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 . Claims 17-18 and 21-34 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant amended claims, cancelled claims 19-20 and previously cancelled claims 35-36. Claims 17-18 and 21-34 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The 112 Rejections were overcome and therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the amended claims recite new limitations wherein the claim now adjusts one or more operations settings… and automatically control operations… based at least in part on the adjusted settings.
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the correction factors of B2 are not based on deviations from previous stored data and merely teaches correction factors from slewing angles associated with a present operation. Applicant further asserts the correction factors are applied to new milling task.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The system of B2 teaches comparing the actual work effort (i.e. current slewing angle) to a work effort (i.e. preset slewing angle) and applies correction factors based on those determinations. Examiner also notes that the claims do not recite applying correction factors to new milling tasks, but merely adjust for a “current planned milling task.” Examiner further notes that the process is determined for other metrics as well such as conveying speed.
The 103 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
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 17-18 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) 17-34 is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims 17 recite a series of steps for estimating an effort for a milling task.
Regarding Claim(s) 17 (additional elements bolded), A method for estimating an effort required for a planned milling task performed or to be performed using a road-milling machine, the method comprising:
generating recorded data sets for respective planned milling tasks performed using a plurality of road-milling machines,
wherein the data sets for each respective milling task comprise at least one set machine parameter, at least one actual material parameter, and/or at least one actual job parameter,
wherein an actual work effort for each milling task is determined from at least part of a data set corresponding to the respective further in view of one or more correction factors comprising a construction site factor and/or a logistics factor respective to the milling task milling task, and
wherein the actual work effort for each milling task is compared to a prior estimation of the work effort based on the data set corresponding to the respective milling task and a further correction is applied to the one or more correction factors comprising a construction site factor and/or a logistics factor are based on deviations based on this comparison and retrievably stored with the data set corresponding to the respective milling task;
for a current planned milling task:
inputting task data into a processing device of a planning system, wherein the task data comprises
at least one job parameter, wherein the at least one job parameter contains at least one specification regarding planned milling work or planned milling power,
at least one preset machine parameter, wherein the at least one preset machine parameter comprises at least one specification of set-up of the road-milling machine,
and at least one material parameter, wherein the at least one material parameter contains at least one specification characterizing a material of a ground surface to be machined;
comparing the task data for the planned milling task to the recorded data sets corresponding to the respective milling task; and
determining, by the processing device, an estimation of the effort from the task data,
taking into account a construction site factor and/or a logistics factor based on the recorded data sets corresponding to the respective milling task
adjusting one or more operation settings on a control unit of the road-milling machine based on the determined estimation of the effort; and (Examiner notes this limitation is recited at a high level of generality which could include a user manually adjusting the settings on a control unit).
automatically controlling operation of the road-milling machine based at least in part on the adjusted one or more operation settings.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims recite determining an estimation of effort, generating datasets, datasets comprising a plurality of parameters, determining an actual work effort, comparing actual effort to prior estimations, using further parameters, comparing task data to recorded data, and determining an estimation of effort all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
The claims further recite “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) as the claims recite methods for estimating a job cost and efforts (See Specification. [at least 03, 76]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least an inputting task data into a processing device of a planning system, a processing device, a road milling-machine; processing device; control unit of the road-milling machine; and automatically controlling operation of the road-milling machine . The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) .
Regarding Claim(s) 21, 23-30, and 32-34, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of displaying… at an output unit. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 22, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of the milling machine. This element(s) amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 31, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of the milling machine. This element(s) amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 21, 23-30 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barimani et al. (EP3205773A1) in view of Barimani et al (herein after referred to as “B2”) (US 20190153682 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Barimani teaches: A method for estimating an effort required for a planned milling task performed or to be performed using a road-milling machine, the method comprising: (Barimani, [07]; The achievable milling performance of a road milling machine, with suitably selected machine parameters of the road milling machine, is essentially determined by the material properties of the road or road section to be removed. Thus, if the material properties of the road or road section are known or if the parameters that correlate with these material properties are known, a prediction can be made for the achievable milling performance.
This prediction is valid for suitably chosen machine parameters. If the milling performance is known, an exact planning of upcoming milling tasks can be carried out).
generating recorded data sets for respective planned milling tasks performed using a plurality of road- milling machines, (Barimani, [20]; Recording and storing material properties of roads and/or road sections and/or parameters correlating with the material properties together with the respective associated road names and/or road section names and/or geographical coordinates and Barimani, [05]; The object of the invention is achieved by a method for operating one or more road milling machines comprising at least the following steps).
wherein the data sets for each respective milling task comprise at least one set machine parameter, at least one actual material parameter, and/or at least one actual job parameter, (Barimani, [14]; The accuracy in determining the material properties from the machine parameters of a road milling machine during a previously performed milling operation in the work area to be planned can be improved by taking into account wear of at least one tool of the road milling machine that occurred during milling of a specific area when determining the material properties from the machine parameters and Barimani, [20]; Recording and storing material properties of roads and/or road sections and/or parameters correlating with the material properties together with the respective associated road names and/or road section names and/or geographical coordinates… Determination of at least one milling performance of the road milling machine and/or wear of at least one tool of the road milling machine for the roads and/or road sections to be machined on the basis of the material properties and/or characteristic values determined for the roads or road sections).
for a current planned milling task: inputting task data into a processing device of a planning system, (Barimani, [09]; According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, it can be provided that for carrying out a predetermined road milling work, a working time and/or a consumption of operating materials and/or aware of at least one tool of the road milling machine and/or a quantity of required wearing parts and/or a quantity of required operating materials and/or a quantity of required auxiliary operating materials is determined and displayed on the basis of the material properties and/or characteristic values assigned to a road or a road section to be worked on and/or is taken into account when determining the sequence of the road milling work to be carried out and Barimani, [35]; the data mentioned or parts of the data (e.g. 467 B. material properties, characteristic values 40, position data 80) can also be entered into the planning system 30 via the input unit 34 or output via the output unit 33 and Barimani, [48]; For data acquisition during the paving process, the layer structure 61, the mix properties 62, the compaction data 63 and the associated position data can be recorded by the road construction machine(s) used or their operators and entered manually into the planning system 30 via the input unit 34 shown in Figure 3).
wherein the task data comprises at least one job parameter, wherein the at least one job parameter contains at least one specification regarding planned milling work or planned milling power, (Barimani, [05]; The object of the invention is achieved by a method for operating one or more road milling machines comprising at least the following steps: Determination and/or reading of material properties of roads and/or road sections and/or of parameters correlating with the material properties; Assignment of material properties and/or characteristics to corresponding street names and/or names of road sections and/or geographical coordinates; Specification of at least two roads and/or road sections to be machined by milling; Determination of at least one expected milling performance of the road milling machine for the roads and/or road sections to be machined on the basis of the material properties and/or characteristic values determined for the roads or road sections, Determination and display of a sequence of road milling work to be carried out that is optimized at least with regard to milling performance).
at least one material parameter, wherein the at least one material parameter contains at least one specification characterizing a material of a ground surface to be machined; and (Barimani, [05]; The object of the invention is achieved by a method for operating one or more road milling machines comprising at least the following steps: Determination and/or reading of material properties of roads and/or road sections and/or of parameters correlating with the material properties; Assignment of material properties and/or characteristics to corresponding street names and/or names of road sections and/or geographical coordinates; Specification of at least two roads and/or road sections to be machined by milling; Determination of at least one expected milling performance of the road milling machine for the roads and/or road sections to be machined on the basis of the material properties and/or characteristic values determined for the roads or road sections).
determining, by the processing device, an estimation of the effort from the task data, taking into account a construction site factor and/or a logistics factor based on the recorded data sets corresponding to the respective milling task. (Barimani, [07]; The achievable milling performance of a road milling machine, with suitably selected machine parameters of the road milling machine, is essentially determined by the material properties of the road or road section to be removed. Thus, if the material properties of the road or road section are known or if the parameters that correlate with these material properties are known, a prediction can be made for the achievable milling performance. This prediction is valid for suitably chosen machine parameters and Barimani, [10]; Based on the material properties, a prediction can then be made for the milling performance, wear of the milling tools and the required material and resource requirements for any road milling machine, tailored to its properties and Barimani, [13]; Based on the material properties obtained in this way or the machine parameters as parameters correlating with the material properties, a prediction can then be made for the milling performance, the wear of the milling tools or the required use of materials and resources for a further milling operation in the work area within which the same or similar material properties can be assumed as in the section already milled).
wherein an actual work effort for each milling task is determined from at least part of a dataset corresponding to the respective milling task… and (Barimani, [19]; If the milling performance is determined based on the material properties of the road or road section, the amount of work and the milling performance can be used to determine, for example, the time required to carry out the milling project and Barimani, [32]; If the material properties for a road 20 are known, a forecast can be made according to the invention for future milling work on the road 20 as to what performance can be expected from a road milling machine 10 and/or what wear of the milling tools. These values can be used when planning a future construction site or Construction sites must be taken into account. This makes it possible to determine the time required to complete a milling task from the expected work performance. and Barimani, [48]; The distance covered during installation and, if applicable, the installation width are recorded electronically, which allows areas with the same material properties to be determined very precisely… The relevant material properties of road 20 are determined from the installation data of road 20 collected in the installation data acquisition block 64 and assigned to the work areas defined by the position data in the assignment block… The determination of the material properties from the installation data is preferably carried out in the computing unit). Examiner notes that at least the material properties are recorded in a dataset corresponding to the respective task.
While Barimani teaches determining an actual work effort, Barimani does not appear to explicitly teach multiple corrections factors. However, Barimani in view of the analogous art of B2 (i.e. job planning) does teach: further in view of one or more correction factors comprising a construction site factor and/or a logistics factor respective to the milling task, (B2, [26]; It may also be specified in this design for the slewing angle preset by the controller according to the invention to be corrected, namely, increased by an additional correction factor in the direction of the position angle altered from the initial position of the longitudinal central axes and B2, [66]; The further correction factor calculated by the control system 24 is preferably a second correction factor for the slewing angle and is determined in such a fashion that the slewing angle to be preset is increased in the direction of the increase of the position angle 46. With reference to the embodiment shown in FIG. 5, this means that the calculated slewing angle is corrected in the direction of the arrow 54 when the position angle 46 or the angle between the longitudinal central axes 9 and 42 increases).
While Barimani teaches site factors and storing machine parameters (i.e. datasets) associated with a respective milling task (Barimani, [15,19, 20, 29]) Barimani does not appear to explicitly teach: wherein the actual work effort for each milling task is compared to a prior estimation of the work effort based on dataset corresponding to the respective milling task and one or more correction factors comprising a construction site factor and/or a logistics factor based on deviations based on this comparison and retrievably stored in the dataset corresponding to the respective milling task; However Barimani in view of the analogous art of B2 (i.e. job planning) does teach the entirety of the limitation: (B2, [66]; The further correction factor calculated by the control system is preferably a second correction factor for the slewing angle and is determined in such a fashion that the slewing angle to be preset is increased in the direction of the increase of the position angle. With reference to the embodiment shown in FIG. 5, this means that the calculated slewing angle is corrected in the direction of the arrow when the position angle or the angle between the longitudinal central axes 9 and 42 increases. When the position angle decreases in the direction of the initial position in which the longitudinal central axis 9 extends collinearly to the longitudinal central axis, the corrected slewing angle to be preset is altered in the opposite direction, compared to the calculated slewing angle, until it coincides, in the initial position, with the non-corrected, pre-calculated slewing angle and B2, [30]; the control system to determine the further correction factor for the conveying speed to be preset as a function of the position of the pre-calculated point of impingement within the loading surface in such a fashion that the conveying speed is increased steplessly up to the maximum when the point of impingement moves in the direction of the forward end of the loading surface as seen in the conveying direction, and the conveying speed is reduced compared to the maximum conveying speed when the point of impingement moves in the direction of the rear end of the loading surface as seen in the conveying direction). Examiner notes that Barimani is relied upon to explicitly teach recorded datasets regarding machine parameters while B2 teaches the machine parameter of slewing angle/conveyor speed. Examiner interprets the calculated/pre-calculated slewing angles as part of the dataset corresponding to the respective task. Examiner further notes a similar process is done for at least the conveying speed.
While Barimani teaches machine parameters of a road milling machine, Barimani does not appear to explicitly recite preset parameters (See Barimani, [12-13]). However, Barimani in view of the analogous art of B2 (i.e. road milling operations) does teach: at least one preset machine parameter, wherein the at least one preset machine parameter comprises at least one specification of set-up of the road-milling machine, and (B2, [68]; FIGS. 6a, 6b and 7 illustrate the correction factor for the conveying speed to be preset as a function of the position of the pre-calculated point of impingement 16 within the loading surface 15).
comparing the task data for the planned milling task to the recorded data sets corresponding to the respective milling task; (B2, [66]; When the position angle 46 decreases in the direction of the initial position in which the longitudinal central axis 9 extends collinearly to the longitudinal central axis 40, the corrected slewing angle to be preset is altered in the opposite direction, compared to the calculated slewing angle, until it coincides, in the initial position, with the non-corrected, pre-calculated slewing angle).
adjusting one or more operation settings on a control unit of the road-milling machine based on the determined estimation of the effort; and (B2, [32]; correction factors for the at least one control parameter are determined as a function of at least one of the following parameters describing the alterable position of the loading surface, namely, the transverse or lateral inclination of the loading surface about the longitudinal central axis of the loading surface and B2, [66]; The further correction factor calculated by the control system 24 is preferably a second correction factor for the slewing angle and is determined in such a fashion that the slewing angle to be preset is increased in the direction of the increase of the position angle 46. With reference to the embodiment shown in FIG. 5, this means that the calculated slewing angle is corrected in the direction of the arrow 54 when the position angle 46 or the angle between the longitudinal central axes 9 and 42 increases. When the position angle 46 decreases in the direction of the initial position in which the longitudinal central axis 9 extends collinearly to the longitudinal central axis 40, the corrected slewing angle to be preset is altered in the opposite direction, compared to the calculated slewing angle, until it coincides, in the initial position, with the non-corrected, pre-calculated slewing angle.).
automatically controlling operation of the road-milling machine based at least in part on the adjusted one or more operation settings (B2, [66]; With reference to the embodiment shown in FIG. 5, this means that the calculated slewing angle is corrected in the direction of the arrow 54 when the position angle 46 or the angle between the longitudinal central axes 9 and 42 increases. When the position angle 46 decreases in the direction of the initial position in which the longitudinal central axis 9 extends collinearly to the longitudinal central axis 40, the corrected slewing angle to be preset is altered in the opposite direction, compared to the calculated slewing angle, until it coincides, in the initial position, with the non-corrected, pre-calculated slewing angle and B2, [16]; wherein a control system continuously controls at least one of the following control parameters, namely, the slewing angle, the elevation angle and the conveying speed of the transport conveyor, automatically in such a fashion that the discharged milling material impinges on a pre-calculated point of impingement within the loading surface. It is known in this design to preset the desired point of impingement and to control the control parameters in order to influence the position of said point of impingement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Barimani including using datasets to determine estimated work efforts with the teachings of B2 including correction factors in order to more accurately correct slewing angles. (B2, [66]; The further correction factor calculated by the control system 24 is preferably a second correction factor for the slewing angle and is determined in such a fashion that the slewing angle to be preset is increased in the direction of the increase of the position angle 46. With reference to the embodiment shown in FIG. 5, this means that the calculated slewing angle is corrected in the direction of the arrow 54 when the position angle 46 or the angle between the longitudinal central axes 9 and 42 increases. When the position angle 46 decreases in the direction of the initial position in which the longitudinal central axis 9 extends collinearly to the longitudinal central axis 40, the corrected slewing angle to be preset is altered in the opposite direction, compared to the calculated slewing angle, until it coincides, in the initial position, with the non-corrected, pre-calculated slewing angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Barimani including using datasets to determine estimated work efforts with the teachings of B2 including actual work effort and comparing actual work effort to estimated effort in order to correct/adjust/alter as needed to complete a job. (B2, [10]; the elevation angle and the conveying speed of the slew-able transport conveyor of the material transport device, and is thus distracted from his original task of carrying out the milling operation. An alteration of the slewing angle may be necessary, for example, when altering the steering direction of the milling machine or of the transport vehicle, or to ensure uniform loading of the loading surface).
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Barimani/B2 teaches: The method of claim 17, further comprising determining one or more output values corresponding to the determined estimation of the effort, and displaying the one or more output values at an output unit. (Barimani, [09]; According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, it can be provided that for carrying out a predetermined road milling work, a working time and/or a consumption of operating materials and/or a wear of at least one tool of the road milling machine and/or a quantity of required wearing parts and/or a quantity of required operating materials and/or a quantity of required auxiliary operating materials is determined and displayed on the basis of the material properties and/or characteristic values assigned to a road or a road section to be worked on and/or is taken into account when determining the sequence of the road milling work to be carried out and Barimani, [41]; The planning system 30 or parts of the planning system 30 are advantageously arranged centrally. In this way, the planning system 30 can be used by different users and/or to plan different construction sites. Advantageously, a centrally arranged planning system 30 is networked with decentralized input and output units).
Regarding Claim(s) 21, Barimani/ B2 teaches: The method of claim 17, wherein the estimation of the effort contains specifications of a duration of the planned milling task and/or of required operating materials and/or of required operating media. (Barimani, [07]; The optimization can preferably be carried out with regard to the required working time and/or the required resources. It is also possible to coordinate the use of several road milling machines and Barimani, [09]; According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, it can be provided that for carrying out a predetermined road milling work, a working time and/or a consumption of operating materials and/or a wear of at least one tool of the road milling machine and/or a quantity of required wearing parts and/or a quantity of required operating materials and/or a quantity of required auxiliary operating materials is determined and displayed on the basis of the material properties and/or characteristic values assigned to a road or a road section to be worked on and/or is taken into account when determining the sequence of the road milling work to be
carried out and Barimani, [15]; The prediction of milling performance, wear and tear, and material and resource requirements can then be made based on these material properties).
Regarding Claim(s) 23, Barimani/ B2 teaches: The method of claim 17, wherein one or more of the at least one material parameter are selected from: a material type of at least one area of the ground surface to be machined, a layer structure, a layer to be milled, a hardness of at least one area of the ground surface to be machined, and/or an abrasiveness of at least one area of the ground surface to be machined. (Barimani, [31]; The material properties of Road 20 relevant to milling result from the materials used, the conditions and process parameters during the installation of Road 20 and the thicknesses of the individual layers. The material properties can also depend on prevailing environmental conditions, such as the ambient temperature. Relevant material properties can be abrasiveness or road hardness 20. These are determined, for example, by the material type, a material composition, a temperature and/or a layer structure of the road 20).
Regarding Claim(s) 24, Barimani/ B2 teaches: The method of claim 17, wherein one or more of the at least one job parameter are selected from: a planned change to the ground surface to be machined, a planned milled length, a planned milling surface, a planned milling mass, a planned milling volume, a planned milling time, and/or a planned work result. (Barimani, [19]; Optimized construction site planning can be achieved by determining the milling performance as a milled area and/or a milling volume and/or a milling mass and/or a milling distance, each related to a unit of time. When planning a milling project, the required amount of work is known, for example in the form of an area to be milled, a volume to be milled, a mass to be milled or a distance to be milled).
Regarding Claim(s) 25, Barimani/ B2 teaches: The method of claim 17, wherein the construction site factor represents a construction site correction specification that considers a complexity of the construction site where the planned milling task is performed. (Barimani, [15]; According to one embodiment of the invention, it can be provided that position data of a road milling machine are recorded and assigned to the specific material properties and/or
characteristic values. For example, during a milling process on a road section, the material properties or characteristics can be assigned to the corresponding position data unambiguously and, for example, automatically. The material properties obtained in this way or
Key figures can then be used for further construction site planning in the respective work area.
During a planning process, the position data of the road milling machine can be used to determine the corresponding material properties or Characteristic values for the road or the road section on which the road milling machine has already worked can be retrieved. The prediction of milling performance, wear and tear, and material and resource requirements can then be made based on these material properties. Characteristic values are determined. Such an approach is advantageous, for example, in a decentralized planning system in which the planning of a milling job to be carried out takes place directly on site on at least one of the planned road milling machines and Barimani, [19]; Optimized construction site planning can be achieved by determining the milling performance as a milled area and/or a milling volume and/or a milling mass and/or a milling distance, each related to a unit of time and Barimani, [29]; The performance achievable with a road milling machine as well as the wear of the milling
tools depend heavily on the material properties of the road 20 to be removed, for example on
its hardness or abrasiveness. This makes site planning more difficult with regard to the achievable milling performance and thus the required working time as well as the expected wear of the milling tools). Examiner notes the system of Barimani considers the complexity of the project as it considers materials properties, processes, milling volume, abrasiveness, wear of equipment, etc.
Regarding Claim(s) 26, Barimani/ B2 teaches: The method of claim 17, wherein the construction site factor considers at least one construction site specification selected from: a geometry of the surface to be milled, a type and/or number of obstructions present on or adjacent to the area to be milled, a type and/or number of changes to the milling profile, a number of maneuvering runs required, a length of one or more maneuvering runs, a frequency of change of at least one machine parameter, and/or a tolerance for errors in the execution of work. (Barimani, [19]; When planning a milling project, the required amount of work is known, for example in the form and Barimani, [45]; The wear can be specified, for example, in the form of a wear rate, i.e., for example, in a change in a chisel length or a chisel volume per unit of time, or also in relation to a milling job performed. The latter would be, for example, a change in a chisel length or a chisel volume per milled mass, per milled volume or per milled distance or area. It is also conceivable that the number of tool changes required during the milling work to be planned is predicted and Barimani, [48]; The distance covered during installation and, if applicable, the installation width are recorded electronically, which allows areas with the same material properties to be determined very precisely of an area to be milled, a volume to be milled, a mass to be milled or a distance to be milled). Examiner interprets the mass, volume, and distance as a geometry of the construction site. Further the Examiner interprets the number of tool changes as frequency of change of a machine parameter.
Regarding Claim(s) 27, Barimani/ B2 teaches: The method of claim 17, wherein the construction site factor is determined from: a functional relationship in which one or more construction site specifications are considered; or a construction site factor selection list. (Barimani, [07]; In particular, the sequence of different milling sections within a construction site or the sequence of different road milling operations at different construction sites can be specified in an optimized manner and Barimani, [29]; The performance achievable with a road milling machine 10 as well as the wear of the milling tools depend heavily on the material properties of the road 20 to be removed, for example on its hardness or abrasiveness. This makes site planning more difficult with regard to the achievable milling performance and thus the required working time as well as the expected wear of the milling tools). Examiner notes there is a functional relationship between the hardness/abrasiveness/variety of other construction site factors and the tools/planning required to perform the method.
Regarding Claim(s) 28, Barimani/ B2 teaches the method of Claim 27 in which a functional relationship in which one or more construction site specifications are considered. The construction site factor selection list is not required (i.e. optional) by the claim and therefore Claim 28 is rejected similarly to Claim 27. The method of claim 27, wherein the construction site factor selection list is formed from a class division, in which construction site types are grouped into complexity classes, and at least one complexity factor is assigned to each of the complexity classes.
Regarding Claim(s) 29, Barimani/ B2 teaches: The method of claim 17, wherein the logistics factor represents a logistics correction specification that considers an organization of the construction site where the planned milling task is performed. (Barimani, [45]; The wear can be specified, for example, in the form of a wear rate, i.e., for example, in a change in a chisel length or a chisel volume per unit of time, or also in relation to a milling job performed. The latter would be, for example, a change in a chisel length or a chisel volume per milled mass, per milled volume or per milled distance or area. It is also conceivable that the number of tool changes required during the milling work to be planned is predicted). Examiner notes the logistics factor is not required by the claim as claim 17 recites a construction site factor or a logistics factor.
Regarding Claim(s) 30, Barimani/ B2 teaches: The method of claim 17, wherein the logistics factor considers at least one logistics specifications selected from: a specification of a transport of the milled material, a specification of a loading of the milled material, and/ or a specification of a supply of consumables required by the road-milling machine at the construction site. (Barimani, [08-09]; The process thus enables optimized operation of one or more road milling machines in terms of their performance and the resources required for their operation…. According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, it can be provided that for carrying out a predetermined road milling work, a working time and/or a consumption of operating materials and/or a wear of at least one tool of the road milling machine and/or a quantity of required wearing parts and/or a quantity of required operating materials and/or a quantity of required auxiliary operating materials is determined and displayed on the basis of the material properties and/or characteristic values assigned to a road or a road section to be worked on and/or is taken into account when determining the sequence of the road milling work to be carried out). Examiner notes that Barimani teaches a specification of amount materials required by milling machines (i.e. consumables). Examiner further interprets the chisels as consumable as they are replaced upon wear and tear. Examiner further notes the logistics factor is not required by the claim as claim 17 recites a construction site factor or a logistics factor.
Regarding Claim(s) 33, Barimani/ B2 teaches: The method of claim 17, wherein the logistics factor is determined from: a functional relationship, in which one or more logistics specifications are considered; or a logistics factor selection list. Barimani, [07]; The achievable milling performance of a road milling machine, with suitably selected machine parameters of the road milling machine, is essentially determined by the material properties of the road or road section to be removed. Thus, if the material properties of the road or road section are known or if the parameters that correlate with these material properties are known, a prediction can be made for the achievable milling performance. This prediction is valid for suitably chosen machine parameters and Barimani, [10]; Based on the material properties, a prediction can then be made for the milling performance, wear of the milling tools and the required material and resource requirements for any road milling machine, tailored to its properties and Barimani, [13]; Based on the material properties obtained in this way or the machine parameters as parameters correlating with the material properties, a prediction can then be made for the milling performance, the wear of the milling tools or the required use of materials and resources for a further milling operation in the work area within which the same or similar material properties can be assumed as in the section already milled). Examiner notes there is a functional relationship between the material properties/variety of other logistic site factors and the tools/planning required to perform the method. Examiner further notes the logistic factor is not required by the claims
Regarding Claim(s) 34, Barimani/ B2 teaches the method of Claim 33 in which a functional relationship in which one or more logistics specifications are considered. The logistics factor selection list is not required by the claim by virtue of the “or” statement and therefore Claim 34 is rejected similarly to Claim 33. The method of claim 33, wherein the logistics factor selection list is formed from a class division, in which construction site types are grouped into complexity classes, and in that at least one complexity factor is assigned to each of the complexity classes.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barimani et al. (EP3205773A1) in view of Barimani et al (herein after referred to as B2) (US 20190153682 A1), and Berning et al. (US 20180058214 A1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Barimani including determining outputting values corresponding to the determination estimation of effort and milling machines with the teachings of Berning including loading output values into a control unit of a milling machine in order to calculate appropriate adjustments to equipment as necessary depending on conditions (Berning, [53]; the control and processing unit 20 continuously monitors the travel speed which has been preset by the machine operator. If the machine operator has changed the travel speed, the control and processing unit 20 calculates the new motor speed with the function stored for the selected mode of operation, and then adjusts the new motor speed (in block 29: “setting the operating parameters for milling operation”).
Regarding Claim(s) 22, Barimani/Berning teaches: The method of claim 17, wherein one or more of the at least one preset machine parameter are selected from: a planned milling depth, a stock of at least one operating material available at/on the milling machine, a stock of at least one operating medium available at/on the milling machine, a planned feed rate of the road-milling machine, a planned speed of the milling drum, a planned drive torque to be transmitted to the milling drum, a working width of the milling drum of the road-milling machine, a milling drum type, and/or performance characteristic of the milling machine. (Berning, [22]; For example, for the fine milling operating mode, a specific travel speed of the construction machine, which is a drive parameter, can be preset by the machine operator before the start of the milling work or it can also be changed during the milling work, the setting of the associated speed of the milling/cutting drum, which is a work parameter, then being carried out automatically subject to the travel speed. In this respect, different dependencies can be preset for different milling tasks, so that an optimum setting is carried out for the selected milling task. An embodiment can provide that the plurality of the operating modes which can be selected using the selection unit comprises at least one fine milling operating mode for a relatively fine milled surface with a shallower milling depth of the milling/cutting drum and a coarse milling operating mode for a relatively coarse milled surface with a greater milling depth of the milling/cutting drum, in which case, stored in the memory for the fine milling operating mode is a function which presents a higher speed of the milling/cutting drum for the fine milling operating mode than for the coarse milling operating mode at a predetermined travel speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Barimani including machine parameters of a road milling machine with the teachings of Berning including preset machine parameters in order to have different dependencies to optimize for specific scenarios (Berning, [22]; In this respect, different dependencies can be preset for different milling tasks, so that an optimum setting is carried out for the selected milling task. An embodiment can provide that the plurality of the operating modes which can be selected using the selection unit comprises at least one fine milling operating mode for a relatively fine milled surface with a shallower milling depth of the milling/cutting drum and a coarse milling operating mode for a relatively coarse milled surface with a greater milling depth of the milling/cutting drum, in which case, stored in the memory for the fine milling operating mode is a function which presets a higher speed of the milling/cutting drum for the fine milling operating mode than for the coarse milling operating mode at a predetermined travel speed).
Claim(s) 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barimani et al. (EP3205773A1) in view of Barimani et al (herein after referred to as B2) (US 20190153682 A1), in view of Berning et al. (US 20180058214 A1), and Tregger et al. (US 20210035036 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 31, While Barimani/B2 teach estimating construction efforts, considering site and logistic parameters, neither appears to explicitly teach: The method of claim 30, wherein the specifications for transporting the milled material consider one or more of: a specification of a loading volume of trucks used to transport the removal volume, a speci