DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the submission filed on 11/26/2025 in Application 18/081,361. Claims 1-20 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1-20 are no longer rejected under 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 not being interpreted under 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1-7 will no longer be interpreted under 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11 and 12 being rejected under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 11 and 12 are no longer rejected under 112(b).
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not shown these references, when considered either alone or in combination, to teach or suggest the features of amended independent claim 1 noted above. In particular, as discussed during the interview, the Office has not shown this combination of references to teach or suggest, among other things, a system controller configured to "determine an indication of a first difference between [a] first progress value and [a] first threshold productivity value; determine an indication of a second difference between a second progress value and a second threshold productivity value corresponding to performance of [a] second operation, the second progress value representing an amount of material that has been used by [a] second paving machine to perform the second operation; and cause the indication of the first difference to be displayed, via a user interface presented by a user device, wherein together with the indication of the first difference, the user interface also displays: the indication of the second difference, first visual indicia indicating the first threshold productivity value, second visual indicia disposed adjacent to the first visual indicia, the second visual indicia indicating, dynamically and in near real time, the first progress value, and third visual indicia indicating, dynamically and in near real time, the second progress value associated with the second operation," as recited by amended independent claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. However, Marsolek para, 48 teaches GUI 84 has a plurality of first graphical objects 86, each being indicative of one of the plurality of machines 12 (e.g., paver 18, compactors 20, etc.) or material production plant 30. Each of the plurality of graphical objects 86 is selectable via input device 64c associated with off-board computer 68 (referring to FIG. 2). Each of graphical objects 86 is also be indicative of a status score of the indicated machine 12 or material production plant 30. The status score of each machine 12 or plant 30 is an indication of whether and/or to what extent one or more operating parameters of each machine 12 or plant 30 deviates from an expected or target value or threshold value. In this way, supervisors are able to use GUI 84 to quickly determine which, if any, of machines 12 and plant 30 require attention and how to prioritize subsequent efforts to address any issues. Graphical objects 86 indicate which of machines 12 and plant 30 require attention based on differentiating visual indicia, such as a color scheme (e.g., red, yellow, green), textures, hatching, symbols, numerals, etc. It is understood that other types of indicia may be used.
Further par. 64 teaches Parameters and other information indicated by the graphical objects contained in a graphical user interface (e.g., GUI 88) may each be associated with a respective threshold value or target value. The difference between the information displayed by a graphical object and its associated threshold or target value are used to determine the status score of the machine 12 or plant 30 that is the subject of the graphical user interface. For instance, graphical object 86 in GUI 88 is configured to indicate the status score of paver 18 based on a difference between the information displayed in any of the graphical objects in GUI 88 and its respective associated threshold or target value. For example, when the paver stop time as indicated by graphical object 105 exceeds an associated threshold, graphical object 86 shows, for example, a yellow or red status score, depending on the extent to which the stop time has exceeded the threshold. When paver 18 resumes operation (and if no other parameters are currently in excess of an associated threshold), the status score in graphical object 86 is changed, for example, to the color green to indicate that the state of paving operations is acceptable. Graphical objects 86 as shown in FIG. 3 are configured to change color (or other indicia) in coordination with graphical objects 86 of other graphical user interfaces. It is understood that although the status score has been explained above with respect to the stop time of paver 18 and GUI 88, status scores may be affected by other parameters (e.g., groundspeed, production rate, fuel level, water level, etc.) or differences between them. It is also understood that status scores for other machines (e.g., compactors 20, trucks 16, and plant 30) may be similarly determined. In this way, supervisors are able to quickly and easily identify when issues arise that may need their attention. The Examiner considers displaying the status scores or multiple pieces of equipment (which can be determined by production rates or differences between them) to be displaying first, second and third visual indicia.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7, 14, 16, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,556,867. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 7, 14, 16, 17 of the present application would be obvious over claim 1 of US 11,556,867 B2.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minich US 2012/0288328 A1in view of Sherlock US 2020/0011033 A1 in view of Flood US 2019/0325669 A1 in view of Marsolek US 2017/0205814 A1.
As per Claim 1 Minich teaches a paving system, comprising: one or more paving machines configured to pave a work surface using material hauled from a paving material plant by one or more haul trucks; and a processor in communication with a first paving machine and a second paving machine of the one or more paving machines, the processor being configured to: Minich para. 57 teaches central server(s) 502 receives data and information gathered and provided by asphalt plant 504, paver 100, roller 508, and QC technician 510 (e.g. by one or more computer systems employed at/by those entities). In one example, this information and data is communicated wirelessly from each of these components to central server(s) 502, Data and information received by central server(s) 502 includes measurement data (optionally time-stamped as time-value data pairs), for instance material conveyance information and other data from paver 100 provided by the individual measurement devices thereof or by a computer system at paver 100 which receives the measurement data, optionally processes it, and provides it to central server(s) 502. Further par. 95 teaches Referring to FIG. 7, the process begins by identifying the job information (702). This includes job-related information such as job ID, provided at the scale. This information is, in one example, obtained/received by the central server (e.g. 502 of FIG. 5) to identify the activity with the specific job number and work process with which it is associated. Next, the truck is loaded and a weight ticket is produced indicating the weight of the asphalt that was loaded into the truck (704). At that point, the truck will typically travel to the paver and dump the load into the paver at the job site. The weight ticket is automatically posted by the central server to a paver inbound manifest (706). The inbound manifest provides inbound material information indicating quantity (weight) of paving material that is inbound to the paver to be laid during the paving operation, and may include one or multiple weight tickets, depending on the number of trucks transporting material to the job site. The Examiner considers multiple weight tickets, depending on the number of trucks transporting material to be a first paving machine and a second paving machine.
receive ticket data indicating a time when a first haul truck was loaded with the material; Minich para. 168 teaches according to aspects of the present invention, the accumulating weight of the material delivered to the paver screed is related and can be correlated to the accumulating weight of the material dispatched to the job, as measured by the truck scale and indicated by weight tickets, and the exact time of the beginning and ending of the placement of each load is recorded. This provides for precise record of the logistics for each load, which can then be integrated with the asphalt plant dispatch time and haul route travel time to provide positive control of the material transportation function. The weight tickets can record pertinent information including date and time the material was deposited into the hauling unit (truck) and identification of the individual hauling unit. Aspects of the present invention can facilitate monitoring and refining the efficiency of the transportation process in real time both at the plant and the paver.
receive, in near real time, first sensor data from the first paving machine of the one or more paving machines, the first sensor data being indicative of a first operation being performed by the first paving machine at a first location; Minich para. 99 teaches a proximity signal provided by a proximity sensor (e.g. 162 of FIG, 1A) is correlated to the weight ticket and material used association. When the weight ticket--material used association indicates a truck's load has been consumed, the system correlates the time at which the proximity signal indicated that the truck left the sensor zone in front of the paver (the most recent `truck left` proximity signal indication received prior to the time of the positive match between the weight ticket--material used association), and assigns the time of that particular proximity signal to the actual `released unloaded` time for that truck. The system can thereby compensate for the delay between when the material is unloaded into the hopper (and the truck departs from the front of the paver) and when the material is actually paved by assigning the actual time of the truck `released empty` witness point.
receive, in near real time, second sensor data from the second paving machine of the one or more paving machines, the second sensor data being indicative of a second operation being performed by the second paving machine at a second location different from the first location; Minich para. 99 teaches a proximity signal provided by a proximity sensor (e.g. 162 of FIG, 1A) is correlated to the weight ticket and material used association. When the weight ticket--material used association indicates a truck's load has been consumed, the system correlates the time at which the proximity signal indicated that the truck left the sensor zone in front of the paver (the most recent `truck left` proximity signal indication received prior to the time of the positive match between the weight ticket--material used association), and assigns the time of that particular proximity signal to the actual `released unloaded` time for that truck. The system can thereby compensate for the delay between when the material is unloaded into the hopper (and the truck departs from the front of the paver) and when the material is actually paved by assigning the actual time of the truck `released empty` witness point. Minich para. 57 teaches the inbound manifest provides inbound material information indicating quantity (weight) of paving material that is inbound to the paver to be laid during the paving operation, and may include one or multiple weight tickets, depending on the number of trucks transporting material to the job site. The Examiner considers multiple weight tickets, depending on the number of trucks transporting material to be a first paving machine and a second paving machine.
determine, based at least in part on the ticket data and the first sensor data, a first progress value representing an amount of the material that has been used by the first paving machine to perform the first operation during at least a portion of the work period; (Minich para. 87-91 teach FIG. 6 depicts an overall schematic of an integrated asphalt paving process, in accordance with one or more aspects of the present invention. The asphalt paving process 602 includes integration of four separate but related components:
Integrated Trucking Logistics Process 604: This process tracks progress and timeframe of asphalt delivery (indicated by weight tickets) and truck movement during the paving process
Integrated Yield Process 606: This process involves provision by a paver of information for continual or periodic yield calculation, including correlation of paved material quantities with delivered material quantities
Integrated Compaction Control Process 608: This process provides direction to the rollers in real time for compliance with a prescribed rolling pattern in order to deliver optimal compaction of the asphalt [0091] Integrated Quality Control Process 610: This process leverages the results from the integrated trucking logistics, integrated yield, and integrated compaction control processes and provides a common sense system to automate quality control metrics, reports, and communication.)
Minich does not teach receive target data corresponding to a work period, the target data including an amount of the material to be used for the work period; However, Flood para. 38 demand input logic 260 is configured to receive an indication of a demand input. The indication of the demand input can be obtained through a user input (e.g., detected by user interface logic 258 through user input mechanisms 272), from a remote system, and in a wide variety of other ways. Based on the indication of the demand input, demand input logic 260 defines a target amount of material to be processed at jobsite 101 and a total cycle time available for processing the target amount of material at jobsite 101. For example, demand input logic 260 can define a target of 420 tons of material to be processed, across mobile machines 104-110, in 435 minutes of available time. Of course, this is just an example, and demand input logic 260 can identify a wide variety of other demands for jobsite 101. Both Minich and Flood are directed to work vehicle performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Minich to include receive target data corresponding to a work period, the target data including an amount of the material to be used for the work period as taught by Flood to improve performance of the machines and increase productivity measures across an entire operation (see para. 4).
Minich does not teach determine a first threshold productivity value for a time period having a duration that is less than a duration of the work period, wherein the first threshold productivity value;
is determined based at least in part on the target data and for the work period, and represents a threshold amount of material to be used by the first paving machine for the time period; However, Sherlock para. 23 teaches productivity logic 106 determines or calculates a productivity metric for work machine 102. For instance, a productivity metric can be a metric indicative of the amount of aggregate 150 currently being moved by work machine 102 or moved over a period of time. In one example, productivity logic 106 utilizes sensors 120 to determine the amount of aggregate 150 being moved by machine 102. In another example, productivity logic 106 utilizes model information from data store 180 to determine the amount of aggregate 150 being moved by machine 102. For instance, productivity logic 106 can receive operating parameters of the current operation and compare the current parameters to a table of previous operating parameters (e.g. a table of previously generated parameters). Once a similar set of previous operating parameters are identified as being close to the current operating parameters, productivity logic 106 retrieves the productivity values that the previous operating parameters produced and estimates that the current operating parameters will produce similar productivity values. This is just one example. Para. 26 teaches recommendation logic 112 receives outputs from other logic components and generates, for operator 154, a recommendation to improve worksite operations (e.g. time/work efficiency, fuel efficiency, component wear). Recommendation logic 112 can receive environmental or operating data and cross reference this with a model in data store 180. If the current productivity is below a given threshold, a recommendation can be generated to increase the current productivity.
determine an indication of a first difference between the first progress value and the first threshold productivity value Sherlock para. 26 teaches recommendation logic 112 receives outputs from other logic components and generates, for operator 154, a recommendation to improve worksite operations (e.g. time/work efficiency, fuel efficiency, component wear). Recommendation logic 112 can receive environmental or operating data and cross reference this with a model in data store 180. If the current productivity is below a given threshold, a recommendation can be generated to increase the current productivity. Para. 32 teaches at block 340, recommendation logic 112 generates a recommendation to improve worksite operations based on the current operations and productivity/spillage metrics. As indicated by block 350, recommendation logic 112 can generate a recommendation if the productivity metric or spillage metric reaches a certain threshold. For instance, if spillage passes a maximum spillage threshold then recommendation logic 112 will generate a recommendation to reduce or prevent further spillage. As indicated by block 352, recommendation logic 112 can continually generate minor adjustment recommendations regardless of a threshold. Recommendation logic 112 can generate recommendations under other circumstances as well, as indicated by block 354.
determine an indication of a second difference between a second progress value and a second threshold productivity value corresponding to performance of the second operation, the second progress value representing an amount of material that has been used by the second paving machine to perform the second operation; and Sherlock para. 26 teaches recommendation logic 112 receives outputs from other logic components and generates, for operator 154, a recommendation to improve worksite operations (e.g. time/work efficiency, fuel efficiency, component wear). Recommendation logic 112 can receive environmental or operating data and cross reference this with a model in data store 180. If the current productivity is below a given threshold, a recommendation can be generated to increase the current productivity. Para. 32 teaches at block 340, recommendation logic 112 generates a recommendation to improve worksite operations based on the current operations and productivity/spillage metrics. As indicated by block 350, recommendation logic 112 can generate a recommendation if the productivity metric or spillage metric reaches a certain threshold. For instance, if spillage passes a maximum spillage threshold then recommendation logic 112 will generate a recommendation to reduce or prevent further spillage. As indicated by block 352, recommendation logic 112 can continually generate minor adjustment recommendations regardless of a threshold. Recommendation logic 112 can generate recommendations under other circumstances as well, as indicated by block 354. Para. 28 teaches the following describes one or more example implementations of the disclosed work vehicle having a payload tracking system, as shown in the accompanying figures of the drawings described briefly above. Generally, the disclosed system (and work vehicles in which they are implemented) provide for improved payload tracking as compared to conventional systems by sensing a volume of material in an implement 128 (shown as bucket) of a work vehicle 12 and/or a volume of material in a load bin 14 of the haulage work vehicle 10, in addition to associating the location of the volume of material from a location tracker 160, identifying the operative state of the work vehicle (10, 12) from an operation sensor 154, and generating signals based thereon. The location data 224 may include the global position system data point (GPS) 216, an absolute location data point from a known base point 218, and/or a relative implement height 220 from a ground surface 11. The volume data signals 202 are processed to determine a volume of material in the bucket 128 and/or the load bin 14. The operation data signals 206 from an operation sensor 154 may include, for example, a beacon 165, or position sensors 51 within the relevant hydraulics of the work vehicle (10, 12), are processed to determine an operative state of the work vehicle. Alternatively, operation data signals 206 may be directly received from an input device 45 from the user input interface 46. Further, by tracking the location data signals 204 in real-time and associating the volume data signals 202 with location data signals 204 in real-time, and associating the operation data signal 206 with the volume data signals 202, to define an associated data input 212, tracking metrics 214 corresponding to a payload M may be generated and stored in memory 210 for the work vehicle (10,12), and additionally aggregate for several work vehicles with several payloads to paint a picture of worksite productivity simultaneously on a granular and a large scale. Both Minich and Sherlock are directed to work vehicle performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Minich to include determine a first threshold productivity value for a time period having a duration that is less than a duration of the work period, wherein the first threshold productivity value; is determined based at least in part on the target data and a planned start time for the work period, and represents a threshold amount of material to be used by the first paving machine for the time period; determine an indication of a first difference between the first progress value and the first threshold productivity value for the time period; determine an indication of a second difference between a second progress value and a second threshold productivity value corresponding to performance of the second operation, the second progress value representing an amount of material that has been used by the second paving machine to perform the second operation; as taught by Sherlock to increase productivity at a worksite (see para. 26).
Minich in view of Sherlock does not teach cause the indication of the first difference to be displayed via a user interface presented by a user device. However, Marsolek para. 65 teaches referring again to FIG. 3, when the supervisor selects a first graphical object 86 associated with another of machines 12, off-board computer 68 generates another GUI corresponding to the selecting machine 12. For example when the supervisor selects a first graphical object 86 associated with one of compactors 20, off-board computer 68 generates a corresponding GUI. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, off-board computer generates a graphical user interface (GUI) 108 corresponding to a particular compactor 20 (e.g., a breakdown compactor). GUI 108 contains graphical objects 110 indicative of a difference between an operating parameter associated with compactor 20 and an associated expected or target value. That is, graphical objects 110 is indicative of the difference between an operating parameter and its associated target or expected value that was used to determine its status score displayed in GUI 84.
wherein together with the indication of the first difference, the user interface also displays: the indication of the second difference, first visual indicia indicating the first threshold productivity value, second visual indicia disposed adjacent to the first visual indicia, the second visual indicia indicating, dynamically and in near real time, the first progress value, and third visual indicia indicating, dynamically and in near real time, the second progress value associated with the second operation However, Marsolek para, 48 teaches GUI 84 has a plurality of first graphical objects 86, each being indicative of one of the plurality of machines 12 (e.g., paver 18, compactors 20, etc.) or material production plant 30. Each of the plurality of graphical objects 86 is selectable via input device 64c associated with off-board computer 68 (referring to FIG. 2). Each of graphical objects 86 is also be indicative of a status score of the indicated machine 12 or material production plant 30. The status score of each machine 12 or plant 30 is an indication of whether and/or to what extent one or more operating parameters of each machine 12 or plant 30 deviates from an expected or target value or threshold value. In this way, supervisors are able to use GUI 84 to quickly determine which, if any, of machines 12 and plant 30 require attention and how to prioritize subsequent efforts to address any issues. Graphical objects 86 indicate which of machines 12 and plant 30 require attention based on differentiating visual indicia, such as a color scheme (e.g., red, yellow, green), textures, hatching, symbols, numerals, etc. It is understood that other types of indicia may be used.
Further par. 64 teaches Parameters and other information indicated by the graphical objects contained in a graphical user interface (e.g., GUI 88) may each be associated with a respective threshold value or target value. The difference between the information displayed by a graphical object and its associated threshold or target value are used to determine the status score of the machine 12 or plant 30 that is the subject of the graphical user interface. For instance, graphical object 86 in GUI 88 is configured to indicate the status score of paver 18 based on a difference between the information displayed in any of the graphical objects in GUI 88 and its respective associated threshold or target value. For example, when the paver stop time as indicated by graphical object 105 exceeds an associated threshold, graphical object 86 shows, for example, a yellow or red status score, depending on the extent to which the stop time has exceeded the threshold. When paver 18 resumes operation (and if no other parameters are currently in excess of an associated threshold), the status score in graphical object 86 is changed, for example, to the color green to indicate that the state of paving operations is acceptable. Graphical objects 86 as shown in FIG. 3 are configured to change color (or other indicia) in coordination with graphical objects 86 of other graphical user interfaces. It is understood that although the status score has been explained above with respect to the stop time of paver 18 and GUI 88, status scores may be affected by other parameters (e.g., groundspeed, production rate, fuel level, water level, etc.) or differences between them. It is also understood that status scores for other machines (e.g., compactors 20, trucks 16, and plant 30) may be similarly determined. In this way, supervisors are able to quickly and easily identify when issues arise that may need their attention. The Examiner considers displaying the status scores or multiple pieces of equipment (which can be determined by production rates or differences between them) to be displaying first, second and third visual indicia.
and modify at least one of a speed, steering, or paving rate of the first paving machine, during performance of the first operation, based at least in part on the first difference. However, Marsolek para 53-54 teaches off-board computer 68 then generates paver groundspeed object 94 to be indicative of the difference between the current groundspeed of paver 18 and the target groundspeed. Paver groundspeed object 94 may include features, such as a color scheme, hatching, blinking lights, etc., as an indication of the direction (e.g., higher or lower) and extent to which the current groundspeed is different from the target groundspeed. In this way, the supervisors is able to quickly visualize and understand the relative production rates of plant 30 and paver 18. This information can be used by the supervisor to determine whether and how the operations of paver 18 should be adjusted in order to bring the production rate of paver 18 to the target rate. For instance, the supervisor is able to use this information to determine that the groundspeed of paver 18 should be adjusted. The supervisor can then communicate with the operator of paver 18 (e.g., via radio, cellular communications, onboard display, etc.) to effectively achieve the desired speed change or other operational adjustment. In some embodiments, GUI 88 may include a graphical object 104 configured to receive a user input indicative of a command to adjust (e.g., increase or decrease) the groundspeed of paver 18 to an adjusted groundspeed. When the supervisor determines, based on the information in GUI 88, that paver 18 is depositing material at a slightly slower rate than plant 30 is producing it, the supervisor can then use graphical, object 104 to override control of the groundspeed of paver 18 and to visualize whether and to what extent the production rate of paver 18 can become closer to the production rate of plant 30 when operated at the adjusted groundspeed. In some embodiments, adjustments to the groundspeed of paver 18 made via graphical object 104 initiate a simulation mode, which includes the generation of an additional graphical user interface for displaying simulation parameters and results. The additional graphical user interface is a GUI, such as a duplication of GUI 88 that contains updated or regenerated graphical objects that show any changes to the operating parameters displayed in GUI 88 that may be affected by changing the groundspeed of paver 18. Both Minich in view Sherlock and Marsolek are directed to work vehicle performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Minich in view Sherlock to include cause the indication of the first difference to be displayed via a user interface presented by a user device; wherein together with the indication of the first difference, the user interface also displays: the indication of the second difference, first visual indicia indicating the first threshold productivity value, second visual indicia disposed adjacent to the first visual indicia, the second visual indicia indicating, dynamically and in near real time, the first progress value, and third visual indicia indicating, dynamically and in near real time, the second progress value associated with the second operation; and modify at least one of a speed, steering, or paving rate of the first paving machine, during performance of the first operation, based at least in part on the first difference as taught by Marsolek to assist supervisors with achieving performance goals (see para. 69).
As per Claim 2 Minich teaches the paving system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based at least in part on the progress value, that the first paving machine of the one or more paving machines, the one or more haul trucks, or the paving material plant is underperforming; and based on determining that the first paving machine, the one or more haul trucks, or the paving material plant is underperforming, cause the user interface to display output a recommendation to increase a work rate of the first paving machine of the one or more paving machines, the one or more haul trucks, or the paving material plant. However, Sherlock para. 26 teaches Recommendation logic 112 receives outputs from other logic components and generates, for operator 154, a recommendation to improve worksite operations (e.g. time/work efficiency, fuel efficiency, component wear). Recommendation logic 112 can receive environmental or operating data and cross reference this with a model in data store 180. If the current productivity is below a given threshold, a recommendation can be generated to increase the current productivity. Further, para. 32 at block 340, recommendation logic 112 generates a recommendation to improve worksite operations based on the current operations and productivity/spillage metrics. As indicated by block 350, recommendation logic 112 can generate a recommendation if the productivity metric or spillage metric reaches a certain threshold. For instance, if spillage passes a maximum spillage threshold then recommendation logic 112 will generate a recommendation to reduce or prevent further spillage. As indicated by block 352, recommendation logic 112 can continually generate minor adjustment recommendations regardless of a threshold. Recommendation logic 112 can generate recommendations under other circumstances as well, as indicated by block 354. Both Minich and Sherlock are directed to work vehicle performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Minich to include determine, based at least in part on the progress value, that the first paving machine of the one or more paving machines, the one or more haul trucks, or the paving material plant is underperforming; and based on determining that the first paving machine, the one or more haul trucks, or the paving material plant is underperforming, cause the user interface to display output a recommendation to increase a work rate of the first paving machine of the one or more paving machines, the one or more haul trucks, or the paving material plant as taught by Sherlock to increase productivity at a worksite (see para. 26).
As per Claim 3 Minich teaches the paving system according to claim 6, where the processor is further configured to cause the user interface to display, together with the indication of the first difference, dynamically and in near real time, an amount of the material that is in transit from the paving material plant to the first paving machine, and a cumulative amount of the material that has been paved by the first paving machine. However, Marsolek teaches this at para. 55 that teaches GUI 88 enables the supervisor to understand the effects of changing the groundspeed of paver 18 on the paving operation by the resulting changes in other operational parameters displayed via GUI 88 (or its duplicate). For example, if paver 18 is running too slowly, it may be using material more slowly than plant 30 is producing it. Depending on how long paver 18 was using less material than plant 30 was producing it, paver 18 may have fallen behind on the amount of material it is supposed to deposit for a given period of time, such as for the current day. GUI 88 allows the supervisor to compare the total amount of material deposited or the total distance traveled by paver 18 to a target amount or target distance for the current day, as provided by total weight object 100 and total distance object 102, to decide whether or not to increase the ground speed of paver 18 so the production rate of paver 18 is greater than the production rate of plant 30 in order to make up for lost time. GUI 88 also includes a graphical object 106 indicative of a total amount of material produced by plant 30 and a total amount of material available from plant 30 for the current day, the current job, or other allotment criterial. GUI 88 allows the operator to then be able to see how these production parameters respond to a change in paver groundspeed by using graphical object 104. Based on this information, the supervisor can determine whether or not a decision to increase the production rate of paver 18 above the production rate of plant 30 will starve paver 18 or whether it is necessary to contact another plant about receiving additional material to help meet production goals.
Further, para. 58 As off-board computer 68 receives updated operating parameters from machines 12 and plant 30, as well as after any time the supervisor makes an adjustment to the groundspeed or other parameter of paver 18 during a simulation, off-board computer 68 is configured to reevaluate the status score of paver 18. That is, off-board computer 68 is configured to compare the current operating parameters (or simulated current operating parameters) of paver 18 to the target parameters and determine whether and to what extent they differ. Off-board computer 68 is configured to then update first graphical objects 86 on GUI 84. As shown in FIG. 4, the first graphical object 86 associated with the selected machine 12 (e.g., paver 18) is shown in GUI 88 (or a duplicate GUI generated during a simulation) to allow the supervisor to see the updated status score without having to return to GUI 84 (referring to FIG. 3), thereby allowing for a speedy adjustment process. Further, see Marsolek para. 65 teaches referring again to FIG. 3, when the supervisor selects a first graphical object 86 associated with another of machines 12, off-board computer 68 generates another GUI corresponding to the selecting machine 12. For example when the supervisor selects a first graphical object 86 associated with one of compactors 20, off-board computer 68 generates a corresponding GUI. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, off-board computer generates a graphical user interface (GUI) 108 corresponding to a particular compactor 20 (e.g., a breakdown compactor). GUI 108 contains graphical objects 110 indicative of a difference between an operating parameter associated with compactor 20 and an associated expected or target value. That is, graphical objects 110 is indicative of the difference between an operating parameter and its associated target or expected value that was used to determine its status score displayed in GUI 84. Both Minich in view Sherlock and Marsolek are directed to work vehicle performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Minich in view Sherlock to include cause the user interface to display, together with the indication of the first difference, dynamically and in near real time, an amount of the material that is in transit from the paving material plant to the first paving machine, and a cumulative amount of the material that has been paved by the first paving machine as taught by Marsolek to assist supervisors with achieve performance goals (see para. 69).
As per Claim 6 Minich teaches the paving system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the indication of the first difference to be displayed, via the user interface, together with fourth visual indicia indicating the second threshold productivity value wherein the fourth visual indicia is disposed adjacent to the third visual indicia. However, Marsolek para, 48 teaches GUI 84 has a plurality of first graphical objects 86, each being indicative of one of the plurality of machines 12 (e.g., paver 18, compactors 20, etc.) or material production plant 30. Each of the plurality of graphical objects 86 is selectable via input device 64c associated with off-board computer 68 (referring to FIG. 2). Each of graphical objects 86 is also be indicative of a status score of the indicated machine 12 or material production plant 30. The status score of each machine 12 or plant 30 is an indication of whether and/or to what extent one or more operating parameters of each machine 12 or plant 30 deviates from an expected or target value or threshold value. In this way, supervisors are able to use GUI 84 to quickly determine which, if any, of machines 12 and plant 30 require attention and how to prioritize subsequent efforts to address any issues. Graphical objects 86 indicate which of machines 12 and plant 30 require attention based on differentiating visual indicia, such as a color scheme (e.g., red, yellow, green), textures, hatching, symbols, numerals, etc. It is understood that other types of indicia may be used.
Further par. 64 teaches Parameters and other information indicated by the graphical objects contained in a graphical user interface (e.g., GUI 88) may each be associated with a respective threshold value or target value. The difference between the information displayed by a graphical object and its associated threshold or target value are used to determine the status score of the machine 12 or plant 30 that is the subject of the graphical user interface. For instance, graphical object 86 in GUI 88 is configured to indicate the status score of paver 18 based on a difference between the information displayed in any of the graphical objects in GUI 88 and its respective associated threshold or target value. For example, when the paver stop time as indicated by graphical object 105 exceeds an associated threshold, graphical object 86 shows, for example, a yellow or red status score, depending on the extent to which the stop time has exceeded the threshold. When paver 18 resumes operation (and if no other parameters are currently in excess of an associated threshold), the status score in graphical object 86 is changed, for example, to the color green to indicate that the state of paving operations is acceptable. Graphical objects 86 as shown in FIG. 3 are configured to change color (or other indicia) in coordination with graphical objects 86 of other graphical user interfaces. It is understood that although the status score has been explained above with respect to the stop time of paver 18 and GUI 88, status scores may be affected by other parameters (e.g., groundspeed, production rate, fuel level, water level, etc.) or differences between them. It is also understood that status scores for other machines (e.g., compactors 20, trucks 16, and plant 30) may be similarly determined. In this way, supervisors are able to quickly and easily identify when issues arise that may need their attention. The Examiner considers displaying the status scores or multiple pieces of equipment (which can be determined by production rates or differences between them) to be displaying first, second, third and fourth visual indicia.
Both Minich in view Sherlock and Marsolek are directed to work vehicle performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Minich in view Sherlock to include the paving system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the indication of the first difference to be displayed, via the user interface, together with fourth visual indicia indicating the second threshold productivity value wherein the fourth visual indicia is disposed adjacent to the third visual indicia as taught by Marsolek to assist supervisors with achieve performance goals (see para. 69).
Claim 8 recites similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
As per Claim 11 Minchin teaches the method according to claim 8, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, additional sensor data from the first paving machine indicative of an updated progress value representing an additional amount of material that has been used by the first paving machine to perform the first operation; Minich para. 99 teaches a proximity signal provided by a proximity sensor (e.g. 162 of FIG, 1A) is correlated to the weight ticket and material used association. When the weight ticket--material used association indicates a truck's load has been consumed, the system correlates the time at which the proximity signal indicated that the truck left the sensor zone in front of the paver (the most recent `truck left` proximity signal indication received prior to the time of the positive match between the weight ticket--material used association), and assigns the time of that particular proximity signal to the actual `released unloaded` time for that truck. The system can thereby compensate for the delay between when the material is unloaded into the hopper (and the truck departs from the front of the paver) and when the material is actually paved by assigning the actual time of the truck `released empty` witness point. Para. 127 teaches a computer system at the paver or elsewhere can be configured to utilize the