applicant’s disclosure “the data objects associated with the wear measurements include [...] an engine speed.” Spec. [P.0010]. Examiner interprets “sensors” as “wear measurements” because “In operation, the sensors 204 may be configured to obtain measurements continuously, periodically (e.g., based on a sampling frequency), and/or in response to some triggering event.” McElhinney [Col.10 Ln.30-37]. Examiner also interprets “these are but a few example operating conditions that sensors may be configured to measure” to include “an idle state, service hours, a travel state, a travel mode, a pedal state, a pitch angle, a roll angle, a swing angle, a vertical acceleration, a pump pressure, a pump dispensing state, and an engine speed”.)
Independent Claim 11 (amended) recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Additionally, McElhinney further discloses A computing system comprising: a processor; a memory communicably coupled to the processor, the memory comprising computer executable instructions (“a computing system is provided. The computing system comprises at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium. The program instructions are executable by the at least one processor” McElhinney [Col.5 Ln.56-61])
Claims 12-13, 16 and 18 (claims 14-15 cancelled) recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 2-3, 6 and 8, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Independent Claim 19 (amended) recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Additionally, McElhinney discloses One or more computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations (“a computing system is provided. The computing system comprises at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium. The program instructions are executable by the at least one processor” McElhinney [Col.5 Ln.56-61])
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as claims 7 and 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 21, McElhinney in view of Recker disclose the limitations of claim 1, McElhinney further discloses wherein the first time series data, the second time series data, or both include inspection data. (“during the machine-learning phase, the remote computing system may be configured to receive operating data (i.e. inspection data) from one or more assets over a certain amount of time (i.e. time series). The operating data may include sensor data” McElhinney [Col.2 Ln.50-53]. Operating data is interpreted as “inspection data” per Applicant’s disclosure “the component tracking data set 407 can serve as inspection data input (e.g., the inspection data 101) for establishing the statistical model 105.” Spec. [P.0027])
Claims 22 and 23 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 21 and are rejected under similar rational.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McElhinney et al. (US Patent No. 9471452 B2), in view of Recker et al. (US Pub No. 20170356164 A1), in further view of Johannsen U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0332524 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Johannsen”).
Regarding Claim 7, McElhinney and Recker disclose the limitations of claim 1, McElhinney further discloses wherein the derived variables from the received wear measurements include an average pedal travel distance, a drive torque, an undercarriage pitch angle, a vibration level, a pump flow, and/or a steering state. (“Additionally, various sensors 204 may be configured to measure other operating conditions of the asset 200, examples of which may include temperatures, pressures, speeds, friction, power usages, fuel usages, fluid levels, runtimes, voltages and currents, magnetic fields, electric fields, and power generation, among other examples. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that these are but a few example operating conditions that sensors may be configured to measure. Additional or fewer sensors may be used depending on the industrial application or specific asset.” McElhinney [Col.10 Ln.57-67]. Examiner interprets “speeds” as the derived variable per Applicant’s disclosure “As shown in Figure 5, examples of the derived variables (including travel states) can include... travel speed (e, m, n)” Spec. [P.0019]. Examiner interprets the sensors to include wear measurements per reasons previously given. McElhinney further discloses “One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the aforementioned asset-related variables are provided for purposes of example and explanation only and are not meant to be limiting. Numerous other variables are possible and contemplated herein.” [Col.34 Ln.18-22])
However, the McElhinney-Recker combination fails to specifically disclose an average pedal travel distance, a drive torque, an undercarriage pitch angle, a vibration level, a pump flow, and/or a steering state.
On the other hand, Johannsen discloses an average pedal travel distance, a drive torque, an undercarriage pitch angle, a vibration level, a pump flow, and/or a steering state. (“Further, the parameter detection module 202 is communicably coupled to a third sensor 208. The third sensor 208 is configured to determine and generate signals corresponding to the drive torque, and more particularly, the final drive torque of the machine 100. In one example, the third sensor 208 may embody a torque sensor. The torque sensor may be associated with the engine or the transmission system of the machine 100 in order to measure the final drive torque. Alternatively, the third sensor 208 may include any known torque measuring means known in the art.” Johannsen [P.0017])
Johannsen is analogous art as it relates to the technical field of machine monitoring systems, specifically for tracked machines used in mining, agriculture, forestry, construction, and other industrial applications. Its intended use is to monitor operating parameters of such machines to detect operating practices that may cause excess wear or damage to machine components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McElhinney-Recker to incorporate drive torque, as disclosed by Johannsen, as another derived variable to further predict undercarriage wear and tear conditions of a target machine to provide a more versatile system that incorporates further inputs.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights