DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 10/09/2025. Claims 1-19 have been canceled. Claims 20-21, 32, and 37 have been amended. Claims 20-39 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The applicant’s claim for benefit of Provisional Patent Application Serial Nos. 63137950, 63138024, 63137955, 63137978, 63137893, 63138016, 63137867, 63138015, 63137996, and 63138003, all filed 01/15/2021 have been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 07/11/2025, 08/01/2025, 10/01/2025, and 11/06/2025 have been reviewed and considered.
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 20-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 20-39 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 20-39 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 20, claim 20 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
positioned to monitor operation of the work including a condition of a worksite of the work; and
generate information related to the work machine;
collect operation data;
determine, based on the operation data, that work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning;
generate a recommendation based on determining that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning;
provide the recommendation to a user;
receive a user input interacting with the recommendation; and
initiate a transaction implementing the recommendation.
Taking claim 32, claim 32 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
positioned to monitor operation of the work including a condition of a worksite of the work; and
generate information related to the work;
communicably couple the work;
collect first operation data, the first operation data comprising the condition of the worksite;
determine, based on the first operation data, that the condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work;
receive second operation data from a second work communicably coupled;
generate a recommendation based on the first operation data and the second operation data indicating that the work machine and the second work machine have ceased functioning;
provide the recommendation to a user;
receive a user input interacting with the recommendation; and
initiate a transaction implementing the recommendation.
Taking claim 37, claim 37 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
positioned to monitor operation of the work including a condition of a worksite of the work; and
generate information related to the work;
communicably couple the work;
collect first operation data, the first operation data comprising the condition of the worksite;
determine, based on the first operation data, that the condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work;
receive a plurality of operation data from a plurality of work communicably coupled;
generate a recommendation based on the plurality operation data indicating that the plurality of work machines have ceased functioning;
provide the recommendation to a user;
receive a user input interacting with the recommendation; and
initiate a transaction implementing the recommendation.
The above limitations of these claims recite the concept of providing a recommendation for a transaction based on information. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the item recommendations are for the purpose of a transaction. Furthermore, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, determining the claims recite concepts similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 20, 32, and 37 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 20, 32, and 37 recite additional elements, such as a work machine; a chassis, an implement coupled to the chassis; a prime mover configured to power the implement; a sensor coupled to the chassis; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of the controller cause the processor to; establish a network connection with at least one second work machine; generate a graphical user interface on a display; providing information via the graphical user interface; a wireless network; a second work machine; and a plurality of work machines. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 20, 32, and 37 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 20, 32, and 37 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., providing a recommendation for a transaction based on information) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 20, 32, and 37 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 20, 32, and 37 specifying that the abstract idea of providing a recommendation for a transaction based on information is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 20, 32, and 37 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 20, 32, and 37 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 20, 32, and 37 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 20, 32, and 37, these claims recite additional elements, such as a work machine; a chassis, an implement coupled to the chassis; a prime mover configured to power the implement; a sensor coupled to the chassis; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of the controller cause the processor to; establish a network connection with at least one second work machine; generate a graphical user interface on a display; providing information via the graphical user interface; a wireless network; a second work machine; and a plurality of work machines. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 20, 32, and 37 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 20, 32, and 37 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 20, 32, and 37 specifying that the abstract idea of providing recommendations for a transaction based on information is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 20, 32, and 37 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 20, 32, and 37 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 21-31, 33-36, and 38-39, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 21-31, 33-36, and 38-39 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Furthermore, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 23-25, 27-29, 31, 35, and 38-39 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 21-22, 26, 30, 33-34, 36 further identify additional elements, such as a local mesh network hosted by the work machine and a second work machine; a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh network; a remote server; a wireless network; a user device communicably coupled to the work machine; a second work machine, and a plurality of work machines. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 21-31, 33-36, and 38-39 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 20, 32, and 37, dependent claims 21-31, 33-36, and 38-39 analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 20-39 are ineligible.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 20, 23-24, 28, 31-32, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Sells (US 2009/0005928 A1) (“Sells”) in view of newly cited Larson et al. (US 20160034329 A1) (“Larson”).
Claim 20: Sells discloses a work machine ([fig 1 element 10] – shows dump truck) comprising;
a chassis ([fig 1] – [chassis] is the part connected to element 130 (i.e., the chassis is connected to the rear wheel);
an implement coupled to the chassis ([fig 1 element 26] – work tool; see also [0026] - a work tool 26);
a prime mover configured to power the implement ([claim 15] - a power source configured to power machine operations; a tool operatively coupled to receive power from the power source);
a sensor coupled to the chassis ([fig 1 element 14a]) and positioned to monitor operation of the work machine ([0014] - Interface module 14 may include a plurality of sensors 14a-e distributed throughout machine 10 and configured to gather data from various components, subsystems, and/or operators of machine 10); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of a controller cause the processor to ([0019] - The computer program instructions may be loaded into RAM 42 for execution by CPU 40 from ROM 44. During operation, CPU 40, and/or controller 24 via communication module 18, may carry out various processes in connection with the visual diagnostic subscription service disclosed herein):
establish a network connection with at least one second work machine (receive, via the wireless network, second operation data from a second work machine communicably coupled to the wireless network ([0025] – “Media asset library 52b may contain, among other things, a plurality of media assets containing data about a plurality of subscribing machines”; [0024] – “customer may be, for example, an owner of one or more machines (e.g., machine 10) that subscribes to the visual diagnostic service described herein. Customer subscription information 52a may include…a model for each of the customer's subscribed machines”; [0002] – “machines have been provided with onboard controllers to detect abnormal operating conditions and warn the machine operator or owner of the conditions”; ([0013] and Fig. 1 – “system 12 may include an interface module 14, a user interface 16, a communication module 18”; [0016] – “Communication module 18 may include any device configured to facilitate communications between controller 24 and off-board system 22…wireless communication link 38. The wireless communications may include satellite, cellular, infrared, and any other type of wireless communications that enables controller 24 to wirelessly exchange information with off-board system 22”);
generate a graphical user interface on a display, the graphical user interface comprising information related to the work machine ([0039] - Display area 62 may also include an information prompt area 66 in which controller 24 may warn a user of GUI 60 that component 64a has failed, provide information about failed component 64);
collect operation data from the work machine and the at least one second work machine ([0013-0014] - System 12 may include one or more components that cooperate to gather and communicate information relating to the operation of machine 10…Interface module 14 may include a plurality of sensors 14a-e distributed throughout machine 10 and configured to gather data from various components, subsystems, and/or operators of machine 10… Sensors 14a-e may be associated with, for example, a work tool 26, a power source 28, a traction device 30 coupled to power source 28 to propel machine 10, a transmission 34, a torque converter 32, a fluid supply 36, user interface 16, and/or other components and subsystems of machine 10. Sensors 14a-e may monitor pressures, temperatures, volumes, voltages, currents, forces, speeds, and/or other parameters, and generate signals indicative of values of the parameters. Additionally, these signals may also indicate an operational status of sensors 14a-e; [0025] – “Media asset library 52b may contain, among other things, a plurality of media assets containing data about a plurality of subscribing machines”; [0024] – “customer may be, for example, an owner of one or more machines (e.g., machine 10) that subscribes to the visual diagnostic service described herein. Customer subscription information 52a may include…a model for each of the customer's subscribed machines”; [0002] – “machines have been provided with onboard controllers to detect abnormal operating conditions and warn the machine operator or owner of the conditions”; ([0013] and Fig. 1 – “system 12 may include an interface module 14, a user interface 16, a communication module 18”; [0016] – “Communication module 18 may include any device configured to facilitate communications between controller 24 and off-board system 22…wireless communication link 38. The wireless communications may include satellite, cellular, infrared, and any other type of wireless communications that enables controller 24 to wirelessly exchange information with off-board system 22”);
generate a recommendation ([0044] - Based on the data retrieved from diagnostic information 52c, controller 24 may prompt the user, via GUI 60, as to whether a replacement for failed component 64a should be ordered. In one embodiment, the prompting may further include recommending [generate a recommendation] that one or more accessory items related to the replacement of failed component 64a also be ordered);
provide the recommendation to a user via the graphical user interface ([0044] - Based on the data retrieved from diagnostic information 52c, controller 24 may prompt the user, via GUI 60 [via the graphical user interface], as to whether a replacement for failed component 64a should be ordered. In one embodiment, the prompting may further include recommending [provide the recommendation] that one or more accessory items related to the replacement of failed component 64a also be ordered);
receive a user input interacting with the recommendation ([0044] - Upon selecting "Yes" button 74 or otherwise affirming the order, controller 24 may automatically access machine component information 52d to determine if the at least one failed component 64a is of a latest version thereof); and
initiate a transaction implementing the recommendation ([0046] - If the user affirms the order via input to GUI 60 . . . controller 24 may affect a sale to the customer by, for example, charging an account associated with the particular customer contained in customer subscription information 52a (e.g., credit card account)).
Sells further discloses that the machine is a work machine and that a site is a worksite (Sells: [0012] – “Machine 10 may embody a stationary or mobile machine configured to perform some type of operation associated with an industry such as mining, construction, farming, transportation, power generation, or any other known industry. For example, machine 10 may embody an excavating machine, an on- or off-road haul truck, a passenger vehicle, or a marine vessel. Machine 10 may alternatively embody a stationary generator set, a pumping mechanism, or other suitable operation-performing machine”; [0024] – “the on-site location of the machine”),
yet Sells fails to explicitly disclose
operation of the machine including a condition of a worksite of the work machine; determine, based on the operation data, that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning; and the recommendation based on determining that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning.
However, Larson does teach
operation of the machine including a condition of a worksite of the work machine ([0179] – “an event may be a situation or circumstance regarding the operation of a machine. For example, a previously determined pattern may be a continuously low collection weight for a garbage truck. This pattern may be associated with a garbage route that is not long enough or an inefficient use of the garbage truck (i.e., the event). So, if a similar pattern occurs on a different garbage truck, then it may be that the different garbage truck too is being used inefficiently or on a route that is too short”; [0205] – “determined pattern may be based on one or more events for one or more sensors. So, in some embodiments, the pattern may be a single event of a single sensor. For example, a peak temperature value. In other embodiments, the pattern may be a single event from a plurality of sensors. For example, a peak temperature value and a peak pressure value”; [0200] – “the machines may be employed by different customers/users, located in similar or different geographical regions/environments”);
determine, based on the operation data, that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning; and the recommendation based on determining that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning ([0199] – “where a notification of a component failure on at least a subset of the plurality of machines may be received”; [0179-0180] – “an event may be a component failure on a machine. In other embodiments, an event may be a situation or circumstance regarding the operation of a machine. For example, a previously determined pattern may be a continuously low collection weight for a garbage truck…So, if a similar pattern occurs on a different garbage truck, then it may be that the different garbage truck too is being used inefficiently or on a route that is too short. In yet other embodiments, an event may be another sensor value…an alert may be provided to a user based on the event prediction. In some embodiments, the alert may include at least one recommendation to either prevent or resolve an occurrence of the event at the first machine”; [0003] – “If one system, subsystem, or component fails, a machine may be idle for some time while the failure is diagnosed and replacement components are ordered”; [0221] – “indicate that a conveyer belt has stopped moving (i.e., the RPMs fell below a predetermined threshold value)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the recommendation method of Sells to include the ceased functioning of Larson because Sells already discloses operation information and Larson is merely demonstrating that the operation information may be about the ceasing of functioning. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have modified Sells to have included determine, based on the operation data, that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning; and the recommendation based on determining that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning as taught by Larson because failure data is well-known and the use of it in a recommendation setting would have prevented machines from sitting idly (Larson: [0004]).
Claim 23: Sells/Larson teaches the work machine of Claim 20, and Sells further discloses
wherein the operation data further comprises at least one of a work machine state ([0008] - The method may include detecting a status of a machine component), a work machine load, a user profile ([0024] - Customer subscription information 52a may include data about each of a plurality of customers in a customer population (e.g., a customer profile)), worksite environmental conditions, a time of day, or a location of the work machine ([0017] - Locating device 20 may be configured to determine and communicate a location of machine 10 to controller 24 and/or off-board system 22).
Claim 24: Sells/Larson teaches the work machine of claim 20, and Sells further discloses
wherein the recommendation comprises a recommended purchase for the user ([0055] - Controller 24 may also display, in information prompt area 66, a message indicating that the temperature sensor has failed and asking the user if a replacement part should be ordered. For example, controller 24 may display "Warning! Temperature Sensor A (P/N 123456) has failed. Would you like to place an order for a replacement part (Y/N)?").
Claim 28: Sells/Larson teaches the work machine of claim 20, and Sells further discloses
wherein the operation data comprises a user profile of a user ([0024] - Customer subscription information 52a may include data about each of a plurality of customers in a customer population (e.g., a customer profile [user profile]). A customer may be, for example, an owner of one or more machines (e.g., machine 10) that subscribes to the visual diagnostic service), the controller further configured to:
retrieve billing information based on the user profile ([0046] - Additionally, controller 24 may affect a sale to the customer by, for example, charging an account associated with the particular customer contained in customer subscription information 52a (e.g., credit card account) {here, “credit card account” discloses [user’s billing information]}; and
initiate the transaction implementing the recommendation according to the user's billing information ([0046] - Additionally, controller 24 may affect a sale to the customer [initiate the transaction implementing the recommendation] by, for example, charging an account associated with the particular customer contained in customer subscription information 52a (e.g., credit card account) [according to the user's billing information]).
Claim 31: Sells/Larson teaches the work machine of Claim 20, and Sells further discloses
wherein the controller ([fig 1 element 24] – see excerpt from fig 1 below) is integrally coupled to the work machine ([fig 1 – the dump truck); see also [0013] - controller 24 configured to communicate with an off-board control system 22 {clarifies that “controller 24” is [integrally coupled to the work machine], because “off-board control system 22” is shown detached from the machine and is therefore, in contrast, not integrally coupled}).
Claim 32: Sells discloses a work machine ([fig 1 element 10] – shows dump truck) comprising;
a chassis ([fig 1] – [chassis] is the part connected to element 130 (i.e., the chassis is connected to the rear wheel);
an implement coupled to the chassis ([fig 1 element 26] – work tool; see also [0026] - a work tool 26);
a prime mover configured to power the implement ([claim 15] - a power source configured to power machine operations; a tool operatively coupled to receive power from the power source);
a sensor coupled to the chassis ([fig 1 element 14a]) and position to monitor operation of the work machine ([0014] - Interface module 14 may include a plurality of sensors 14a-e distributed throughout machine 10 and configured to gather data from various components, subsystems, and/or operators of machine 10); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of a controller cause the processor to ([0019] - The computer program instructions may be loaded into RAM 42 for execution by CPU 40 from ROM 44. During operation, CPU 40, and/or controller 24 via communication module 18, may carry out various processes in connection with the visual diagnostic subscription service disclosed herein):
generate a graphical user interface on a display, the graphical user interface comprising information related to the work machine ([0039] - Display area 62 may also include an information prompt area 66 in which controller 24 may warn a user of GUI 60 that component 64a has failed, provide information about failed component 64);
communicably couple the work machine to a wireless network ([0013] and Fig. 1 – “system 12 may include an interface module 14, a user interface 16, a communication module 18”; [0016] – “Communication module 18 may include any device configured to facilitate communications between controller 24 and off-board system 22. Communication module 18 may include hardware and/or software that enables communication module 18 to send and/or receive data messages through a wireless communication link 38. The wireless communications may include satellite, cellular, infrared, and any other type of wireless communications that enables controller 24 to wirelessly exchange information with off-board system 22”);
collect first operation data from the sensor of the work machine ([0013-0014] - System 12 may include one or more components that cooperate to gather and communicate information relating to the operation of machine 10…Interface module 14 may include a plurality of sensors 14a-e distributed throughout machine 10 and configured to gather data from various components, subsystems, and/or operators of machine 10… Sensors 14a-e may be associated with, for example, a work tool 26, a power source 28, a traction device 30 coupled to power source 28 to propel machine 10, a transmission 34, a torque converter 32, a fluid supply 36, user interface 16, and/or other components and subsystems of machine 10. Sensors 14a-e may monitor pressures, temperatures, volumes, voltages, currents, forces, speeds, and/or other parameters, and generate signals indicative of values of the parameters. Additionally, these signals may also indicate an operational status of sensors 14a-e);
receive, via the wireless network, second operation data from a second work machine communicably coupled to the wireless network ([0025] – “Media asset library 52b may contain, among other things, a plurality of media assets containing data about a plurality of subscribing machines”; [0024] – “customer may be, for example, an owner of one or more machines (e.g., machine 10) that subscribes to the visual diagnostic service described herein. Customer subscription information 52a may include…a model for each of the customer's subscribed machines”; [0002] – “machines have been provided with onboard controllers to detect abnormal operating conditions and warn the machine operator or owner of the conditions”; ([0013] and Fig. 1 – “system 12 may include an interface module 14, a user interface 16, a communication module 18”; [0016] – “Communication module 18 may include any device configured to facilitate communications between controller 24 and off-board system 22…wireless communication link 38. The wireless communications may include satellite, cellular, infrared, and any other type of wireless communications that enables controller 24 to wirelessly exchange information with off-board system 22”);
generate a recommendation ([0044] - Based on the data retrieved from diagnostic information 52c, controller 24 may prompt the user, via GUI 60, as to whether a replacement for failed component 64a should be ordered [based on the operation data]. In one embodiment, the prompting may further include recommending [generate a recommendation] that one or more accessory items related to the replacement of failed component 64a also be ordered);
provide the recommendation to a user via the graphical user interface ([0044] - Based on the data retrieved from diagnostic information 52c, controller 24 may prompt the user, via GUI 60 [via the graphical user interface], as to whether a replacement for failed component 64a should be ordered. In one embodiment, the prompting may further include recommending [provide the recommendation] that one or more accessory items related to the replacement of failed component 64a also be ordered);
receive a user input interacting with the recommendation ([0044] - Upon selecting "Yes" button 74 or otherwise affirming the order, controller 24 may automatically access machine component information 52d to determine if the at least one failed component 64a is of a latest version thereof); and
initiate a transaction implementing the recommendation ([0046] - If the user affirms the order via input to GUI 60 . . . controller 24 may affect a sale to the customer by, for example, charging an account associated with the particular customer contained in customer subscription information 52a (e.g., credit card account)).
Sells further discloses that the machine is a work machine and that a site is a worksite (Sells: [0012] – “Machine 10 may embody a stationary or mobile machine configured to perform some type of operation associated with an industry such as mining, construction, farming, transportation, power generation, or any other known industry. For example, machine 10 may embody an excavating machine, an on- or off-road haul truck, a passenger vehicle, or a marine vessel. Machine 10 may alternatively embody a stationary generator set, a pumping mechanism, or other suitable operation-performing machine”; [0024] – “the on-site location of the machine”),
yet Sells fails to explicitly disclose
operation including a condition of a worksite of the work machine; the first operation data comprising the condition of the worksite; determine, based on the first operation data that the condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work machine; the recommendation based on the first operation data and the second operation data indicating that the work machine and the second work machine have ceased functioning.
However, Larson does teach
operation including a condition of a worksite of the work machine; the first operation data comprising the condition of the worksite; determine, based on the first operation data that the condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work machine (0179] – “an event may be a situation or circumstance regarding the operation of a machine. For example, a previously determined pattern may be a continuously low collection weight for a garbage truck. This pattern may be associated with a garbage route that is not long enough or an inefficient use of the garbage truck (i.e., the event). So, if a similar pattern occurs on a different garbage truck, then it may be that the different garbage truck too is being used inefficiently or on a route that is too short”; [0052] – “perform predictive analysis on sensor data to determine patterns in the sensor data to predict component failures. In some embodiments, the predictive analysis may be performed based on sensor data from a plurality of separate machines (which may or may not be operated by a same customer)”; [0205] – “determined pattern may be based on one or more events for one or more sensors. So, in some embodiments, the pattern may be a single event of a single sensor. For example, a peak temperature value. In other embodiments, the pattern may be a single event from a plurality of sensors. For example, a peak temperature value and a peak pressure value”; [0200] – “the machines may be employed by different customers/users, located in similar or different geographical regions/environments”);
the recommendation based on the first operation data and the second operation data indicating that the work machine and the second work machine have ceased functioning ([0199] – “where a notification of a component failure on at least a subset of the plurality of machines may be received”; [0179-0180] – “an event may be a component failure on a machine. In other embodiments, an event may be a situation or circumstance regarding the operation of a machine. For example, a previously determined pattern may be a continuously low collection weight for a garbage truck…So, if a similar pattern occurs on a different garbage truck, then it may be that the different garbage truck too is being used inefficiently or on a route that is too short. In yet other embodiments, an event may be another sensor value…an alert may be provided to a user based on the event prediction. In some embodiments, the alert may include at least one recommendation to either prevent or resolve an occurrence of the event at the first machine”; [0003] – “If one system, subsystem, or component fails, a machine may be idle for some time while the failure is diagnosed and replacement components are ordered”; [0221] – “indicate that a conveyer belt has stopped moving (i.e., the RPMs fell below a predetermined threshold value)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the recommendation method of Sells to include the ceased functioning of Larson because Sells already discloses operation information and Larson is merely demonstrating that the operation information may be about the ceasing of functioning. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have modified Sells to have included operation including a condition of a worksite of the work machine; the first operation data comprising the condition of the worksite; determine, based on the first operation data that the condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work machine; the recommendation based on the first operation data and the second operation data indicating that the work machine and the second work machine have ceased functioning as taught by Larson because failure data is well-known and the use of it in a recommendation setting would have prevented machines from sitting idly (Larson: [0004]).
Claim 36: Sells/Larson discloses the work machine of Claim 32, and Sells further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: receive, via the wireless network, a plurality of operation data from a plurality of work machines communicably coupled to the wireless network ([0025] – “Media asset library 52b may contain, among other things, a plurality of media assets containing data about a plurality of subscribing machines”; [0024] – “customer may be, for example, an owner of one or more machines (e.g., machine 10) that subscribes to the visual diagnostic service described herein. Customer subscription information 52a may include…a model for each of the customer's subscribed machines”; [0002] – “machines have been provided with onboard controllers to detect abnormal operating conditions and warn the machine operator or owner of the conditions”; ([0013] and Fig. 1 – “system 12 may include an interface module 14, a user interface 16, a communication module 18”; [0016] – “Communication module 18 may include any device configured to facilitate communications between controller 24 and off-board system 22…wireless communication link 38. The wireless communications may include satellite, cellular, infrared, and any other type of wireless communications that enables controller 24 to wirelessly exchange information with off-board system 22”)); and
generate the recommendation based on the first operation data ([0044] - Based on the data retrieved from diagnostic information 52c, controller 24 may prompt the user, via GUI 60, as to whether a replacement for failed component 64a should be ordered [based on the operation data]. In one embodiment, the prompting may further include recommending [generate a recommendation] that one or more accessory items related to the replacement of failed component 64a also be ordered).
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
generating the recommendation based on the second operation data, and the plurality of operation data.
However, Larson does teach
generating the recommendation based on the second operation data, and the plurality of operation data ([0199] – “where a notification of a component failure on at least a subset of the plurality of machines may be received”; [0179-0180] – “an event may be a component failure on a machine. In other embodiments, an event may be a situation or circumstance regarding the operation of a machine. For example, a previously determined pattern may be a continuously low collection weight for a garbage truck…So, if a similar pattern occurs on a different garbage truck, then it may be that the different garbage truck too is being used inefficiently or on a route that is too short. In yet other embodiments, an event may be another sensor value…an alert may be provided to a user based on the event prediction. In some embodiments, the alert may include at least one recommendation to either prevent or resolve an occurrence of the event at the first machine”; [0003] – “If one system, subsystem, or component fails, a machine may be idle for some time while the failure is diagnosed and replacement components are ordered”; [0221] – “indicate that a conveyer belt has stopped moving (i.e., the RPMs fell below a predetermined threshold value)”).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to combine Larson with Sells for the reasons identified above in claim 32.
Claim 37: Sells discloses a work machine ([fig 1 element 10] – shows dump truck) comprising;
a chassis ([fig 1] – [chassis] is the part connected to element 130 (i.e., the chassis is connected to the rear wheel);
an implement coupled to the chassis ([fig 1 element 26] – work tool; see also [0026] - a work tool 26);
a prime mover configured to power the implement ([claim 15] - a power source configured to power machine operations; a tool operatively coupled to receive power from the power source);
a sensor coupled to the chassis ([fig 1 element 14a]) and position to monitor operation of the work machine ([0014] - Interface module 14 may include a plurality of sensors 14a-e distributed throughout machine 10 and configured to gather data from various components, subsystems, and/or operators of machine 10); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of a controller cause the processor to ([0019] - The computer program instructions may be loaded into RAM 42 for execution by CPU 40 from ROM 44. During operation, CPU 40, and/or controller 24 via communication module 18, may carry out various processes in connection with the visual diagnostic subscription service disclosed herein):
generate a graphical user interface on a display, the graphical user interface comprising information related to the work machine ([0039] - Display area 62 may also include an information prompt area 66 in which controller 24 may warn a user of GUI 60 that component 64a has failed, provide information about failed component 64);
communicably couple the work machine to a wireless network ([0013] and Fig. 1 – “system 12 may include an interface module 14, a user interface 16, a communication module 18”; [0016] – “Communication module 18 may include any device configured to facilitate communications between controller 24 and off-board system 22. Communication module 18 may include hardware and/or software that enables communication module 18 to send and/or receive data messages through a wireless communication link 38. The wireless communications may include satellite, cellular, infrared, and any other type of wireless communications that enables controller 24 to wirelessly exchange information with off-board system 22”);
collect first operation data from the sensor of the work machine ([0013-0014] - System 12 may include one or more components that cooperate to gather and communicate information relating to the operation of machine 10…Interface module 14 may include a plurality of sensors 14a-e distributed throughout machine 10 and configured to gather data from various components, subsystems, and/or operators of machine 10… Sensors 14a-e may be associated with, for example, a work tool 26, a power source 28, a traction device 30 coupled to power source 28 to propel machine 10, a transmission 34, a torque converter 32, a fluid supply 36, user interface 16, and/or other components and subsystems of machine 10. Sensors 14a-e may monitor pressures, temperatures, volumes, voltages, currents, forces, speeds, and/or other parameters, and generate signals indicative of values of the parameters. Additionally, these signals may also indicate an operational status of sensors 14a-e);
receive, via the wireless network, a plurality of operation data from a plurality of work machines communicably coupled to the wireless network ([0025] – “Media asset library 52b may contain, among other things, a plurality of media assets containing data about a plurality of subscribing machines”; [0024] – “customer may be, for example, an owner of one or more machines (e.g., machine 10) that subscribes to the visual diagnostic service described herein. Customer subscription information 52a may include…a model for each of the customer's subscribed machines”; [0002] – “machines have been provided with onboard controllers to detect abnormal operating conditions and warn the machine operator or owner of the conditions”; ([0013] and Fig. 1 – “system 12 may include an interface module 14, a user interface 16, a communication module 18”; [0016] – “Communication module 18 may include any device configured to facilitate communications between controller 24 and off-board system 22…wireless communication link 38. The wireless communications may include satellite, cellular, infrared, and any other type of wireless communications that enables controller 24 to wirelessly exchange information with off-board system 22”);
generate a recommendation ([0044] - Based on the data retrieved from diagnostic information 52c, controller 24 may prompt the user, via GUI 60, as to whether a replacement for failed component 64a should be ordered [based on the operation data]. In one embodiment, the prompting may further include recommending [generate a recommendation] that one or more accessory items related to the replacement of failed component 64a also be ordered);
provide the recommendation to a user via the graphical user interface ([0044] - Based on the data retrieved from diagnostic information 52c, controller 24 may prompt the user, via GUI 60 [via the graphical user interface], as to whether a replacement for failed component 64a should be ordered. In one embodiment, the prompting may further include recommending [provide the recommendation] that one or more accessory items related to the replacement of failed component 64a also be ordered);
receive a user input interacting with the recommendation ([0044] - Upon selecting "Yes" button 74 or otherwise affirming the order, controller 24 may automatically access machine component information 52d to determine if the at least one failed component 64a is of a latest version thereof); and
initiate a transaction implementing the recommendation ([0046] - If the user affirms the order via input to GUI 60 . . . controller 24 may affect a sale to the customer by, for example, charging an account associated with the particular customer contained in customer subscription information 52a (e.g., credit card account)).
Sells further discloses that the machine is a work machine and that a site is a worksite (Sells: [0012] – “Machine 10 may embody a stationary or mobile machine configured to perform some type of operation associated with an industry such as mining, construction, farming, transportation, power generation, or any other known industry. For example, machine 10 may embody an excavating machine, an on- or off-road haul truck, a passenger vehicle, or a marine vessel. Machine 10 may alternatively embody a stationary generator set, a pumping mechanism, or other suitable operation-performing machine”; [0024] – “the on-site location of the machine”),
yet Sells fails to explicitly disclose
operation including a condition of a worksite of the work machine; the first operation data comprising the condition of the worksite; determine, based on the first operation data, that the condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work machine; the recommendation based on the plurality of operation data indicating that the plurality of work machines have ceased functioning.
However, Larson does teach
operation including a condition of a worksite of the work machine; the first operation data comprising the condition of the worksite; determine, based on the first operation data, that the condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work machine (0179] – “an event may be a situation or circumstance regarding the operation of a machine. For example, a previously determined pattern may be a continuously low collection weight for a garbage truck. This pattern may be associated with a garbage route that is not long enough or an inefficient use of the garbage truck (i.e., the event). So, if a similar pattern occurs on a different garbage truck, then it may be that the different garbage truck too is being used inefficiently or on a route that is too short”; [0052] – “perform predictive analysis on sensor data to determine patterns in the sensor data to predict component failures. In some embodiments, the predictive analysis may be performed based on sensor data from a plurality of separate machines (which may or may not be operated by a same customer)”; [0205] – “determined pattern may be based on one or more events for one or more sensors. So, in some embodiments, the pattern may be a single event of a single sensor. For example, a peak temperature value. In other embodiments, the pattern may be a single event from a plurality of sensors. For example, a peak temperature value and a peak pressure value”; [0200] – “the machines may be employed by different customers/users, located in similar or different geographical regions/environments”);
the recommendation based on the plurality of operation data indicating that the plurality of work machines have ceased functioning ([0199] – “where a notification of a component failure on at least a subset of the plurality of machines may be received”; [0179-0180] – “an event may be a component failure on a machine. In other embodiments, an event may be a situation or circumstance regarding the operation of a machine. For example, a previously determined pattern may be a continuously low collection weight for a garbage truck…So, if a similar pattern occurs on a different garbage truck, then it may be that the different garbage truck too is being used inefficiently or on a route that is too short. In yet other embodiments, an event may be another sensor value…an alert may be provided to a user based on the event prediction. In some embodiments, the alert may include at least one recommendation to either prevent or resolve an occurrence of the event at the first machine”; [0003] – “If one system, subsystem, or component fails, a machine may be idle for some time while the failure is diagnosed and replacement components are ordered”; [0221] – “indicate that a conveyer belt has stopped moving (i.e., the RPMs fell below a predetermined threshold value)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the recommendation method of Sells to include the ceased functioning of Larson because Sells already discloses operation information and Larson is merely demonstrating that the operation information may be about the ceasing of functioning. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have modified Sells to have included operation including a condition of a worksite of the work machine; the first operation data comprising the condition of the worksite; determine, based on the first operation data, that the condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work machine; the recommendation based on the plurality of operation data indicating that the plurality of work machines have ceased functioning as taught by Larson because failure data is well-known and the use of it in a recommendation setting would have prevented machines from sitting idly (Larson: [0004]).
Claims 21 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sells in view of Larson in view of previously cited Wunderlich (US 20200014759 A1) (“Wunderlich”).
Claim 21: Sells/Larson discloses the work machine of Claim 20, and Sells further discloses work machine ([fig 1 element 10] – shows dump truck).
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
further comprising a wireless network, wherein the wireless network is a local mesh network hosted by the work machine and the at least one second work machine.
However, Wunderlich does teach
further comprising a wireless network, wherein the wireless network is a local mesh network hosted by the work machine and the at least one second work machine ([0052] - As described in detail below, machines 102a-102f may be heterogeneous autonomous machines (e.g., vehicles) that may communicate with other machines via their shared mesh networks in order to share information; see also [0059] - One or more mesh networks in system 100 may be mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) (e.g., wireless ad hoc networks) {clarifies that the “network” in [0052] cited above is [wireless]}), [0031] - In some embodiments of the first system, establishing the mesh network comprises configuring the mesh network to include automated connected vehicles; see also [0058] - Mesh networks 104a and 104b may be any local network in which autonomous vehicles . . . may interconnect with one another as nodes {clarifies that the “mesh network” in [0031] cited above is [local]}).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wunderlich into the invention of Sells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wunderlich teaches that a second machine connected to the machine via a wireless network, wherein the wireless network is a local mesh network hosted by the machine and the second machine overcomes the problem in the art of vehicles lacking information about the desires and intentions of surrounding vehicles, thereby leading to non-optimal and/or inequitable allocation of road space in time ([0008]).
In addition, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique of a second machine connected to the machine via a wireless network, wherein the wireless network is a local mesh network hosted by the machine and the second machine, as taught by Wunderlich, to the teachings of Sells, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods.
Claim 33: Sells/Larson teaches the work machine of Claim 32, and Sells further discloses work machine ([fig 1 element 10] – shows dump truck).
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the wireless network is a local mesh network hosted by the work machine and a second work machine.
However, Wunderlich does teach
wherein the wireless network is a local mesh network hosted by the work machine and a second work machine ([0052] - As described in detail below, machines 102a-102f may be heterogeneous autonomous machines (e.g., vehicles) that may communicate with other machines via their shared mesh networks in order to share information; see also [0059] - One or more mesh networks in system 100 may be mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) (e.g., wireless ad hoc networks) {clarifies that the “network” in [0052] cited above is [wireless]}), [0031] - In some embodiments of the first system, establishing the mesh network comprises configuring the mesh network to include automated connected vehicles; see also [0058] - Mesh networks 104a and 104b may be any local network in which autonomous vehicles . . . may interconnect with one another as nodes {clarifies that the “mesh network” in [0031] cited above is [local]}).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wunderlich into the invention of Sells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wunderlich teaches that the wireless network is a local mesh network hosted by the machine and the second machine overcomes the problem in the art of vehicles lacking information about the desires and intentions of surrounding vehicles, thereby leading to non-optimal and/or inequitable allocation of road space in time ([0008]).
In addition, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique that the wireless network is a local mesh network hosted by the machine and the second machine, as taught by Wunderlich, to the teachings of Sells, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods.
Claims 22 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sells in view of Larson in view of Wunderlich in view of previously cited Karmakar (US 2019/0156394 A1) (“Karmakar”).
Claim 22: The cited prior art teaches the work machine of Claim 21.
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the local mesh network is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh network.
However, Karmakar does teach
wherein the local mesh network is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh network ([0064] – At step 602, sensing data can be received at a first server from one or more of sensor modules in an array . . . including a Bluetooth low energy (LE) mesh network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Karmakar into the invention of Sells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Karmakar teaches that the local mesh network being a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh network overcomes the problem in current e-commerce art of the ability to track actions in a physical environment (as opposed to online action tracking) in order to provide recommendations ([0002] – [0003]).
In addition, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the local mesh network being a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh network, as taught by Karmakar, to the teachings of Sells, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods.
In regards to claim 34, all the limitations in apparatus claim 34 are closely parallel to the limitations of apparatus claim 22 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sells in view of Larson in view of previously cited Duff (US 2020/0065433 A1) (“Duff”).
Claim 25: Sells/de Graff teaches the work machine of claim 20.
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the recommendation comprises original equipment manufacturer advertising.
However, Duff does teach
wherein the recommendation comprises original equipment manufacturer advertising ([0323] - In some examples, OEM advertising may be afforded access through the model system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Duff into the invention of Sells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Duff teaches that a recommendation comprising original equipment manufacturer advertising overcomes the problem in the art of allowing maintenance and remedial action to be taken (i.e., via OEM advertising) in order to prevent an equipment failure ([0004]).
In addition, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique of a recommendation comprising original equipment manufacturer advertising, as taught by Duff, to the teachings of Sells, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods.
Claims 26-27 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sells in view of Larson in view of Albinger (US 2018/0150885 A1) (“Albinger”).
Claim 26: Sells/Larson teaches the work machine of claim 20, and Sells further discloses
wherein the operation data includes a location of the work machine ([0045] - controller 24 may determine a global position of machine 10 based on the signals provided by locating device 20), and an indication that a first component of the work machine requires replacement ([0039] - Display area 62 may also include an information prompt area 66 in which controller 24 may warn a user of GUI 60 that component 64a has failed, provide information about failed component 64, prompt the user as to whether a replacement should be ordered); and
a remote server ([0018] - Off-board system 22 may represent one or more computing systems of a business entity associated with machine 10; see also [fig 1 element 22]) connected to the controller ([fig 1 element 24]) via the wireless network ([fig 1 element 34]).
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
the controller further configured to:
locate a nearest replacement component via a query to a;
generate a quote and an estimated delivery time using the location; and
provide, via the graphical user interface, the recommendation, wherein the recommendation includes the location of the nearest replacement component, the quote, and the estimated delivery time to the user via the graphical user interface.
However, Albinger does teach
the controller further configured to:
locate a nearest replacement component via a query to a ([0050] - The targeted advertisement identifies the closest retailer);
generate a quote ([fig 4A (reproduced below) – second to last line of text] - $40) and an estimated delivery time ([fig 4A – second to last line of text] – Same day delivery) using the location ([fig 4A – fourth line of text] – 123 Main Street (which is closest to you)); and
provide, via the graphical user interface ([0013] FIG 3B illustrates a graphical user interface of a computer connected with an electrical system for a riding lawn care vehicle), the recommendation ([fig 4A – the entire figure]), wherein the recommendation includes the location of the nearest replacement component ([fig 4A– third through fourth lines of text] – this blade is in stock right now at Retailer X located at 123 Main Street (which is closest to you)), the quote ([fig 4A – second to last line of text] - $40), and the estimated delivery time ([fig 4A – second to last line of text] – Same day delivery) to the user via the graphical user interface.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Albinger into the invention of Sells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Albinger teaches that the controller further configured to: locate a nearest replacement component via a query; generate a quote and an estimated delivery time using the location; and provide, via the graphical user interface, the recommendation, wherein the recommendation includes the location of the nearest replacement component, the quote, and the estimated delivery time to the user via the graphical user interface, provides the advantage of improving operator satisfaction in connection with purchasing and using work machines ([0005]).
In addition, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the controller further configured to: locate a nearest replacement component via a query; generate a quote and an estimated delivery time using the location; and provide, via the graphical user interface, the recommendation, wherein the recommendation includes the location of the nearest replacement component, the quote, and the estimated delivery time to the user via the graphical user interface, as taught by Albinger, to the teachings of Sells, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods.
Claim 27: Sells/Larson teaches the work machine of claim 20.
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the recommendation comprises an advertisement from a third-party based on the operation data.
However, Albinger does teach
wherein the recommendation comprises an advertisement from a third-party ([0022] - a customer may register with and/or otherwise access an online retail channel hosted by a retailer system 68 associated with one or more retail establishments to, among other things, provide a custom product recommendation/advertising) based on the operation data ([0050] - The replacement part advertisement is presented to the user based on the particular parameters of the user, including the number of blade strikes of the user exceeding a predetermined threshold for the user's mower, the user's location, and the like {here, the [operation data] is “number of blade strikes”}).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to combine Albinger with Sells for the reasons identified above in claim 8.
Claim 35: Sells/Larson teaches the work machine of claim 32.
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the recommendation comprises an advertisement from a third-party based on the first operation data and the second operations data.
However, Larson teaches the recommendation based on the first operation data and the second operations data ([0199] – “where a notification of a component failure on at least a subset of the plurality of machines may be received”; [0179-0180] – “an event may be a component failure on a machine. In other embodiments, an event may be a situation or circumstance regarding the operation of a machine. For example, a previously determined pattern may be a continuously low collection weight for a garbage truck…So, if a similar pattern occurs on a different garbage truck, then it may be that the different garbage truck too is being used inefficiently or on a route that is too short. In yet other embodiments, an event may be another sensor value…an alert may be provided to a user based on the event prediction. In some embodiments, the alert may include at least one recommendation to either prevent or resolve an occurrence of the event at the first machine”; [0003] – “If one system, subsystem, or component fails, a machine may be idle for some time while the failure is diagnosed and replacement components are ordered”; [0221] – “indicate that a conveyer belt has stopped moving (i.e., the RPMs fell below a predetermined threshold value)”).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to combine Larson with Sells for the reasons identified above in claim 32.
Additionally, Albinger does teach
wherein the recommendation comprises an advertisement from a third-party ([0022] - a customer may register with and/or otherwise access an online retail channel hosted by a retailer system 68 associated with one or more retail establishments to, among other things, provide a custom product recommendation/advertising) based on the operation data ([0050] - The replacement part advertisement is presented to the user based on the particular parameters of the user, including the number of blade strikes of the user exceeding a predetermined threshold for the user's mower, the user's location, and the like {here, the [operation data] is “number of blade strikes”}).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Albinger into the invention of Sells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Albinger teaches that the recommendation comprises an advertisement from a third-party based on the first operation data, provides the advantage of improving operator satisfaction in connection with purchasing and using work machines ([0005]).
In addition, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the recommendation comprising an advertisement from a third-party based on the first operation data, as taught by Albinger, to the teachings of Sells, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sells in view of Larson in view of previously cited Humphrey (US 2015/0310674 A1) (“Humphrey”).
Claim 29: Sells/Larson teaches the work machine of claim 20.
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
determine, from the operation data, that the work machine requires servicing; and
generate the recommendation, wherein the recommendation comprises a suggested service location and a suggested service time.
However, Humphrey does teach
determine, from the operation data, that the work machine requires servicing ([0018] - information related to the work equipment and indicating that a service is needed or required (e.g., fuel levels, fluid levels, tire pressure, etc.)); and
generate the recommendation, wherein the recommendation comprises a suggested service location and a suggested service time ([0045] - At 216, service instructions are sent (e.g., by the server 102) to the selected service apparatus and the work equipment. The service instructions may include [generate the recommendation, wherein the recommendation comprises] information required to provide a selected service, such as the selected service location [a suggested service location], the one or more selected services, the current or predicted idle time, and the service window [a suggested service time]; see also [0023] - The service window may include a service start time, a service end time, and a duration of the service time {clarifies that “service window” in [0045] above teaches [suggested service time]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Humphrey into the invention of Sells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Humphrey teaches that determining, from the operation data, that the work machine requires servicing; and generating the recommendation, wherein the recommendation comprises a suggested service location and a suggested service time overcomes the problem in the art of required servicing of work machines causing worksite downtime and additional cost ([0003]).
In addition, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique of an indication that determining, from the operation data, that the work machine requires servicing; and generating the recommendation, wherein the recommendation comprises a suggested service location and a suggested service time, as taught by Humphrey, to the teachings of Sells, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sells in view of Larson in view of previously cited Laclef (US 2022/0035364 A1 (“Laclef”).
Claim 30: Sells/Larson teaches the work machine of claim 20.
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the controller is further configured to: collect additional operation data from a user device communicably coupled to the work machine, wherein the recommendation is further generated based on the additional operation data, and wherein the wherein the user device is wirelessly connected to the work machine, and the user device comprises the controller and the display.
However, Laclef does teach
wherein the controller is further configured to: collect additional operation data from a user device communicably coupled to the work machine, wherein the recommendation is further generated based on the additional operation data, and wherein the wherein the user device is wirelessly connected to the work machine, and the user device comprises the controller and the display ([0022] and Fig. 1 – the configuration recommendations are determined based on worksite data, such as that stored in the computing device 102, and/or other computing devices associated with the system 100 (e.g., recommendation platform 108, a computing device 118, and/or an additional computing device 130); [fig 1 element 130] – Additional Computing Devices; fig 1 element 120] – Network); [fig 1 element 104] – Machine); [fig 9 element 948] – Display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Laclef into the invention of Sells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Laclef teaches that the user device being wirelessly connected to the work machine, and the user device comprising the controller and the display provides the advantage of allowing a user to more easily optimize the capabilities of the machinery ([0003]).
In addition, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the user device being wirelessly connected to the work machine, and the user device comprising the controller and the display, as taught by Laclef, to the teachings of Sells, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sells in view of Larson in view of newly cited Yang (US 10373087 B1) (“Yang”).
Claim 38: The cited prior art teaches the work machine of Claim 37.
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
determine an average operation data based on the first operation data and the plurality of operation data; and generate the recommendation based on the average operation data.
However, Yang does teach
determine an average operation data based on the first operation data and the plurality of operation data; and generate the recommendation based on the average operation data (Col. 10, Ln. 25-28 – “the method 140 may be used to provide an order in which the aircraft 40, 55, 70, 85, 100, and 115 should retire, the order sorted by date”; Col. 11, Ln. 13-19 – “In an exemplary embodiment, the deposition schedule assigns a period of time to retire an aircraft that has an age that exceeds the maximum aircraft age in order to ensure that the average age of all active aircraft of a given year is equal to or less than the maximum aircraft age in annual average years”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Yang into the invention of Sells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that the determining an average operation data based on the first operation data and the plurality of operation data; and generating the recommendation based on the average operation data helps with optimal fleet management (Col. 6, Ln. 46-53).
In addition, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique of determining an average operation data based on the first operation data and the plurality of operation data; and generating the recommendation based on the average operation data, as taught by Yang, to the teachings of Sells, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods.
Claim 39: Sells/Larson/Yang teaches the work machine of Claim 38.
Sells fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the average operation data comprises at least one of an average age of work machines at a work site or an average runtime of work machines at a work site.
However, Yang does teach
wherein the average operation data comprises at least one of an average age of work machines at a work site or an average runtime of work machines at a work site (Col. 10, Ln. 25-28 – “the method 140 may be used to provide an order in which the aircraft 40, 55, 70, 85, 100, and 115 should retire, the order sorted by date”; Col. 11, Ln. 13-19 – “In an exemplary embodiment, the deposition schedule assigns a period of time to retire an aircraft that has an age that exceeds the maximum aircraft age in order to ensure that the average age of all active aircraft of a given year is equal to or less than the maximum aircraft age in annual average years”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Yang into the invention of Sells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang teaches that the average operation data comprising at least one of an average age of work machines at a work site or an average runtime of work machines at a work site helps with optimal fleet management (Col. 6, Ln. 46-53).
In addition, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the average operation data comprising at least one of an average age of work machines at a work site or an average runtime of work machines at a work site, as taught by Yang, to the teachings of Sells, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/13/2025, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible in light of the amendments (Remarks page 8). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP sets forth, in Step 2A Prong Two, that a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole “integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.” The evaluation of Prong Two requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole ‘integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.’ In the instant case, the claims include additional elements such as a work machine; a chassis, an implement coupled to the chassis; a prime mover configured to power the implement; a sensor coupled to the chassis; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of the controller cause the processor to; establish a network connection with at least one second work machine; generate a graphical user interface on a display; providing information via the graphical user interface; a wireless network; a second work machine; and a plurality of work machines. While these elements are recited, they are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of providing recommendations in a technological environment based on operation data without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality nor does the disclosure articulate how the elements provide a technical improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using the additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues the claims are allowable because the cited art does not teach "determin[ing], based on the operation data, that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning" and "generat[ing] a recommendation based on determining that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning." (Remarks page 9). The examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection and a new reference has been applied to teach the “determin[ing], based on the operation data, that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning," and "a recommendation based on determining that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning.” Furthermore, Sells discloses "generate a recommendation.” Sells discloses generating a recommendation at least in [0044], disclosing recommending that one or more accessory items related to the replacement of failed component be ordered. Thus, the cited art teaches these limitations.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as the independent claims (Remarks page 10). The examiner disagrees. The rejections of the dependent claims have been maintained for the reasons discussed above and the rejections of the dependent claims have been maintained for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Previously cited US 2020/0183362 A1 to Ledwith, [Abstract] discussing a lift communications system, including multiple lifts that communicate with a wall-mounted control. The wall-mounted control directs operations of the lifts and receives data from the lifts.
Previously cited US 6,526,335 B1 to Treyz, [abstract], discussing an automobile computer system that collects location and user data, and targets advertisements to the user based on the data. The user can initiate a purchase transaction for the advertised goods or services.
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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689