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 integrated yield process information to provide custom configurable alerts and advisory graphics to the paver, plant, or QC technician, as examples to facilitate control of material yield at all times. Practical real time supervision of paving yield performance is provided, as well as timely information which can facilitate management of variables as they occur.
Minchin does not explicitly disclose causing, by the processor, an indication of the updated first progress value to be displayed, in near real time, via the user interface. 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. 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 disclose causing, by the processor, an indication of the updated first progress value to be displayed, in near real time, via the user interface as taught by Marsolek to assist supervisors with achieve performance goals (see para. 69).
As per Claim 12 Minchin does not teach the method according to claim 8, further comprising determining, by the processor, the first progress value based at least in part on environmental data associated with a worksite at which the work surface is disposed. However, Sherlock para. 24 teaches Spillage logic 108 determines or calculates the amount of spillage accumulated during operation of work machine 102. In one example, spillage logic 108 utilizes models from data store 180 to determine the amount of spillage. A model can contain information indicative of past spillage results and the machine and environmental variables that led to those spillage results. Spillage logic 108 can choose a model that has the closest machine and environmental variables to those of the current conditions and estimate a spillage based on the model results. For instance, spillage logic 108 receives operating parameters of the current operation and compares 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, spillage logic 108 retrieves the spillage values that the previous operating parameters produced in estimates that the current operating parameters will produce similar spillage values. 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 determining, by the processor, the first progress value based at least in part on environmental data associated with a worksite at which the work surface is disposed as taught by Sherlock to increase productivity at a worksite (see para. 26).
Claim(s) 4, 5 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 applied to claim 1 and in further view of OOsato US 2022/0300889 A1.
As per Claim 4 Minich does not teach the paving system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: provide, via the user interface and together with the first indication and the second indication, a selectable control operable to receive input indicative of the target data; receive, via the selectable control a projected start time for the work period; However, OOsato para. 87 teaches subsequently, detailed information to be written in the permit to work is set. As illustrated in FIG. 12, the display control unit 13 displays a screen including a region R1, a region R2, a region R3, and a region R4 on the display apparatus of the terminal apparatus 10A. The region R1 is used to select an area. The region R2 is used to write specific details of the work. The region R3 is used to select tools and construction equipment to be used for the work. The region R4 is used to set a planned start date (planned start time) and a planned complete date (planned complete time). In this example, the area ID of the selected work package is set. The user of the terminal apparatus 10A inputs the specific details of the work in a text box of the region R2. The user of the terminal apparatus 10A selects icons of the tools and construction equipment to be used for the work, from among a plurality of icons each representing a tool or construction equipment in the region R3. The user of the terminal apparatus 10A further sets the planned start time and the planned complete time in the region R4.
determine, based at least in part on the ticket data, an actual start time for the work period; and, output an indication of whether the actual start time was earlier than the projected start time, substantially at the projected start time, or later than the projected start time. However, OOsato teaches para. 56-58 teach he work package DB stores a plurality of pieces of work package information. The work package information is set for each work package. As shown in FIG. 4, each piece of work package information includes a work package identifier (ID), an area ID, a task ID, planned schedule information, actual schedule information, status information, and work volume information.
[0057] The work package ID is identification information that enables a work package to be uniquely identified. The area ID is identification information that enables an area in which a work of the work package identified by the work package ID is performed to be uniquely identified. The task ID is identification information that enables details of the work (work type) of the work package identified by the work package ID to be uniquely identified. The planned schedule information includes a planned start date, a planned finish date, and a planned duration. The planned start date is a date on which the work package identified by the work package ID is planned to be started. The planned finish date is a date on which the work package identified by the work package ID is planned to be finished. The planned duration is the number of days required for the work package identified by the work package ID.
[0058] The actual schedule information includes a work start date, a work finish date, and a work duration. The work start date is an actual date on which the work package identified by the work package is started. The work finish date is an actual date on which the work package identified by the work package is finished. The work duration is an actual number of days required for the work package identified by the work package. The status information is information on a progress state of the work package identified by the work package ID. The progress state includes, for example, “not started”, “in progress”, and “completed”. The work volume information is information on a work volume of the work package identified by the work package ID. Both the combination of Minich, Sherlock and Flood and OOsato are directed to tracking work 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 the combination of Minich, Sherlock and Flood to provide, via the user interface and together with the first indication and the second indication, a selectable control operable to receive input indicative of the target data; receive, via the selectable control a projected start time for the work period determine, based at least in part on the ticket data, an actual start time for the work period; and, output an indication of whether the actual start time was earlier than the projected start time, substantially at the projected start time, or later than the projected start time as taught by OOsato to help resources be more efficiently assigned based on the planned work volume (see para OOsato 4).
Claim(s) 4, 5 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 applied to claim 1 and in further view of OOsato US 2022/0300889 A1.
As per Claim 5 Minich does not teach the paving system according to claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to automatically update the target data for the work period based at least in part on whether the actual start time was earlier than the projected start time or later than the projected start time. However, Kojima para. 61 teaches the calculation unit 17 is a function unit configured to calculate a work volume. The calculation unit 17 reads the work package information from the work package DB 22, and calculates the planned work volume and the actual work volume based on the work package information. The planned work volume is a work volume calculated based on the planned finish date. The actual work volume is a work volume calculated based on the work finish date. A description is later given of a method of calculating the work volume. Both Minich and Sherlock are directed to tracking work 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 wherein the system controller is further configured to automatically update the target data for the work period based at least in part on whether the actual start time was earlier than the projected start time or later than the projected start time as taught by Kojima to help resources be more efficiently assigned based on the planned work volume (see para 103).
Claim(s) 7 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 applied to claim 1 and in further view of Richie US 20150363841 A1.
As per Claim 7 Minich does not teach the paving system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on the sensor data, a weighting factor for the at least one of the one or more paving machines, wherein the weighting factor represents a relative impact of the at least one of the one or more paving machines on paving the work surface. However, Richie para. 36 teaches referring now to FIG. 3, a flow diagram for a method for generating ratings for material transportation is shown according to a preferred and non-limiting embodiment. At step 301, haul data is received from vehicles and/or a server. At step 303, a volume, distance, cost, and duration are identified for each haul of a vehicle. At step 305, an efficiency metric is calculated with an algorithm. In this example, the algorithm calculates a product of a haul volume and haul distance, and divides the result by the product of a haul cost and a haul time. Various other algorithms and formulas may be used. At step 307, it is determined if there are more hauls for that vehicle in a given shift, period of time, or the like. If there are more hauls to factor into the efficiency metric, the method proceeds back to step 303 and the volume, distance, cost, and duration is identified for the next haul. Otherwise, the method proceeds to step 309 at which it is determined if there are more vehicles. If there are more vehicles, drivers, and/or transportation entities that have not yet had efficiency metrics calculated, the method proceeds back to step 303. If there are no more vehicles to calculate metrics for, the vehicles are sorted based on the efficiency metrics at step 311. At step 313, the vehicles are ranked based on the sorted efficiency metrics. As described herein, it will be appreciated that the efficiency metrics may also be calculated for drivers, transportation entities, and/or routes, and may be calculated for a particular haul, a particular shift, a specified period of time, or the like. Both Minich and Richie are directed to tracking work 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 wherein the system controller is further configured to determine, based on the sensor data, a weighting factor for the at least one of the one or more paving machines, wherein the weighting factor represents a relative impact of the at least one of the one or more paving machines on paving the work surface as taught by Richie to use determining rankings to assist in making decisions regarding hauling operations.
Claim(s) 9 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 applied to claim 8 and in further view of Wagner US 2019/0114847 A1.
As per Claim 9 Minich does not teach the method according to claim 8, further comprising updating, by the processor, the target data for the work period, resulting in updated target data, and recalculating, by the processor, the first threshold productivity value based on the updated target data, and modifying, in near real time, first visual indicia displayed by the user interface to indicate the recalculated first threshold productivity value. However, Wagner para. 57 teaches error threshold logic 288 compares the calculated worksite error to a threshold value, and, based on the comparison, control signals can be generated to UAV 112 to conduct a worksite mission to address the worksite error. In one example, a worksite mission can include obtaining topographical information for a worksite area which can indicate an accurate amount of material moved within the worksite area. Assuming a calculated worksite error is greater than a threshold value so that additional worksite data is to be obtained using UAV 112, back calculation logic 290 is configured to generate an updated productivity for mobile machine 104 based on the additional worksite data. Additionally, back calculation logic 290 can receive the additional worksite data and back-allocate the error to individual passes made by mobile machine 104. A corrected productivity can be displayed to a user on user interface device 262. Both the combination of Minich, Sherlock and Flood and Wagner are directed to tracking work 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 the combination of Minich, Sherlock and Flood to include updating, by the processor, the target data for the work period, resulting in updated target data, and recalculating, by the processor, the first threshold productivity value based on the updated target data, and modifying, in near real time, first visual indicia displayed by the user interface to indicate the recalculated first threshold productivity value as taught by Wagner to more accurately determine a state of a worksite in terms of how much work is being completed and where (see para. 24).
Claim10 (s) 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 applied to claim 8 and in further view of Hageman US 2020/0325653 A1.
As per Claim 10, Minchin teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the first sensor data indicates an amount of the material loaded onto the first haul truck of one or more haul trucks. However,
Hageman para. 1569 teaches in another implementation, fill measurement logic 1568 receives signals that indicate a weight of the earth material within container 128. In such an implementation, fill sensor 1570 may comprise a sensor that detects the weight of the earth material within container 128. For example, in one implementation, fill sensor 1570 may sense a weight of at least a portion of machine 102 and its earth material contents, wherein such signals indicate the weight of the earth material within container 128 (the weight of the earth material within container 128 may be determined by subtracting the predetermined known weight of container 128 when empty from the at least partially filled container weight). As will be described hereafter, the signals from fill sensor 1570 as received by fill measurement logic 1568 are used by target fill level determination logic 1566 to identify a current fill target for container 128. Both Minich in view Sherlock and Hagerman 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 first sensor data indicates an amount of the material loaded onto the first haul truck of one or more haul trucks as taught by Hageman to improve volume estimation accuracy and ease. (see para. 45).
Claim(s) 14 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 applied to claim 8 and in further view of Burnett US 10,317,870 B1.
As per Claim 14 Minchin does not teach the method according to claim 8, further comprising applying, by the processor, a machine learning algorithm to determine, based on the sensor data, weighting factors for the one or more haul trucks, wherein the weighting factors represent relative impacts of the one or more haul trucks on using the material; and entertain, by the processor and based on the weighting factors, a recommendation associated with the relative impacts of the one or more haul trucks; and causing, by the processor, the recommendation to be displayed via the user interface. However, Burnett column 8, lines 60-65 teach trained models 410 are a collection of machine-learning models. Trained models 410 may be implemented using at least one of a neural network, a Bayesian network, a fuzzy logic network, or some other suitable type of machine-learning model. Further, column 13, lines 20-30 teach with reference to FIG. 10, an illustration of a flowchart of a process of ranking tasks is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. The process illustrated in FIG. 10 may be implemented in assembly task network analyzer 114 in FIGS. 1-3. The ranking of the assembly tasks may provide insight on priority assembly tasks that should be performed before others. For example, the assembly tasks with the most risk to causing delays are ranked the highest. The process begins by receiving information from a monitoring platform (operation 1000). Further, column 12, liners 9-20 teach the process begins by receiving information from a monitoring platform (operation 900). A monitoring platform is a component in hardware, software, or some combination thereof that monitors the assembly of components to form a product. An example of a monitoring platform is manufacturing assembly monitor 112 in FIG. 1. The information received may be a status of assembly tasks for the product. This information may be entered by operators, recorded by sensor systems, or other suitable sources. The Examiner considers raking tasks with the greatest impact to be a recommendation associated with the relative impacts. Both the combination of Minich, Sherlock and Flood and Burnett are directed to tracking work 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 applying, by the system controller, a machine learning algorithm to determine, based on the sensor data, weighting factors for the one or more haul trucks, wherein the weighting factors represent relative impacts of the one or more haul trucks on using the material as taught by Burnett to enable modifying incomplete assembly tasks for the product that reduce the group of downstream delays (column 2, lines 40-45).
Claim(s) 13 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 in view of Burnett US 10317870 B1 as applied to claim 14 and in further view of Hindryckx US 2010/0071329 A1.
As per Claim 13 Minich does not teach the method according to claim 14, further comprising: causing, by the processor, a selectable control to be displayed via the user interface; and receiving, by the processor, an input received via the selectable control, wherein the recommendation is caused to be displayed via the user interface based at least in part on the input However, Hindryckx para. 14 teaches in the preferred embodiment of the invention, the screen warning of non-optimal performance has a "Help" button which, when selected by the operator, will cause a recommended action to be displayed on the screen. The operator may then opt to implement the recommendation or disregard it. Both the combination of Minich, Sherlock and Flood and Hindryckx are directed to tracking work tool 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, Sherlock and Flood to include causing, by the system controller, a selectable control to be displayed via the user interface; and receiving, by the system controller, an input received via the selectable control, wherein the recommendation is caused to be displayed via the user interface based at least in part on the input as taught by Hindryckx to provide an improved interface that allows the harvesting quality to be optimised even when the combine harvester is driven by a non-expert operator (see para. 8).
Claim(s) 15, 17 ,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minich US 2012/0288328 A1 in view of Sherlock US 2020/0011033 A1 in view of Flood US 2019/0325669 A1 in view of Marsolek US 2017/0205814 A1 in view of Ouyang US 2016/0019564 A1.
As per Claim 15 Minich teaches a user device configured to control a paving project, the user device comprising:
one or more processors; and
non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (see Minchin para. 171).
receiving, in near real time, first sensor data from a haul truck or a paving machine associated with the paving project, the first sensor data being indicative of a first operation of the paving project being performed 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.
receiving, in near real time, second sensor data from the haul truck of the paving machine, the second sensor data being indicative of a second operation of the paving project being performed 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.
ticket data indicating a time when the haul truck was loaded with the paving 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.
Minich does not teach determining a first threshold productivity value associated with the first operation based at least in part on a planned start time for the work period;
However, Ouyang para. 44 teaches in some implementations, the determined readiness of the mobile station 13a may be used by the analytics engine 31 to automatically alter operation of manufacturing and supply chain components. For example, when a lower than acceptable state of readiness is determined by the analytics engine 31 a robotic arm integrating or soldering components on the mobile station 13a may be instructed by the analytics engine 31 to increase speed or rate of operation to improve the state of readiness to market. In some implementations, a message may be sent automatically from the analytics engine 31 to one or more manufacturing and supply chain components. For example, the analytics engine 31 may instruct a manufacturing and supply chain computer system to re-organize performance of one or more tasks in a manufacturing facility or cancel/suspend other tasks. For example, if the production of the mobile station 13a is running behind a pre-determined schedule, analytics engine 31 may automatically send instructions to a particular component to cancel one or more low priority lasts (e.g., color accents, duplicate logo printing, etc.). Cancellation of such low priority tasks may bring production back on the pre-determined schedule. Both Minich and Ouyang are directed to task 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 determining a first threshold productivity value associated with the first operation based at least in part on a planned start time for the work period as taught by Ouyang to improve operation of a project (see para. 44).
.Minich does not teach determining a first progress value based on the first sensor data and on target data, the target data comprising: an amount of paving material to be used for a work period, and, 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 determining 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.
Minich does not teach determining 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 being indicative of the second sensor data; 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 determining a first difference between the first progress value and a first threshold productivity value associated with the first operation determining 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 being indicative of the second sensor data as taught by Sherlock to increase productivity at a worksite (see para. 26).
Minich does not teach based on the first progress value being different than the first threshold productivity value: generating a second user interface displaying a recommendation to modify a work rate for the paving project, wherein the first threshold productivity value: 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. [0055] FIG. 7 is a simplified block diagram of one illustrative embodiment of a handheld or mobile computing device that can be used as a user's or client's hand held device 16, in which the present system (or parts of it) can be deployed. For instance, a mobile device can be deployed in the operator compartment of work machine 102 for use in generating, processing, or displaying the spillage and productivity metrics, the recommendations, etc. FIGS. 8-9 are examples of handheld or mobile devices.
characterizes a time period having a duration that is less than a duration of the work 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. 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 generating a first graphical user interface comprising a representation of a progress value for the paving project, wherein the progress value is determined by the one or more processors based on target data comprising: an amount of paving material to be used for a work period, based on the progress value being different than a threshold productivity value, generating a second graphical user interface comprising a recommendation to modify a work rate for the paving project, wherein the threshold productivity value: characterizes a time period having a duration that is less than a duration of the work period, is determined by the one or more processors based at least in part on the target data and the work period, and is indicative of a threshold amount of material to be used for the time period as taught by Sherlock to increase productivity at a worksite (see para. 26).
Minich does not teach generating a first user interface displaying, at the user device, an indication of the first difference, wherein together with the indication of the first difference, the first user interface also displays: an 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 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 modifying, during performance of the first operation, at least one of a speed or steering of the haul truck, or a speed, steering, or paving rate of the paving machine. 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 generating a first user interface displaying, at the user device, an indication of the first difference, wherein together with the indication of the first difference, the first user interface also displays: an 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 and modifying, during performance of the first operation, at least one of a speed or steering of the haul truck, or a speed, steering, or paving rate of the paving machine as taught by Marsolek to assist supervisors with achieve performance goals (see para. 69).
As per Claim 17 Minich teaches the user device according to claim 15, wherein the recommendation to modify the work rate comprises a recommendation applicable to the haul truck or the paving machine. 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. [0055] FIG. 7 is a simplified block diagram of one illustrative embodiment of a handheld or mobile computing device that can be used as a user's or client's hand held device 16, in which the present system (or parts of it) can be deployed. For instance, a mobile device can be deployed in the operator compartment of work machine 102 for use in generating, processing, or displaying the spillage and productivity metrics, the recommendations, etc. FIGS. 8-9 are examples of handheld or mobile devices. 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 wherein the recommendation to modify the work rate comprises a recommendation applicable to the haul truck or the paving machine as taught by Sherlock to increase productivity at a worksite (see para. 26).
As per Claim 18 Minich teaches the user device according to claim 15, wherein the sensor data comprises at least one of load data indicating an amount of the paving material loaded onto the haul truck or paving data indicating an amount of the paving material paved by the paving machine. (Minich para. 117 teaches In one example, the weight of material paved during the pull and the accumulating area paved during the pull are calculated at the paver using measurement data obtained from various sensors described above.)
Claim(s) 16 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 in view of Ouyang US 20160019564 A1 as applied to claim 15 and in further view of Smiley US 2014/0365264 A1.
As per Claim 16 Minich does not teach the user device according to claim 15, wherein the recommendation to modify the work rate is based on an output of a machine learning component configured to determine, based on the first sensor data, weighting factors for the haul truck and the paving machine, and wherein the weighting factors represent relative impacts of the haul truck and paving machine on the paving project. However, Smiley teaches para. 1 teaches the present application relates to industrial assets and more particularly to systems and/or techniques for determining the importance or criticality of an industrial asset to a system comprising a plurality of industrial assets. The systems and/or techniques find particular application to a power system, but may also find applicability in other industries (e.g., mining, rail system, water distribution, etc.) where it may be useful to analyze data pertaining to the system and/or various industrial assets thereof to identify which industrial assets are most critical, in terms of performance of the system, during a specified time period and which industrial assets are least critical during the specified time period. Further, para. 69 teaches referring to the logical diagram 200, in some embodiments, one or more of the criticality metrics, such as the operation metric, the restoration metric, and/or the interdependency metric are combined, synthesized, or otherwise manipulated by profile combination logic 212 to generate a criticality profile indicative of the importance of the first industrial asset. In some embodiments, the profile combination logic 212 used machine learning algorithms and/or domain-specific connectivity models and/or algorithms to determine how the criticality metrics are combined to generate the criticality profile. Further, as described with respect to FIG. 1, in some embodiments, the profile combination logic 212 is configured to receive user input specifying how the importance of the first industrial asset to the system is to be quantified, how to adjust the quantification to allow a comparison between the first industrial asset and other industrial assets, etc. Both Minich and Smiley are directed monitoring performance of assets. 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 wherein the recommendation to modify the work rate is based on an output of a machine learning component configured to determine, based on the sensor data, weighting factors for the haul truck and the paving machine, and wherein the weighting factors represent relative impacts of the haul truck and the paving machine on the paving project as taught by Smiley to determine the optimal levels of resources for fleet maintenance. Accordingly, developing a maintenance plan for the system thereof often involves determining how to allocate such resources to achieve a desired impact on the system (e.g., maximum impact) (see para. 2).
Claim(s) 19 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 in view of Ouyang US 20160019564 A1 as applied to claim 15 and in further view of Arena US 2015/0213397 A1.
As per Claim 19 Minich does not teach the user device according to claim 15, wherein the first user interface further comprises representations of progress values for multiple different paving projects. However, Arena para. 58 teaches at step 112, the computer processor 6 is programmed to store the data entered in steps 104, 106, 108, and 110 in main contractor/subcontractor project folders in computer memory 10 and/or computer memory 30, for this single project alone. Multiple projects may be stored in computer memory 10 and listed in the All Projects Dashboard shown in image 1300 shown in FIG. 14 for access to other created projects. All projects stand alone and may always be created by beginning with the create new project 102 function. Both Minich and Smiley are directed monitoring construction projects. 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 wherein the first graphical user interface further comprises representations of progress values for multiple different paving projects as taught by Arena to more easily allow construction professional to track projects (see para. 4).
Claim(s) 20 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 in view of Ouyang US 2016/0019564 A1 as applied to claim 15 and in further view of Marsolek US 2017/0060126 A1.
As per Claim 20 Minich does not teach the user device according to claim 15, wherein the first user interface further comprises dynamically updated, near real time representations of a total amount of the paving material loaded onto the haul truck, a total amount of the paving material in transit on the haul truck, and a total amount of the paving material paved by the paving machine. However, Marsolek para. 44-45 teaches examples of information that each haul truck 30 may transmit to a paving machine 50 include characteristics of the haul truck as well as the paving material being hauled. Characteristics of the truck may include the type of haul truck 30, dimensions of certain aspects of the truck, the position of the truck, speed, and heading of the truck (or the time until arrival at the paving site 100), the slope or inclination of the work surface 101 on which the truck is operating, and any other desired information. The haul truck 30 may also transmit information regarding the load carried by the truck such as the type of material as well as the amount temperature of the load. Characteristics of the load of paving material may include specific identifiers or codes associated with the load such as those indicating the batch and plant at which the paving material was mixed, and the amount of paving material in the haul truck 30 and its current temperature. Examples of information that each paving machine 50 may transmit to the plant 20 include the location of the paving machine and its direction of travel, the production rate or amount of paving material being applied per unit time (e.g., tons per hour), the total amount of paving material applied, and the amount of material that remains to be applied to complete the paving job. In addition, the paving machine 50 may also communicate to the plant 20 the temperature of the paving material in the hopper 52 and/or the temperature of the material or layer 102 being applied. Still further, an operator at the paving machine 50 may inform or provide notice to the plant 20 of the degree to which the paving material delivered by the haul truck 30 has become segregated. In some instances, the amount of segregation may exceed a desired threshold and the load delivered by the haul truck 30 may be rejected. In other instances, the operator may inform the plant 20 so that personnel at the plant may change characteristics of the paving material (e.g., the size or combination of sizes of the aggregate) or the haul truck loading process to reduce the amount of segregation at the load delivery site. Further, para. 58 teaches 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. Both Minich and Marsolek are directed monitoring construction projects. 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 wherein the first user interface further comprises dynamically updated, near real time representations of a total amount of the paving material loaded onto the haul truck, a total amount of the paving material in transit on the haul truck, and a total amount of the paving material paved by the paving machine as taught by Marsolek to maximize the performance and efficiency of the paving system 10 and its operation (see para. 17).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights