DETAILED ACTION
Final 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 .
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are pending.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprock (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0257310) in view of Reynolds (U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0209676).
As to claims 1, 13 and 14, Sprock teaches a data collection system comprising: a user apparatus including an input device configured to receive an input from a user[0019]; wherein the user apparatus includes a first controller implemented by at least a controller, the first controller being configured to receive a signal from the data apparatus[0031], the signal data related to a work machine with a work attachment[0053], the original data to be included in the data[0053], the original data being related to the work machine[0053], and obtain the data according to the input received by the input device in response to receiving the signal[0053], includes a second controller[0015] implemented by at least a controller, the second controller being configured to transmit the signal[0018]; and execute a process related to providing the user with an incentive[0060],
Sprock teaches most of the claimed invention, but only fails to teach that the data is requested from the user and the data is sent in response to the request. Currently, it appears that it happens without a request (e.g. automatically). However, requestion information is widely known in the art and is taught by Reynolds as follows:
As to claims 1, 13 and 14, Reynolds teaches requestion information from a second controller (element 150 which would be equivalent to the site manager of Sprock) from a user regarding data about a work machine [0069]. Much like Sprock this occurs at a work site [0027].
Therefore, for it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Reynolds into the system and methods of Sprock. The motivation to combine is that Reynolds teaches operations component 425 can be used to implement dispatch system functions including, but not limited to, receiving current vehicle locations, receiving current asset location by asset name, generating alerts when minimum inventory levels are reached, generating an alert when a required asset for a dispatch cannot be found, implementing real-time queries of technician/driver assigned to vehicles, and implementing real-time queries of tools in vehicles. Reynolds teaches that this requestion can get the data in real-time as needed[0069]. Furthermore, it is known in the art that requestion data when needed rather than continuously receiving it can reduce network traffic.
As to claim 2, Sprock teaches wherein the first controller or the second controller is further configured to provide original data related to the industrial machine[0019], the first controller is further configured to notify the user of contents of the original data[0019], and the first controller is further configured to obtain the data based on the original data[0019].
As to claim 3, Sprock teaches wherein the first controller is further configured to obtain the data, as the data with respect to to the original data metadata satisfying a predetermined condition with respect to the original data, the metadata being generated according to the input with respect to the original data received by the input device [0053 teaches using various data (both original and metadata) to make a determination and recommendation. Since original data and metadata are not defined as anything but data it can interpreted as the data used in [0053].
As to claim 4, Sprock teaches wherein the original data are data on at least one of a condition of the work machine, a condition of a surrounding environment of the work machine, and a condition of an operator of the work machine[0053], during an operation of the work machine, and the metadata are data related to an attribute of the operator of the work machine[0053 The condition of the operator and how often the condition occurs].
As to claim 6, Sprock teaches wherein the first controller is further configured to selectively obtain with the data with respect to the original data satisfying the predetermined condition from among multiple items of the original data [0053 various thresholds], according to a selection input with respect to the multiple items of the original data received by the input device [0019, 0023 0029].
As to claim 7, Sprock teaches wherein the first controller is further configured to obtain as the data with respect to the original data in which processing satisfying the predetermined condition is performed on the original data[0053], according to the input with respect to the original data received by the input device [0019, 0023 0029].
As to claim 9, Sprock teaches wherein the second controller is further configured to determine whether the data obtained by the first controller satisfy the predetermined condition [0019], and the second controller is further configured to execute the process related to providing the user with the incentive, in response to determining that the data obtained by the first controller satisfy the predetermined condition[0019]. Since the predetermined condition is not defined in any meaningful way the determination made by the central station and sent to the machine can display the recommendation can read on this. Such as the condition being that the information is available to the machine to display/alert the user. Above Reynolds shows that the data can be requested.
As to claim 10, Sprock teaches further comprising: another user apparatus including a third controller implemented by a hardware processor configured to notify another user (different driver) of contents of the data obtained by the first controller[0037 or 0059]; and another input device configured to receive an input from said another user[user input at control 28 as in 0037 or a secondary operator input in 0019, 0023 0029], wherein the second controller is further configured to determine whether the data obtained by the first controller satisfy the predetermined condition[37 productivity analysis or data available for the user from the central station], according to the input received by said another input device with respect to a check result as to whether the data obtained by the first controller satisfy the predetermined condition[0037 or 0059]. Above Reynolds shows that the data can be requested.
As to claim 11, Sprock teaches wherein the second controller is further configured to execute a process related to providing said another user with the incentive when said another input device receives the input with respect to the check result [0038 site manager can to make the site more efficient with recommendation based on analysis or 0059 shows recommendation for a different operator] .
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprock (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0257310) in view of Reynolds (U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0209676) in view of (Chua U.S. PG Pub. 2019/0092337).
Sprock in view of Renyolds teaches most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach all of the limitations of claims 4 and 12, however, this is an obvious variation as taught by Chua as follows:
As to claim 4, Chua teaches wherein the metadata are data representing ground truth for supervised learning[0162 the known characteristics for example 0090 0091 the train is used in with conjunction to true data of the model].
As to claim 12, Chua teaches wherein the second controller is configured to determine whether the data obtained by the first controller satisfy the predetermined condition by inputting the data obtained by the first controller to a predetermined trained model[0091 the trained model determines if the an operator is fatigued and needs alerted].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Chua into the system and methods of Sprock modified by Reynolds. The motivation to do so is that Chua teaches [i]nformation collected from the various sensors is compiled and analyzed as a whole, in view of stored data including historical trends, to quickly and accurately build a picture of an operator's expected and/or common condition. In other words, the core platform is configured to accept, analyze, and/or make determinations based at least in part on the various sensor information, or “sensor fusion”, among sensors of differing types, such as visual sensors, physiological sensors, vehicle state sensors, to name but a few. Thus, machine learning/deep learning techniques, capable of collecting data and building models over time to recognize and adapt to similar situations in the future, are used to overcome limited views, damaged identifiers, variable lighting conditions[0066].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that state there is no request, see remarks see page 9, filed 2-4-26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 13, and 14 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Reynolds. It is also noted that the rejection has been updated to show that some of the amendments were already taught by Sprock.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights