DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 7/13/2023 and the response filed 7/10/2025.
Claims 1, 8, 9-11, and 15-16 have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 7/13/2023 and 11/04/2024 have been received and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 1/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of newly amended independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendment in view of Diekevers (US 20150337522), Grenzi (US 20210088416), and Grant (US 20160311481).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant acknowledges that Diekevers does not teach “a location of the motion sensor when exiting the drive sprocket,” “track data indicative of a change in motion,” or motion specifically relevant to “expected sag” of the endless track, but then argues that Grant, while disclosing sensing an amount of sag in the endless track, does not do so by teaching a motion sensor indicating a change in motion. However, the rejection relies upon a combination of elements from Diekever’s ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 teaching position and motion sensing with Grant ¶ 0013 lines 6-21 and ¶ 0016 lines 10-16 teaching a determination of expected sag in the particular location shown in Grant’s Fig. 3 where the track makes a downward motion when exiting the drive sprocket. When acknowledging that Diekevers does not teach “track data indicative of a change in motion,” the applicant also alleges that Grenzi is cited for “other reasons,” when Grenzi is cited in the rejection to teach tracing the trajectory of the track sensor over time and generating an alert signal when the trajectory deviates with respect to an initial determination – in other words, track data indicative of a change in motion. In combination, the sources teach the elements of the original and the amended claims, within their broadest reasonable interpretation at the level of generality at which they are currently drafted, as is laid out in detail in the following rejections.
In response to applicant's argument that Grenzi’s method of sensing sag over the span is a stationary sensor and not an embedded motion sensor, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The sensing of sag in the span between the drive sprocket and the idler is expressly taught in Grenzi, and this measurement suggests that a similar measurement can be taken using the relative position, location, and motion sensing that are taught by Diekevers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekevers et al (US 20150337522, hereinafter “Diekevers”) in view of Grenzi et al (US 20210088416, hereinafter “Grenzi”) and Grant et al (US 20160311481, hereinafter “Grant”).
Regarding Claim 1, Diekevers teaches:
A system for monitoring tension in an endless track of a machine, comprising: a drive sprocket having teeth around a circular periphery; (Diekevers ¶ 0024 lines 1-3 “Tracked undercarriage 42 may include tracks 46 (only one shown in FIG. 2) on left and right sides of thereof, which are driven by power source 44 via sprockets 48,” shown in Fig 2 to have teeth around a circular periphery)
PNG
media_image1.png
385
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an idler having an outer circumference; (Diekevers ¶ 0024 lines 12-13 “Each idler assembly 58 may include an idler wheel 62 that rotates on an idler shaft (not shown),” shown in Fig 2 to have an outer circumference)
an endless track engaged with the teeth and with the outer circumference for movement at least in part in a downward direction on the machine over a span between the drive sprocket and the idler; (Diekevers ¶ 0024 lines 1-9 “Tracked undercarriage 42 may include tracks 46 (only one shown in FIG. 2) on left and right sides of thereof, which are driven by power source 44 via sprockets 48 also on left and right sides thereof. […] Each track 46 may include a chain 52 to which track shoes 53 are attached. Each chain 52 may include a plurality of chain link assemblies 54 made up of track links 55 connected to each other by rod assemblies 56.” shown in fig 2 that the sprocket teeth engage with the chain assembly and the track spans between the drive sprocket and idler,” the track moving in a downward direction from the drive sprocket 48)
a motion sensor, (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, [...] whether a part is rotating, or whether a part is not rotating, among others.”)
attached to a segment of the endless track, (Diekevers ¶ 0033 lines 1-4 For example, when sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 is to measure load on a track 46, sensor system 10 or BLE transmitter 36 may be installed directly on or within an interior of the track link,”)
configured to generate track data (Diekevers ¶ 0029 lines 1-5 “In accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure, an undercarriage 42 load for a track-type machine 40 (both instantaneous and over time) may be calculated utilizing information received from the sensor system 10 or BLE system 34,” undercarriage load for the track being equivalent to track data)
indicative of […] motion by the motion sensor during movement of the endless track; (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, [...] whether a part is rotating, or whether a part is not rotating, among others,” the span being indicated by the position)
a memory configured to store […] data representative of […] the endless track over the span; (Diekevers ¶ 0019 lines 5-13 “An on-board memory 24, such as either or both of a random-access memory (RAM) and a read-only memory (ROM), may store information related to one or more of the input received from sensing component 12, [...] on-board memory 24 may store instructions used by one or more other components of sensor system 10, such as controller 22,” the motion data of the span being indicated by the position per ¶ 0037 lines 16-24)
a controller configured to: determine, (Diekevers ¶ 0019 lines 1-5 “A controller 22, such as a low-power microcontroller, may provide an output in response to the input received from sensing component 12 and/or one or more signals processed by any or all of signal conditioner 14, amplifier 16, multiplexer 18, and converter 20”)
based at least in part on the track data, a location of the motion sensor […] determine angular motion of the endless track in the downward direction at the location, and determine that the angular motion of the endless track in the downward direction at the location as indicated in the track data (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 as above, particularly “measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position,” teaching measurement of position (location), angular velocity and acceleration (angular motion) along the track, which includes per Fig. 2 downward motion when exiting the drive sprocket)
does not correspond to the expected […] and an actuator configured to generate an alert. (Diekevers ¶ 0030 lines 9-16 “For example, ECU (not shown) indication that undercarriage 42 load/speed, either instantaneously, or in the aggregate over time, exceed the capabilities of the undercarriage 42 can trigger an alert to the operator of the condition, an indication to the operator of imminent shutdown if the situation is not rectified in a certain period of time, reduced power sent to the undercarriage 42 to resolve the situation, etc,” teaching a triggered alert if the undercarriage motion exceeds a target capability value)
Diekevers does not teach:
[…] a change in […]
[…] target […data representative of …] an expected sag in […]
[…] when exiting the drive sprocket, […]
[…] sag represented in the target data; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, Grenzi teaches:
[…] indicative of a change in motion by the motion sensor during movement of the endless track; […] determine, based at least in part on the track data, a location of the motion sensor when exiting the drive sprocket, determine […] motion of the endless track […] and determine that the […] motion of the endless track […] as indicated in the track data does not correspond to the expected […] target data; and an actuator configured to generate an alert (Grenzi ¶ 0060 lines 1-4 “In the embodiment with one undercarriage sensor 12 and one chain sensor 11, the undercarriage sensor 12 is configured to trace over time the position of the chain sensor 11 so as to obtain the trajectory of the chain sensor 11. In this case, the trajectory of the chain sensor 11 is assumed to be the determined alignment direction D of the tracks 2 to be compared with the reference alignment direction P” teaching the measurement of track trajectory data, and ¶ 0045 “Preferably, the alert signal is generated also if said determined alignment direction varies with respect to an initial determination, allowing the monitoring of the changes of overall shape of the tracks, due for example to wear or loosening of connections, and upcoming faults,” emphasis added, teaching the use of an initial measurement of track trajectory data being used as target data to compare to subsequent trajectory and create an alert if the subsequent measurement changes from the initial determination)
Diekevers and Grenzi are considered analogous because they both relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement of a track load by measuring relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, and generation of an alert in a case of the data exceeding a target capability of Diekevers by the simple substitution of the target value for Grenzi’s alert signal condition of the overall shape of the tracks changing from an initial track trajectory measurement. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the life of the machinery through accurately monitoring their wearing (Grenzi ¶ 0012) due for example […] loosening of connections, and upcoming faults (Grenzi ¶ 0045).
The combination of Diekevers and Grenzi does not teach:
[…] target […data representative of …] an expected sag in […]
[…] when exiting the drive sprocket, […]
sag represented in the target data; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers and Grenzi, Grant teaches:
[…] target data representative of an expected sag in the endless track over the span […] when exiting the drive sprocket, […] motion of the endless track in the downward direction at the location as indicated in the track data does not correspond to the expected sag represented in the target data […] (Grant ¶ 0013 lines 6-21 “The sensor module 42 is configured to generate a signal indicative of a sag in the portion of the track 30. […] The term “sag” used herein refers to an under-tension condition or an over-tension condition in the portion of the track 30. The sag may be quantified in terms of a value or a number which may indicate any one of the under-tension condition in the portion of the track 30, the over-tension condition in the portion of the track 30, or an acceptable tension condition in the portion of the track 30,” the portion of the track 30 shown in Fig 3 as being measured at a location over the span, in a downward direction
PNG
media_image2.png
380
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and ¶ 0016 lines 10-16 “After receiving the signal indicative of the sag in the portion of the track 30, the controller 50 is configured to compare the sag in the portion of the track 30 with a pre-defined range. In an embodiment, the pre-defined range may be indicative of an acceptable value of the sag in the portion of the track 30. The pre-defined range may be determined based on a historical data,” teaching the measurement of the sag at a particular position in the span exiting the drive sprocket)
Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant are all considered analogous because they all relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified generation of an alert of required tension adjustment of Diekevers combined with Grenzi’s alert signal condition of the overall shape of the tracks changing from an initial track trajectory measurement by simple substitution of Grant’s pre-defined range of acceptable sag value in the portion of the track 30 based on historical data, as measured by Diekever’s position measurement from motion sensors tracing Grenzi’s overall shape of the tracks. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by providing an accurate solution for adjusting tension in the track (Grant ¶ 0023), and further motivated by the use of known techniques (sag measurement) to improve similar devices (track wear measurement devices) in the same way (providing a target range of data)[MPEP 2143 (I)(C)].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the endless track comprises a continuous chain formed from track links joined together by track pins, (Diekevers ¶ 0024 lines 1-9 “Tracked undercarriage 42 may include tracks 46 (only one shown in FIG. 2) on left and right sides of thereof, which are driven by power source 44 via sprockets 48 also on left and right sides thereof. […] Each track 46 may include a chain 52 to which track shoes 53 are attached. Each chain 52 may include a plurality of chain link assemblies 54 made up of track links 55 connected to each other by rod assemblies 56,” the rod assemblies being equivalent to track pins”)
the motion sensor being attached to one of the track links. (Diekevers ¶ 0033 lines 1-4 For example, when sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 is to measure load on a track 46, sensor system 10 or BLE transmitter 36 may be installed directly on or within an interior of the track link,”)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 2 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the motion sensor is embedded within a cavity in one of the track links. (Diekevers ¶ 0033 lines 1-4 For example, when sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 is to measure load on a track 46, sensor system 10 or BLE transmitter 36 may be installed directly on or within an interior of the track link,”)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the endless track comprises track shoes attached to track links, the track links being joined together by track pins, (Diekevers ¶ 0024 lines 1-9 “Tracked undercarriage 42 may include tracks 46 (only one shown in FIG. 2) on left and right sides of thereof, which are driven by power source 44 via sprockets 48 also on left and right sides thereof. […] Each track 46 may include a chain 52 to which track shoes 53 are attached. Each chain 52 may include a plurality of chain link assemblies 54 made up of track links 55 connected to each other by rod assemblies 56,” the rod assemblies being equivalent to track pins”)
the motion sensor being embedded within a cavity in one of the track shoes or in one of the track pins. (Diekevers ¶ 0028 lines 19-23 “In accordance with the disclosure, the sensor system 10 or BLE transmitter 36 may be located on or in the track pin 108 including, but not limited to, for example, in the seal cavity 112, or in portions of the track that are used to seal oil in the cavity, etc.”)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the motion sensor is a gyroscope and the track data comprises an angular rate of motion for the motion sensor. (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-19 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] angular velocity, [...] angular acceleration,” teaching the measurement of angular rate of motion data with equivalent function to a gyroscope)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the motion sensor is an accelerometer and the motion comprises a change in velocity for the motion sensor. (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-19 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] velocity, [...] acceleration,” teaching the measurement of change in velocity data with equivalent function to an accelerometer)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the controller is an electronic control module within the machine communicatively coupled to the motion sensor. (Diekevers ¶ 0019 lines 1-5 “A controller 22, such as a low-power microcontroller, may provide an output in response to the input received from sensing component 12 and/or one or more signals processed by any or all of signal conditioner 14, amplifier 16, multiplexer 18, and converter 20,” teaching an electronic controller that receives inputs from sensing components)
Regarding Claim 9, Diekevers teaches:
A work machine, comprising: an engine configured to provide propulsion for the work machine; (Diekevers ¶ 0023 lines 1-5 “Bulldozer 40 may include a tracked undercarriage 42 that is driven by a power source 44. Specifically, power source 44 may drive tracked undercarriage 42 at a range of output speeds and/or torques. Power source 44 may be an engine,”)
an undercarriage coupled to the engine for engaging a ground surface to move the work machine, comprising: a drive sprocket, (Diekevers ¶ 0024 lines 1-3 “Tracked undercarriage 42 may include tracks 46 (only one shown in FIG. 2) on left and right sides of thereof, which are driven by power source 44 via sprockets 48,” shown in Fig 2 to have teeth around a circular periphery)
an idler, (Diekevers ¶ 0024 lines 12-13 “Each idler assembly 58 may include an idler wheel 62 that rotates on an idler shaft (not shown),” shown in Fig 2 to have an outer circumference)
a ground-engaging track engaged with the drive sprocket and the idler for movement at least in part in a downward direction on the machine over a span between the drive sprocket and the idler, (Diekevers ¶ 0024 lines 1-9 “Tracked undercarriage 42 may include tracks 46 (only one shown in FIG. 2) on left and right sides of thereof, which are driven by power source 44 via sprockets 48 also on left and right sides thereof. […] Each track 46 may include a chain 52 to which track shoes 53 are attached. Each chain 52 may include a plurality of chain link assemblies 54 made up of track links 55 connected to each other by rod assemblies 56.” shown in fig 2 that the sprocket teeth engage with the chain assembly and the track spans between the drive sprocket and idler”)
and a motion sensor, (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, [...] whether a part is rotating, or whether a part is not rotating, among others.”)
attached to a segment of the ground-engaging track, (Diekevers ¶ 0033 lines 1-4 For example, when sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 is to measure load on a track 46, sensor system 10 or BLE transmitter 36 may be installed directly on or within an interior of the track link,”)
configured to generate tension data (Diekevers ¶ 0029 lines 1-5 “In accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure, an undercarriage 42 load for a track-type machine 40 (both instantaneous and over time) may be calculated utilizing information received from the sensor system 10 or BLE system 34,” teaching generation of data from the undercarriage and ¶ 0036 “As shown in FIG. 4, in Step 450 an action is performed on the basis of the measured characteristic. […] provide an alert of desired or required track tension adjustment, and/or provide an alert of abnormal component wear,” teaching this data being interpreted as tension data)
indicative of […] motion by the motion sensor during movement of the ground-engaging track; (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, [...] whether a part is rotating, or whether a part is not rotating, among others,” the span being indicated by the position)
a memory configured to store […] data representative of […] the ground-engaging track over the span; (Diekevers ¶ 0019 lines 5-13 “An on-board memory 24, such as either or both of a random-access memory (RAM) and a read-only memory (ROM), may store information related to one or more of the input received from sensing component 12, [...] on-board memory 24 may store instructions used by one or more other components of sensor system 10, such as controller 22,” the motion data of the span being indicated by the position per ¶ 0037 lines 16-24)
and an electronic controller, communicatively coupled to the motion sensor, (Diekevers ¶ 0019 lines 1-5 “A controller 22, such as a low-power microcontroller, may provide an output in response to the input received from sensing component 12 and/or one or more signals processed by any or all of signal conditioner 14, amplifier 16, multiplexer 18, and converter 20,” teaching an electronic controller that receives inputs from sensing components)
configured to: receive the tension data, determine, based at least in part on the tension data, a location of the motion sensor […] and angular motion of the ground- engaging track in the downward direction at the location, determine that the angular motion of the endless track in the downward direction at the location as indicated in the tension data (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 as above, particularly “measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position,” teaching measurement of angular velocity and acceleration (angular motion) along the track, which includes per Fig. 2 downward motion when exiting the drive sprocket)
does not correspond to the expected […] and indicate an alert. (Diekevers ¶ 0030 lines 9-16 “For example, ECU (not shown) indication that undercarriage 42 load/speed, either instantaneously, or in the aggregate over time, exceed the capabilities of the undercarriage 42 can trigger an alert to the operator of the condition, an indication to the operator of imminent shutdown if the situation is not rectified in a certain period of time, reduced power sent to the undercarriage 42 to resolve the situation, etc,” teaching a triggered alert if the undercarriage motion exceeds a target capability value)
Diekevers does not teach:
[…] a change in […]
[…] target […data representative of…] an expected sag in […]
[…] when exiting the drive sprocket […]
[…] sag represented in the target data, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, Grenzi teaches:
[…] indicative of a change in motion by the motion sensor during movement of the ground-engaging track; […] determine, based at least in part on the tension data, a location of the motion sensor […] motion of the ground- engaging track in the downward direction at the location, determine that the […] motion of the endless track in the downward direction at the location as indicated in the tension data does not correspond to the expected […] target data, and indicate an alert. (Grenzi ¶ 0060 lines 1-4 “In the embodiment with one undercarriage sensor 12 and one chain sensor 11, the undercarriage sensor 12 is configured to trace over time the position of the chain sensor 11 so as to obtain the trajectory of the chain sensor 11. In this case, the trajectory of the chain sensor 11 is assumed to be the determined alignment direction D of the tracks 2 to be compared with the reference alignment direction P” teaching the measurement of track trajectory data, and ¶ 0045 “Preferably, the alert signal is generated also if said determined alignment direction varies with respect to an initial determination, allowing the monitoring of the changes of overall shape of the tracks, due for example to wear or loosening of connections, and upcoming faults,” emphasis added, teaching the use of an initial measurement of track trajectory data being used as target data to compare to subsequent trajectory and create an alert if the subsequent measurement changes from the initial determination)
Diekevers and Grenzi are considered analogous because they both relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement of a track load by measuring relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, and generation of an alert in a case of the data exceeding a target capability of Diekevers by the simple substitution of the target value for Grenzi’s alert signal condition of the overall shape of the tracks changing from an initial track trajectory measurement. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the life of the machinery through accurately monitoring their wearing (Grenzi ¶ 0012) due for example […] loosening of connections, and upcoming faults (Grenzi ¶ 0045).
The combination of Diekevers and Grenzi does not teach:
[…] target […data representative of…] an expected sag in […]
[…] when exiting the drive sprocket […]
[…] sag represented in the target data, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers and Grenzi, Grant teaches:
[…] target data representative of an expected sag in the ground-engaging track over the span […] when exiting the drive sprocket […] motion of the endless track in the downward direction at the location as indicated in the tension data does not correspond to the expected sag represented in the target data […] (Grant ¶ 0013 lines 6-21 “The sensor module 42 is configured to generate a signal indicative of a sag in the portion of the track 30. […] The term “sag” used herein refers to an under-tension condition or an over-tension condition in the portion of the track 30. The sag may be quantified in terms of a value or a number which may indicate any one of the under-tension condition in the portion of the track 30, the over-tension condition in the portion of the track 30, or an acceptable tension condition in the portion of the track 30,” the portion of the track 30 shown in Fig 3 as being measured at a location over the span, in a downward direction and ¶ 0016 lines 10-16 “After receiving the signal indicative of the sag in the portion of the track 30, the controller 50 is configured to compare the sag in the portion of the track 30 with a pre-defined range. In an embodiment, the pre-defined range may be indicative of an acceptable value of the sag in the portion of the track 30. The pre-defined range may be determined based on a historical data,” teaching the measurement of the sag at a particular position in the span exiting the drive sprocket)
Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant are all considered analogous because they all relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified generation of an alert of required tension adjustment of Diekevers combined with Grenzi’s alert signal condition of the overall shape of the tracks changing from an initial track trajectory measurement by simple substitution of Grant’s pre-defined range of acceptable sag value in the portion of the track 30 based on historical data, as measured by Diekever’s position measurement from motion sensors tracing Grenzi’s overall shape of the tracks. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by providing an accurate solution for adjusting tension in the track (Grant ¶ 0023), and further motivated by the use of known techniques (sag measurement) to improve similar devices (track wear measurement devices) in the same way (providing a target range of data)[MPEP 2143 (I)(C)].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of claim 9 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the electronic controller is further configured to: compare the angular motion of the endless track in the downward direction […] (Grenzi ¶ 0060 lines 1-4 “In the embodiment with one undercarriage sensor 12 and one chain sensor 11, the undercarriage sensor 12 is configured to trace over time the position of the chain sensor 11 so as to obtain the trajectory of the chain sensor 11. In this case, the trajectory of the chain sensor 11 is assumed to be the determined alignment direction D of the tracks 2 to be compared with the reference alignment direction P” teaching the measurement of track trajectory data, and ¶ 0045 “Preferably, the alert signal is generated also if said determined alignment direction varies with respect to an initial determination, allowing the monitoring of the changes of overall shape of the tracks, due for example to wear or loosening of connections, and upcoming faults,” emphasis added, teaching the use of an initial measurement of track trajectory data being used as target data to compare to subsequent trajectory and create an alert if the subsequent measurement changes from the initial determination, and ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, [...] whether a part is rotating, or whether a part is not rotating, among others,” teaching that this motion is defined as angular velocity and acceleration (motion))
Diekevers does not teach:
[…] at the location as indicated in the tension data with data of previous angular motion of the endless track stored in the memory.
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, Grenzi teaches:
[…] with data of previous angular motion of the endless track stored in the memory. (Grenzi ¶ 0060 lines 1-4 “In the embodiment with one undercarriage sensor 12 and one chain sensor 11, the undercarriage sensor 12 is configured to trace over time the position of the chain sensor 11 so as to obtain the trajectory of the chain sensor 11. In this case, the trajectory of the chain sensor 11 is assumed to be the determined alignment direction D of the tracks 2 to be compared with the reference alignment direction P” teaching the measurement of track trajectory data, and ¶ 0045 “Preferably, the alert signal is generated also if said determined alignment direction varies with respect to an initial determination, allowing the monitoring of the changes of overall shape of the tracks, due for example to wear or loosening of connections, and upcoming faults,” emphasis added, teaching the use of an initial measurement of track trajectory data being used as target data to compare to subsequent trajectory and create an alert if the subsequent measurement changes from the initial determination)
Diekevers and Grenzi are considered analogous because they both relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement of a track load by measuring relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, and generation of an alert in a case of the data exceeding a target capability of Diekevers by the simple substitution of the target value for Grenzi’s alert signal condition of the overall shape of the tracks changing from an initial track trajectory measurement. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the life of the machinery through accurately monitoring their wearing (Grenzi ¶ 0012) due for example […] loosening of connections, and upcoming faults (Grenzi ¶ 0045).
The combination of Diekevers and Grenzi does not teach:
[…] at the location as indicated in the tension data
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers and Grenzi, Grant teaches:
[…] at the location as indicated in the tension data […] (Grant ¶ 0013 lines 6-21 “The sensor module 42 is configured to generate a signal indicative of a sag in the portion of the track 30. […] The term “sag” used herein refers to an under-tension condition or an over-tension condition in the portion of the track 30. The sag may be quantified in terms of a value or a number which may indicate any one of the under-tension condition in the portion of the track 30, the over-tension condition in the portion of the track 30, or an acceptable tension condition in the portion of the track 30,” the portion of the track 30 shown in Fig 3 as being measured at a location over the span, in a downward direction and ¶ 0016 lines 10-16 “After receiving the signal indicative of the sag in the portion of the track 30, the controller 50 is configured to compare the sag in the portion of the track 30 with a pre-defined range. In an embodiment, the pre-defined range may be indicative of an acceptable value of the sag in the portion of the track 30. The pre-defined range may be determined based on a historical data,” teaching the measurement of the sag at the particular position in the span exiting the drive sprocket)
Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant are all considered analogous because they all relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified generation of an alert of required tension adjustment of Diekevers combined with Grenzi’s alert signal condition of the overall shape of the tracks changing from an initial track trajectory measurement by simple substitution of Grant’s pre-defined range of acceptable sag value in the portion of the track 30 based on historical data, as measured by Diekever’s position measurement from motion sensors tracing Grenzi’s overall shape of the tracks. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by providing an accurate solution for adjusting tension in the track (Grant ¶ 0023), and further motivated by the use of known techniques (sag measurement) to improve similar devices (track wear measurement devices) in the same way (providing a target range of data)[MPEP 2143 (I)(C)].
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 9 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the motion sensor is a MEMS gyroscope and the tension data indicates an angular rate of motion for the segment. (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-19 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] angular velocity, [...] angular acceleration,” teaching measurement of angular velocity and acceleration, providing the function of a gyroscope)
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 9 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the ground-engaging track comprises track links, track pins, and track shoes, (Diekevers ¶ 0024 lines 1-9 “Tracked undercarriage 42 may include tracks 46 (only one shown in FIG. 2) on left and right sides of thereof, which are driven by power source 44 via sprockets 48 also on left and right sides thereof. […] Each track 46 may include a chain 52 to which track shoes 53 are attached. Each chain 52 may include a plurality of chain link assemblies 54 made up of track links 55 connected to each other by rod assemblies 56,” the rod assemblies being equivalent to track pins”)
the motion sensor being embedded within a cavity in one of the track links, track pins, or the track shoes. (Diekevers ¶ 0028 lines 19-23 “In accordance with the disclosure, the sensor system 10 or BLE transmitter 36 may be located on or in the track pin 108 including, but not limited to, for example, in the seal cavity 112, or in portions of the track that are used to seal oil in the cavity, etc.”)
Claims 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekevers in view of Grenzi and Grant and further in view of Jun et al (US 20230152279, hereinafter “Jun”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Diekevers does not teach:
wherein the motion sensor is a vibration sensor.
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, Jun teaches:
wherein the motion sensor is a vibration sensor. (Jun ¶ 0052-0053 “In some embodiments, sensor(s) 454 may include one or more […] vibration sensor(s) 465. […] Vibration sensor(s) 465 may include one or more sensors that detect movement of the components of the construction machine to which they are rigidly attached. In some instances, vibration sensor(s) 465 may include one or more microphones or other acoustic sensors. In some instances, vibration sensor(s) 465 may include one or more inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors and/or the elements thereof. For example, vibration sensor(s) 465 may include one or more gyroscopes for detecting angular acceleration, angular rate and/or angular position (or other rotational signals or data), one or more accelerometers for detecting linear acceleration, linear velocity, and/or linear position, and/or one or more magnetometers for detecting the above-listed types of data, among other possibilities. In some embodiments (such as, for example, when implemented as a gyroscope), vibration sensor(s) 465 may directly detect angular rate and may integrate to obtain angular position, or alternatively a vibration sensor may directly measure angular position and may determine a change in angular position (e.g., compute the derivative) to obtain angular rate. In many instances, vibration sensor(s) 465 can be used to determine the yaw angle (rotation angle with respect to a vertical axis), the pitch angle (rotation angle with respect to a transverse axis), and/or the roll angle (rotation angle with respect to a longitudinal axis) of the construction machine,” teaching the use of vibration sensors in construction equipment to determine various types of angular motion of the components to which they are affixed, including the “angular motion” of the independent claim)
Diekevers and Jun are considered analogous because they both relate to construction vehicle motion monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement a track load through by measuring relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, and generation of an alert of required tension adjustment of Diekevers by the simple substitution of the sensor for Jun’s vibration sensors to detect the motion of components to which they are rigidly attached by sensing angular position and changes in angular position. This modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and would b made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way per MPEP 2143(I)(C). Diekever’s measurement of track load by a generally described “sensor” for determining relative distance, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, and position is comparable to Jun’s use of vibration sensors to determine similar values of angular and linear position, velocity, and acceleration, and the use of the more specific vibration sensors of Jun in the application of Diekever’s wear sensing would predictably result in similar sensing.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Diekevers, Grenzi, and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 9 as described above. Diekevers does not teach:
wherein the motion sensor is a vibration sensor.
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, Jun teaches:
wherein the motion sensor is a vibration sensor. (Jun ¶ 0052-0053 “In some embodiments, sensor(s) 454 may include one or more […] vibration sensor(s) 465. […] Vibration sensor(s) 465 may include one or more sensors that detect movement of the components of the construction machine to which they are rigidly attached. In some instances, vibration sensor(s) 465 may include one or more microphones or other acoustic sensors. In some instances, vibration sensor(s) 465 may include one or more inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors and/or the elements thereof. For example, vibration sensor(s) 465 may include one or more gyroscopes for detecting angular acceleration, angular rate and/or angular position (or other rotational signals or data), one or more accelerometers for detecting linear acceleration, linear velocity, and/or linear position, and/or one or more magnetometers for detecting the above-listed types of data, among other possibilities. In some embodiments (such as, for example, when implemented as a gyroscope), vibration sensor(s) 465 may directly detect angular rate and may integrate to obtain angular position, or alternatively a vibration sensor may directly measure angular position and may determine a change in angular position (e.g., compute the derivative) to obtain angular rate. In many instances, vibration sensor(s) 465 can be used to determine the yaw angle (rotation angle with respect to a vertical axis), the pitch angle (rotation angle with respect to a transverse axis), and/or the roll angle (rotation angle with respect to a longitudinal axis) of the construction machine,” teaching the use of vibration sensors in construction equipment to determine various types of angular motion of the components to which they are affixed, including the “angular motion” of the independent claim)
Diekevers and Jun are considered analogous because they both relate to construction vehicle motion monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement a track load through by measuring relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, and generation of an alert of required tension adjustment of Diekevers by the simple substitution of the sensor for Jun’s vibration sensors to detect the motion of components to which they are rigidly attached by sensing angular position and changes in angular position. This modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and would b made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way per MPEP 2143(I)(C). Diekever’s measurement of track load by a generally described “sensor” for determining relative distance, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, and position is comparable to Jun’s use of vibration sensors to determine similar values of angular and linear position, velocity, and acceleration, and the use of the more specific vibration sensors of Jun in the application of Diekever’s wear sensing would predictably result in similar sensing.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekevers in view of Grenzi and Grant and further in view of McKinley et al (US 9475526, hereinafter referred to as McKinley).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Diekevers and Grenzi teaches the elements of Claim 13 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the motion sensor is combined […] with a battery and a wireless communication device, the wireless communication device being configured to communicate the tension data to the electronic controller. (Diekevers ¶ 0020 lines 1-4 “A transceiver 26, such as for example a radio-frequency (RF) transceiver, may wirelessly broadcast the output provided by controller 22, such as at a frequency of 2.4 GHz, 900 MHz, or another frequency. […] A battery 30, such as for example a lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery, may power one or more of the components of sensor system 10. Alternately or in addition to battery 30, an energy source 32, such as a vibration-based energy-harvesting system, may power one or more of the components of sensor system 10, and/or may be used to charge battery 30.”)
Diekevers does not teach:
[…] in a circuit board […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, McKinley teaches:
[…] in a circuit board […] (McKinley Col 7 lines 48-51 “Sensing device 32 may further include circuitry components 70 configured to generate, receive, transmit, and/or modify a signal indicative of a wear parameter detected by sensing device 32,” disclosing a single device including sensing and transmission components)
Diekevers and McKinley are considered analogous because they both relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor device of Diekevers by the addition of the circuitry components associating the sensing device, transmitter, and battery of McKinley. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by making the assembly easily replaceable or serviceable (McKinley Col 10 lines 1-3).
Claim 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekevers in view of Grant.
Regarding Claim 15, Diekevers teaches:
A computer-implemented method of monitoring tension in a track within an undercarriage of a work machine, comprising: receiving, by a processor, (Diekevers ¶ 0019 lines 1-5 “A controller 22, such as a low-power microcontroller, may provide an output in response to the input received from sensing component 12 and/or one or more signals processed by any or all of signal conditioner 14, amplifier 16, multiplexer 18, and converter 20” and ¶ 0029 lines 1-5 “In accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure, an undercarriage 42 load for a track-type machine 40 (both instantaneous and over time) may be calculated utilizing information received from the sensor system 10 or BLE system 34,”)
motion data from a motion sensor (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, [...] whether a part is rotating, or whether a part is not rotating, among others.”)
within a track segment (Diekevers ¶ 0033 lines 1-4 For example, when sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 is to measure load on a track 46, sensor system 10 or BLE transmitter 36 may be installed directly on or within an interior of the track link,”)
during rotation of the track about a track assembly in the undercarriage; (Diekevers ¶ 0024 lines 1-9 “Tracked undercarriage 42 may include tracks 46 (only one shown in FIG. 2) on left and right sides of thereof, which are driven by power source 44 via sprockets 48 also on left and right sides thereof. […] Each track 46 may include a chain 52 to which track shoes 53 are attached. Each chain 52 may include a plurality of chain link assemblies 54 made up of track links 55 connected to each other by rod assemblies 56.” shown in fig 2 that the sprocket teeth engage with the chain assembly and the track spans between the drive sprocket and idler”)
determining, by the processor, when the motion sensor is at a […] location […] determining, by the processor, angular motion of the track in a downward direction at the location as indicated in the motion data; (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 as above, particularly “measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position,” teaching measurement of angular velocity and acceleration (angular motion) along the track, which includes per Fig. 2 downward motion when exiting the drive sprocket)
comparing, by the processor, a portion of the motion data indicative of the angular motion of the track in the downward direction […] with target motion data […] stored in a memory, […] determining that the portion of the motion data is not compliant with the target motion data […] and generating an alert relating to tension for the track. (Diekevers ¶ 0030 lines 9-16 “For example, ECU (not shown) indication that undercarriage 42 load/speed, either instantaneously, or in the aggregate over time, exceed the capabilities of the undercarriage 42 can trigger an alert to the operator of the condition, an indication to the operator of imminent shutdown if the situation is not rectified in a certain period of time, reduced power sent to the undercarriage 42 to resolve the situation, etc,” teaching a triggered alert if the undercarriage motion exceeds a target capability value)
Diekevers does not teach:
[… determining, by the processor, when the motion sensor is at a] predetermined [location] offset from a drive sprocket during the rotation; […]
[…] when the track segment was at predetermined location offset from the drive sprocket […]
[…] for the predetermined location […]
[…] the target motion data being representative of an expected sag in the track; […]
[…] and the expected sag; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, Grant teaches:
[… determining, by the processor, when the motion sensor is at a] predetermined [location] offset from a drive sprocket during the rotation; […] when the track segment was at predetermined location offset from the drive sprocket […] for the predetermined location […] the target motion data being representative of an expected sag in the track; […] and the expected sag; […] (Grant ¶ 0013 lines 6-21 “The sensor module 42 is configured to generate a signal indicative of a sag in the portion of the track 30. […] The term “sag” used herein refers to an under-tension condition or an over-tension condition in the portion of the track 30. The sag may be quantified in terms of a value or a number which may indicate any one of the under-tension condition in the portion of the track 30, the over-tension condition in the portion of the track 30, or an acceptable tension condition in the portion of the track 30,” the portion of the track 30 shown in Fig 3 as being measured at a particular position over the span analogous to a predetermined position, ¶ 0015 lines 1-5 “If the sensor module 42 detects deviation in the portion of the track 30 from a pre-defined position of the track 30 between the drive sprocket 32 and the idler 38, then the sensor module 42 generates the signal indicative of the sag in the portion of the track 30,” teaching that the position of measurement is predefined and shown in Fig 3 to be offset from the drive sprocket, and ¶ 0016 lines 10-16 “After receiving the signal indicative of the sag in the portion of the track 30, the controller 50 is configured to compare the sag in the portion of the track 30 with a pre-defined range. In an embodiment, the pre-defined range may be indicative of an acceptable value of the sag in the portion of the track 30. The pre-defined range may be determined based on a historical data,” teaches target motion data for the predefined measurement position)
Diekevers, and Grant are considered analogous because they both relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement a track load through by measuring relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, and generation of an alert in a case of the data exceeding a target capability of Diekevers by the simple substitution of the target value for Grant’s pre-defined range of acceptable sag value at the pre-defined position of track 30 based on historical data, as measured by Diekever’s motion sensors. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by providing an accurate solution for adjusting tension in the track (Grant ¶ 0023), and further motivated by the use of known techniques (sag measurement) to improve similar devices (track wear measurement devices) in the same way (providing a target range of data) [MPEP 2143 (I)(C)].
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Diekevers and Grant teaches the elements of claim 16 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the determining when the motion sensor is at the predetermined location comprises: identifying, by the processor, when the track segment […] based on changes in motion indicated by the motion data. (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, [...] whether a part is rotating, or whether a part is not rotating, among others,” teaching determination movement and of position including change of position through the sensors)
Diekevers does not teach:
[…] passes over the drive sprocket […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, Grant further teaches:
[…] passes over the drive sprocket […] (Grant ¶ 0015 lines 1-5 “If the sensor module 42 detects deviation in the portion of the track 30 from a pre-defined position of the track 30 between the drive sprocket 32 and the idler 38, then the sensor module 42 generates the signal indicative of the sag in the portion of the track 30,” and Figure 3 showing the pre-defined position after passing over the drive sprocket)
Diekevers, and Grant are considered analogous because they both relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement a track load through by measuring relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, and generation of an alert in a case of the data exceeding a target capability of Diekevers by the simple substitution of the target value for Grant’s pre-defined range of acceptable sag value at the pre-defined position of track 30 based on historical data, as measured by Diekever’s motion sensors. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by providing an accurate solution for adjusting tension in the track (Grant ¶ 0023), and further motivated by the use of known techniques (sag measurement) to improve similar devices (track wear measurement devices) in the same way (providing a target range of data)[MPEP 2143 (I)(C)].
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Diekevers and Grant teaches the elements of claim 15 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
communicating the alert to an actuator for announcement for an operator of the work machine, (Diekevers ¶ 0030 lines 9-16 “For example, ECU (not shown) indication that undercarriage 42 load/speed, either instantaneously, or in the aggregate over time, exceed the capabilities of the undercarriage 42 can trigger an alert to the operator of the condition, an indication to the operator of imminent shutdown if the situation is not rectified in a certain period of time, reduced power sent to the undercarriage 42 to resolve the situation, etc,” emphasis added, teaching a triggered alert to the operator if the undercarriage motion exceeds a target capability value)
the alert indicating that the tension of the track needs an adjustment. (Diekevers ¶ 0036 “As shown in FIG. 4, in Step 450 an action is performed on the basis of the measured characteristic. […] provide an alert of desired or required track tension adjustment,”)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekevers in view of Grant and further in view of Kremmer et al (US 20210209869, hereinafter “Kremmer”).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Diekevers and Grant teaches the elements of claim 15 as described above. Diekevers does not teach:
further comprising: determining, by the processor and based at least in part on the motion data, when the track segment is […] (Diekevers ¶ 0037 lines 16-24 “By way of non-limiting examples, sensor system 10 or BLE system 34 may measure or determine [...] relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, [...] whether a part is rotating, or whether a part is not rotating, among others.”)
Diekevers does not teach:
[…] traveling over track rollers in the undercarriage.
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, Kremmer further teaches:
[…] traveling over track rollers in the undercarriage. (Kremmer ¶ 0029 “The sensors sense the pressure on the track, as it is rotating. The sensed pressure can be used to estimate the temperature of the track so that operating conditions, under which track damage or failure can occur, can be detected. In one example, they are detected, prior to those conditions occurring. When they are detected, an action signal can be generated. The action signal can be used to perform such operations as alerting the operator, automatically reducing vehicle speed, communicating information about the detected conditions to a remote system, among other things,” teaching track load sensing at the rollers.)
Diekevers, and Kremmer are considered analogous because they both relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement a track load through by measuring relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, and generation of an alert in a case of the data exceeding a target capability of Diekevers by the simple addition of Kremmer’s measuring of track load at the mid-roller locations. While the mechanisms differ, the relative position and location capability of Diekevers would combine with the measurement at the specific mid-roller location of Kremmers to teach the claim, consistent with Figure 1 of the present specification showing only a configuration of Track Rollers 118 over the track to interpret ¶ 0032 lines 9-10 “Data indicating moderate and repetitive angular changes, for example, may indicate the passage of motion sensor 204 over track rollers 118.” This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by determining the track status at the most load-bearing portion of the track as suggested by Kremmer ¶ 0029, and further motivated by applying a known technique (Kremmer’s track load measurement at the mid-roller locations) to a known device ready for improvement (Diekever’s track wear measurement device determining relative position, location, and motion of the track) to yield predictable results (measuring the track load at the known location of the mid-rollers) [MPEP 2143 (I)(D)].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekevers in view of Grant and further in view of Grenzi.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Diekevers and Grant teaches the elements of claim 15 as described above. Diekevers does not teach:
receiving, by the processor, initial motion data from the motion sensor during a previous rotation of the track about the track assembly; and storing at least some of the initial motion data as the target motion data in the memory.
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, Grenzi teaches:
receiving, by the processor, initial motion data from the motion sensor during a previous rotation of the track about the track assembly; and storing at least some of the initial motion data as the target motion data in the memory. (Grenzi ¶ 0060 lines 1-4 “In the embodiment with one undercarriage sensor 12 and one chain sensor 11, the undercarriage sensor 12 is configured to trace over time the position of the chain sensor 11 so as to obtain the trajectory of the chain sensor 11. In this case, the trajectory of the chain sensor 11 is assumed to be the determined alignment direction D of the tracks 2 to be compared with the reference alignment direction P” teaching the measurement of track trajectory data, and ¶ 0045 “Preferably, the alert signal is generated also if said determined alignment direction varies with respect to an initial determination, allowing the monitoring of the changes of overall shape of the tracks, due for example to wear or loosening of connections, and upcoming faults,” emphasis added, teaching the use of an initial measurement of track trajectory data being used as target data to compare to subsequent trajectory and create an alert if the subsequent measurement changes from the initial determination)
Diekevers and Grenzi are considered analogous because they both relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement a track load through by measuring relative distance between components, velocity, angular velocity, acceleration, angular acceleration, position, and generation of an alert of required tension adjustment of Diekevers by the simple substitution of the target value for Grenzi’s alert signal condition of the overall shape of the tracks changing from an initial track trajectory measurement. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the life of the machinery through accurately monitoring their wearing (Grenzi ¶ 0012) due for example […] loosening of connections, and upcoming faults (Grenzi ¶ 0045).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekevers in view of Grant and further in view of Tamaru et al (US 7172257, hereinafter “Tamaru”).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Diekevers and Grant teaches the elements of Claim 19 as described above. Diekevers further teaches:
wherein the alert indicates that the adjustment is to […] the tension (Diekevers ¶ 0036 “As shown in FIG. 4, in Step 450 an action is performed on the basis of the measured characteristic. […] provide an alert of desired or required track tension adjustment,”)
Diekevers does not teach:
[…] decrease […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Diekevers, Tamaru teaches:
wherein the alert indicates that the adjustment is to decrease the tension. (Tamaru Col 9 lines 11-19 “In the track adjuster 20 of the present embodiment, the tension of the crawler belt 15 during vehicle traveling is thus detected by the incorporated hydraulic sensor 27, and according to the detected data, the hydraulic pump 25 and the direction selector valve 26 are controlled by the controller 30 to automatically move the tension adjusting cylinder 21 in a forward or backward direction, whereby the tension of the crawler belt 15 is kept in its optimum condition” teaching a signal being sent to decrease tension in the tracks)
Diekevers and Tamaru are considered analogous because they both relate to tracked vehicle track monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the alert sent to a operator indicating required track tension adjustment of Diekevers by the addition of Tamaru’s signal indicating that tension needs to be decreased. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the use of known techniques (sending an alert) to improve similar devices (track tension monitors) in the same way (MPEP 2143 (I)(C)).
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 ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights