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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 04/16/2026 has been reviewed and the listed references have been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 67-76, 91-98, 112 and 113 are pending. Claims 67, 69, 71-73, 75, 91, 93-95 and 97 are amended. Claims 1-66, 77-90 and 99-111 are cancelled. Claim 112 and 113 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of independent Claims 67 and 91, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 67-76, 91-98, 112 and 113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campomanes et al. (US 2021/0042907 A1) in view of Carpenter et al. (US 2016/0237640 A1) and in further view of Hasselbusch et al. (US 2014/0105481 A1).
Regarding claim 67, Campomanes in view of Arnold teaches, A method for determining a dimension of a wear part using (Campomanes, ¶0003: “methods for determining part wear using”) a digital representation comprising: capturing (Campomanes, ¶0003: “capturing digital images using a camera”) of at least two wear parts of an earth working machine; (Campomanes, ¶0016: “determining wear of parts. While specific parts described herein may be parts on machines, e.g., ground-engaging machines, earth-moving machines”) receiving, the video stream of the plurality of digital representations of the at least two wear parts; (Campomanes, ¶0045: “a wear representation 404, which may be a visual depiction of the sensed part, e.g., corresponding to the sensor data generated by the sensor 110, along with information about wear determined by the data processing system”) modeling the at least two wear parts as a 3-dimensional (3D) object using the digital representations; (Campomanes, ¶0037: “each of the measured surface 302, the new part model 304, the wear limit model 306, and/or the bounding model 308 may be three-dimensional”). However, Campomanes does not explicitly teach, a video stream and identifying the wear part model number of wear part for the at least two wear parts; assigning a first pixel value associated with a desired dimension on one of the at least two wear parts and a second pixel value for a known dimension that incorporates the other of the at least two wear parts; and determining the desired dimension of the at least one wear part by relating the first pixel value with the second pixel value.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Carpenter teaches, a video stream (Carpenter, ¶0063: “The image may be a live video feed”) and identifying the wear part model number of wear part (Carpenter, ¶0041: “Information related to part identification can include such things as product type, product number”) for the at least two wear parts; (Carpenter, ¶0040: “monitoring characteristics of ground-engaging products on earth working equipment such as part identification”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campomanes using the teachings of Carpenter to introduce identifying wear part number. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of obtaining additional known information related to the wear part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Campomanes and Carpenter to obtain the invention in claim 67. However, the combination of Campomanes and Carpenter does not explicitly teach, assigning a first pixel value associated with a desired dimension on one of the at least two wear parts and a second pixel value for a known dimension that incorporates the other of the at least two wear parts; and determining the desired dimension of the at least one wear part by relating the first pixel value with the second pixel value.
In another analogous field of endeavor, Hasselbusch teaches, assigning a first pixel value associated with a desired dimension on one of the at least two wear parts (Hasselbusch, ¶0051: “analyze a digital image of a wear part to measure a pixel distance from a known feature of the wear part to a wear edge of the wear part”) and a second pixel value for a known dimension that incorporates the other of the at least two wear parts; (Hasselbusch, ¶0050: “if mobile device 114 determines that there are 1000 pixels between the centers of pin holes 302, 304 in a particular digital image of track link 300, and the pin holes 302, 304 are known to be 300 mm apart from the design specifications, mobile device 114 may calculate a calibration factor of 0.33 mm/pixel for that image”) and determining the desired dimension of the at least one wear part by relating the first pixel value with the second pixel value. (Hasselbusch, ¶0051: “convert the pixel distance to a real-world measurement (e.g., mm) using a calibration factor determined”; the relation is interpreted as a calibration factor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campomanes in view of Carpenter using the teachings of Hasselbusch to introduce computing a relationship between image pixels and real-world dimension in millimeters. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of computing the current dimensions of the target wear part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Campomanes, Carpenter and Hasselbusch to obtain the invention in claim 67.
Regarding claim 68, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 67, wherein the identification of the at least two wear parts is performed by 3D image segmentation, boundary boxing, (Campomanes, ¶0033: “the bounding models 222 represent surfaces that at least partially envelop the part models”) and/or outlining. (Campomanes, ¶0031: “surfaces are shown in the example 204 for reference, and to illustrate an outline of the worn part 116”).
Regarding claim 69, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 67, wherein the video stream of the plurality of digital representations contains a continuous pass of at least one of above, at an angle from, and/or the front of the lip of a bucket. (Campomanes, ¶0002: “an excavating bucket may be provided with excavating teeth and/or shrouds attached to a lip of the bucket to initiate contact with the ground, e.g., prior to the lip of the bucket”; and ¶0083: “sensor 110 to capture sensor data about the worn part 116, e.g., a tooth on the bucket of the machine 104”).
Regarding claim 70, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 67, wherein the modeling of the at least two wear parts is done by photogrammetry. (Campomanes, ¶0031: “two-dimensional representation… while shown in a two-dimensional coordinate system, techniques described in association with FIG. 2 are equally applicable to alternate coordinate systems, including but not limited to three-dimensional coordinate systems).
Regarding claim 71, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 67, where the desired dimension of the at least one wear part is a length of the at least one wear part. (Campomanes, ¶0043: “the wear metric may be expressed as… a length associated with the distance from individual of the measured points 310 to a corresponding one of the wear limit points 312”).
Regarding claim 72, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 71, wherein the length of the at least one wear part is used to determine the amount of wear since a previous determination of the desired dimension. (Campomanes, ¶0035: “the amount of remaining (or worn) part may be associated with a time associated with continued use of the part”).
Regarding claim 73, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 72, wherein the amount of wear since a previous determination of the desired dimension and the time between determinations is used (Campomanes, ¶0035: “the amount of remaining (or worn) part may be associated with a time associated with continued use of the part”) to predict an end of life for the at least one wear part. (Campomanes, ¶0024: “a wear limit part model may dictate when a part will be replaced, and thus selection of the wear limit part model may be based at least in part on a desired condition that will suggest replacement”).
Regarding claim 74, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 67, further comprising capturing an image of a work bench (Campomanes, ¶0017: “the machine site 102 can include a worksite”) surrounding the at least two wear parts. (Campomanes, ¶0017: “capture sensor data, e.g., point cloud data representative of a part, at the machine site 102 using the sensor 110”).
Regarding claim 75, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 67, further comprising determining if the determined desired dimension is below a minimum and if so, then transmitting an alert indication. (Campomanes, ¶0028: “receive notifications, such as emails or text messages, from other elements of the environment, e.g., the data processing system(s) 120 and/or the user device 108, indicating that a wear part of machine is sufficiently worn, e.g. that the wear metric meets or exceeds a threshold wear metric”).
Regarding claim 76, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 67, wherein the known dimension is one of a shroud length, shroud width, wear cap width, wear cap length, a distance between two points, a distance between two shrouds, or a length of an adapter leg to the end of the lip of the bucket. (Campomanes, ¶0002: “excavating bucket may be provided with excavating teeth and/or shrouds attached to a lip of the bucket to initiate contact with the ground, e.g., prior to the lip of the bucket”; also see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 91, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, A method for determining a dimension of a wear part using (Campomanes, ¶0003: “methods for determining part wear using”) a digital representation comprising: capturing a digital representation (Campomanes, ¶0045: “a wear representation 404, which may be a visual depiction of the sensed part”) of at least two wear parts of an earth working machine; (Campomanes, ¶0016: “determining wear of parts. While specific parts described herein may be parts on machines, e.g., ground-engaging machines, earth-moving machines”) receiving, the digital representation of the at least two wear parts; (Campomanes, ¶0045: “a wear representation 404, which may be a visual depiction of the sensed part, e.g., corresponding to the sensor data generated by the sensor 110, along with information about wear determined by the data processing system”). However, Campomanes does not explicitly teach, identifying the wear part model number of wear parts of the at least two wear parts; assigning a first pixel value associated with a desired dimension on one of the at least two wear parts and a second pixel value for a known dimension that incorporates the other of the at least two wear parts; and determining the desired dimension of the at least one wear part by relating the first pixel value with the second pixel value.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Carpenter teaches, identifying the wear part model number of wear parts (Carpenter, ¶0041: “Information related to part identification can include such things as product type, product number”) of the at least two wear parts; (Carpenter, ¶0040: “monitoring characteristics of ground-engaging products on earth working equipment such as part identification”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campomanes using the teachings of Carpenter to introduce identifying wear part number. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of obtaining additional known information related to the wear part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Campomanes and Carpenter to obtain the invention in claim 91. However, the combination of Campomanes and Carpenter does not explicitly teach, assigning a first pixel value associated with a desired dimension on one of the at least two wear parts and a second pixel value for a known dimension that incorporates the other of the at least two wear parts; and determining the desired dimension of the at least one wear part by relating the first pixel value with the second pixel value.
In another analogous field of endeavor, Hasselbusch teaches, assigning a first pixel value associated with a desired dimension on one of the at least two wear parts (Hasselbusch, ¶0051: “analyze a digital image of a wear part to measure a pixel distance from a known feature of the wear part to a wear edge of the wear part”) and a second pixel value for a known dimension that incorporates the other of the at least two wear parts; (Hasselbusch, ¶0050: “if mobile device 114 determines that there are 1000 pixels between the centers of pin holes 302, 304 in a particular digital image of track link 300, and the pin holes 302, 304 are known to be 300 mm apart from the design specifications, mobile device 114 may calculate a calibration factor of 0.33 mm/pixel for that image”) and determining the desired dimension of the at least one wear part by relating the first pixel value with the second pixel value. (Hasselbusch, ¶0051: “convert the pixel distance to a real-world measurement (e.g., mm) using a calibration factor determined”; the relation is interpreted as a calibration factor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campomanes in view of Carpenter using the teachings of Hasselbusch to introduce computing a relationship between image pixels and real-world dimension in millimeters. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of computing the current dimensions of the target wear part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Campomanes, Carpenter and Hasselbusch to obtain the invention in claim 91.
Regarding claim 92, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 91, wherein the identification of the wear part is performed by 2- dimensional image segmentation, boundary boxing, (Campomanes, ¶0033: “the bounding models 222 represent surfaces that at least partially envelop the part models”) and/or outlining. (Campomanes, ¶0031: “surfaces are shown in the example 204 for reference, and to illustrate an outline of the worn part 116”).
Regarding claim 93, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claims 91, where the desired dimension of the at least one wear part is a length of the at least one wear part. (Campomanes, ¶0043: “the wear metric may be expressed as… a length associated with the distance from individual of the measured points 310 to a corresponding one of the wear limit points 312”).
Regarding claim 94, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 93, wherein the length of the wear part is used to determine the amount of wear since a previous determination of the desired dimension. (Campomanes, ¶0035: “the amount of remaining (or worn) part may be associated with a time associated with continued use of the part”).
Regarding claim 95, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 94, wherein the amount of wear since a previous determination of the desired dimension and the time between determinations is used (Campomanes, ¶0035: “the amount of remaining (or worn) part may be associated with a time associated with continued use of the part”) to predict an end of life for the at least one wear part. (Campomanes, ¶0024: “a wear limit part model may dictate when a part will be replaced, and thus selection of the wear limit part model may be based at least in part on a desired condition that will suggest replacement”).
Regarding claim 96, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 91, further comprising capturing an image of a work bench (Campomanes, ¶0017: “the machine site 102 can include a worksite”) surrounding the at least one wear part. (Campomanes, ¶0017: “capture sensor data, e.g., point cloud data representative of a part, at the machine site 102 using the sensor 110”).
Regarding claim 97, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 91, further comprising determining if the determined desired dimension is below a minimum and if so, then transmitting an alert indication. (Campomanes, ¶0028: “receive notifications, such as emails or text messages, from other elements of the environment, e.g., the data processing system(s) 120 and/or the user device 108, indicating that a wear part of machine is sufficiently worn, e.g. that the wear metric meets or exceeds a threshold wear metric”).
Regarding claim 98, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 91, wherein the known dimension is one of a shroud length, shroud width, wear cap width, wear cap length, a distance between two points, a distance between two shrouds, or a length of an adapter leg to the end of the lip of the bucket. (Campomanes, ¶0002: “excavating bucket may be provided with excavating teeth and/or shrouds attached to a lip of the bucket to initiate contact with the ground, e.g., prior to the lip of the bucket”; also see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 112, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 67, wherein identifying the wear part model number of wear part for the at least two wear parts includes the specific geometry and part name of the identified wear part. (Hasselbusch, ¶0044: “the wear parts information may be indexed by machine model, part name… information may specify, for example, known features (e.g., dimensions and geometry) of wear parts”).
Regarding claim 113, Campomanes in view of Carpenter and in further view of Hasselbusch teaches, The method of claim 91, wherein identifying the wear part model number of wear part for the at least two wear parts includes the specific geometry and part name of the identified wear part. (Hasselbusch, ¶0044: “the wear parts information may be indexed by machine model, part name… information may specify, for example, known features (e.g., dimensions and geometry) of wear parts”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
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, Saini Amandeep can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights