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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication system” and “control system” in claim 1. According to the instant specification, paragraph [0031]], “communication system” has been interpreted as “any components enabling water truck 120 to communicate wirelessly with other systems via a network 160. To do so, communication system 148 may include one or more modulators, demodulators, multiplexers, demultiplexers, network communication devices, wireless devices, antennas, modems, or any other devices configured to support two-way communication. In addition, communication system 148 may communicate using satellite, cellular, infrared, radio, or other types of wireless communication signals.”. Also control system has been interpreted as including controlling system of liquid-dispensing liquid and also data center of vehicle’s subsystems to receive, communicate and provide data to computing system according to Fig. 1, Fig 2, (control system 140 and computing system 162), and also paragraphs [0023]-[0025], [0027], [0032]-[0037].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With respect to claim 6, it is recited that “the smoothing engine is further configured to: identify one or more transition sections adjacent the stable section on the smoothed water-level timeline; and assign the one or more transition sections with the tank reading of the stable section”. The term “transition section” is indefinite according to the claim and the instant specification. Applicant disclosure states "smoothing engine 240 may also flag shoulder regions about a stable section 246", understood to be stable sections 246 of Fig. 4. However, Fig. 2 doesn’t show the transition section that is labeled as 249 in the specification and also applicant disclosure and the claim is silent with regards to how much change is considered to be a shoulder or a transition such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the metes and bounds of the term. All examples of "stable", shoulder" and "transition" are subjective as described in Applicant disclosure, and therefore the term is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Corrective action or clarification is required.
under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, the transition section as recited in the claim is interpreted as a time delay between the measurement/reading of the tank water level to allow the dynamic conditions in the tank to settle down
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claims 7 and 15 are directed to a method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, the claim falls within at least one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong I evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 7 (and similarly 15) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim [] recites:
[A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving periodically, by a computing system and from a water truck, data snapshots for parameters of the water truck during a watering mission, each of the data snapshots comprising a timestamp, a tank reading of a water level in a tank of the water truck, water-activity data indicative of a status of water-dispensing elements on the water truck, and movement data indicative of a location and movement of the water truck; determining, by the computing system, a slope of the water truck from movement data; constructing, by the computing system, an initial water-level timeline from the data snapshots based, at least in part, on the timestamp and the tank reading in each of the data snapshots; identifying, by the computing system, sections of the initial water-level timeline from the water-activity data and the movement data, the sections including a refilling section, a stable section, and a draining section; maintaining, by the computing system, the tank reading within the refilling section and the tank reading within the stable section, respectively, for the initial water-level timeline; adjusting, by the computing system, the initial water-level timeline for the draining section according to the slope of the water truck to produce an adjusted draining section; applying, by the computing system, a smoothing filter to the adjusted draining section to produce a smoothed draining section; generating, by the computing system, a smoothed water-level timeline from the initial water- level timeline and the smoothed draining section; and transmitting, by the computing system, the smoothed water-level timeline to one of a display device or the water truck for controlling the water truck in a new watering mission.]
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “abstract idea” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, the limitations Determining a slope of the water truck from movement data; constructing an initial water-level timeline from the data snapshots based, at least in part, on the timestamp and the tank reading in each of the data snapshots; identifying sections of the initial water-level timeline from the water-activity data and the movement data, the sections including a refilling section, a stable section, and a draining section; maintaining the tank reading within the refilling section and the tank reading within the stable section, respectively, for the initial water-level timeline; adjusting the initial water-level timeline for the draining section according to the slope of the water truck to produce an adjusted draining section, and transmitting the smoothed water-level timeline to one of a display device or the water truck for controlling the water truck in a new watering mission can all be performed in human mind by using pen and paper that falls under mental process that is a category of abstract idea. Further, the limitation applying a smoothing filter to the adjusted draining section to produce a smoothed draining section; generating a smoothed water-level timeline from the initial water- level timeline and the smoothed draining section; is also a mathematical process can be done in human mind by using pen and paper, therefore also falls under abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step2A Prong II evaluation: Practical Application – No
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “by the computing system” that is recited at a high level of generality and merely acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, it is claimed generically and does not use the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim(s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claims 7 (and similarly 15) include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving periodically, by a computing system and from a water truck, data snapshots for parameters of the water truck during a watering mission, each of the data snapshots comprising a timestamp, a tank reading of a water level in a tank of the water truck, water-activity data indicative of a status of water-dispensing elements on the water truck, and movement data indicative of a location and movement of the water truck; amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the Office submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Claim 15 recites limitation for a system that comprise the same abstract of claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is also patent ineligible for the same reasons stated in the above for rejection of claim 7.
Dependent claims 8-14 and their corresponding claims 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 8-14 (and similarly 16-20) recite more description about the generating the smoother water-level timeline which all fall under abstract idea categories and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 7-9, 14, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gudat et al., US20130099017A1, hereinafter “Gudat”, in view of Miller et al., US8378833B2, hereinafter “Miller”, further in view of Begin, US20100145638A1, hereinafter “Begin” and further in view of Arreaza et al., US 20200326221 A1, hereinafter “Arreaza”.
Regarding claim 1, Gudat discloses,
A system for virtually reconstructing a watering mission (Abstract, [0025], [0046]-[0047]), comprising:
a liquid-dispensing vehicle (at least Abstract, “A mobile fluid delivery machine” and Fig. 2), comprising: a tank holding a liquid ([0009]);
dispensing elements configured to dispense the liquid into atmosphere above a worksite external to the vehicle ([0009], [0028], “spray heads”, [0029], “spray heads 202 may be controllable by an onboard fluid delivery system to vary the spray rate, width, distribution, direction, and/or pattern in accordance with various fluid delivery parameters.”);
a control system configured to coordinate operation of the liquid-dispensing vehicle ([0004], [0060], [0064]),
the control system comprising: a navigation system configured to detect a location and movement of the liquid-dispensing vehicle within the worksite ([0032], “a navigation system”, [0045]),
a sensor system configured to sense parameters associated with the liquid-dispensing vehicle ([0045]), the parameters including a tank reading indicative of a level of the liquid in the tank ([0045], “sensor system 324 may also include a fluid sensor configured to sense a fluid level or an amount (e.g., a volume) of fluid contained in tank 200”) (a status of the dispensing elements ([0029], [0163], [0181]), and a slope of the liquid- dispensing vehicle ([0038], “an orientation sensor (not shown) configured to determine a heading, direction, and/or inclination of mobile machine 102 on the surface of worksite 100.”, [0073], “slope or inclination information 414,”, [0075]), and
a communication system configured to transmit the parameters with a timestamp ([0035], [0078], “Periodically or in real time, mobile machines 102, fluid delivery machines 106, vehicles, equipment, communication devices carried by worksite personnel, etc., may communicate their current locations to worksite control facility”, [0082]);
Gudat doesn’t disclose a computing system, comprising: a smoothing engine configured to virtually reconstruct a smoothed water-level timeline from a batch of the parameters having different timestamps, the smoothed water-level timeline including a refilling section, a stable section, and a draining section, the draining section being adjusted by the slope of the liquid-dispensing vehicle and being processed by a smoothing filter; and one or more processors configured to receive the batch of the parameters from the communication system and to execute the smoothing engine to virtually reconstruct the smoothed water-level timeline for the liquid-dispensing vehicle.
However teaches
a computing system, comprising: (Fig. 5, at least Cl 6 Lines 41-42, “product level 12 in the tank 16 (FIG. 1) is observed or under surveillance at various times during a twenty-four hour period”), (Fig 4 and Fig. 5, different section of Fig. 5 reads on different sections as recited in the claim, Col 9, Lines 43-64)
Miller doesn’t teach a smoothing engine configured to virtually reconstruct a smoothed water-level timeline and also doesn’t teach the draining section being adjusted by the slope of the liquid-dispensing vehicle and being processed by a smoothing filter.
However, Begin discloses a system and method relating to fluid level measuring like fuel level in a vehicle fuel tank (See at leat abstract and paragraph [0001] and teaches:
a smoothing engine configured to virtually reconstruct a smoothed water-level timeline (Abstract, “During dynamic conditions, such as when the vehicle is experiencing significant acceleration, maneuvering, inclination, yaw rate, etc., the system may employ other measuring techniques that are better suited to address such an environment.”, [0002], [0009], [0022], “Various filtering techniques have been employed to process fuel level readings”, __filtering technique for processing the fuel level readings that can be also used for water-level reading in water dispensing vehicles reads on the smoothing water-level timeline__), and one or more processors configured to receive the batch of the parameters from the communication system ([0010], “one or more of the aforementioned sensors [] can be electronically coupled to fuel system control module 50 via a direct electronic connection (as is schematically illustrated in FIG. 1), through other electronic components such as modules, over a vehicle communications bus or network,”) and to execute the smoothing engine to virtually reconstruct the smoothed water-level timeline for the liquid-dispensing vehicle (at least Fig 2 and associated paragraphs, [0022]).
However, Arreaza teaches:
the draining section being adjusted by the slope of the liquid-dispensing vehicle and being processed by a smoothing filter ([0005], [0036]-[0039], [0042], “The level of the fluid 18 when the first sensor 22 has been triggered at the determined degree of inclination θ is indicative that a certain amount of fluid has been depleted and is additionally representative of the amount of fluid remaining in the reservoir 20.”);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the water dispensing vehicle as taught by Gudat with generating a water-level timeline including different section (refill-stable-drain) as also taught implicitly according to at least Fig. 5 by Miller, and further generating a smoothed water-level by filtering the noise due to water sloshing creating by at least vehicle’s movement as taught by Begin, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the accuracy of the measurement of water level and improving controlling of the vehicle’s performance.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 17, Modified Gudat teaches the system, method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 1, 7 and 15, and Gudat teaches wherein the computing system further comprises: an activity engine configured to generate an activities timeline for the liquid- dispensing vehicle, the activities timeline comprising at least one of an activity code and a truck mode across the smoothed water-level timeline ([0147], “planning, scheduling, and/or otherwise coordinating fluid delivery missions on worksite”, __ planning or scheduling fluid delivery mission (activity code) reads on generating an activity timeline for the liquid-dispensing vehicle where the activity timeline is an activity code (delivering water)__).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Modified Gudat teaches the system of claim 1 and Begin teaches:
wherein the timestamps are between 0.1 seconds and 10 seconds apart ([0025], “the fast display filtering method may use fewer filtering steps and a smaller time constant (e.g., 5 sec);”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the water dispensing vehicle as taught by modified Gudat with a timestamp of collecting measurement data being between 0.1-10 second as for example taught by Begin, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of processing the data periodically and in near real-time in order to improve the accuracy.
Regarding claims 6, 8 and 16, modified Gudat teaches the system, method and memoy of claims 1, 7, and 15, and Begin teaches wherein the smoothing engine is further configured to: identify one or more transition sections adjacent the stable section on the smoothed water-level timeline; and assign the one or more transition sections with the tank reading of the stable section. ([0031], “In order to avoid rapidly switching back and forth from one measurement technique to another, step 132 may use a delay timer to ensure that the consumption-based technique is used for a certain duration. Step 132 is optional and allows the dynamic conditions in fuel tank 12 to settle down before returning to a more conventional measurement approach.”, __Note: under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, the transition section as recited in the claim is interpreted as a time delay between the measurement/reading of the tank water level to allow the dynamic conditions in the tank to settle down__)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the water dispensing vehicle as taught by modified Gudat with the step of identifying and assigning one or more transition sections with the trank reading as taught by Begin, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the data gathering by delaying a time of measuring data when the tank water delivering operation changes.
Regarding claim 7 and 15, Gudat discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising (Abstract, [0002])
and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon which are executable by one or more processors and which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to (abstract, [0133], “memory storage devices [] for running programs for performing the disclosed fluid delivery processes.”, [0171]):
receiving periodically, by a computing system and from a water truck, data snapshots for parameters of the water truck during a watering mission ([0035], “Periodically or in real time, sensor system 316 may provide to communication system 310 information indicative of the values of the various sensed parameters”, [0181], “while performing the mission, fluid delivery system 326 may monitor the fluid level in tank 200.”, “based on the image detected by the camera and/or known dimensions or characteristics of fluid delivery system 326”), each of the data snapshots comprising a timestamp ([0035], [0078], “periodically or in real time”, [0082], [0181]), a tank reading of a water level in a tank of the water truck ([0045], “sensor system 324 may also include a fluid sensor configured to sense a fluid level or an amount (e.g., a volume) of fluid contained in tank 200”), water-activity data indicative of a status of water-dispensing elements on the water truck ([0029], [0163], [0181]), and movement data indicative of a location and movement of the water truck ([0032], “a navigation system”, [0045]);
determining, by the computing system, a slope of the water truck from movement data ([0038], “an orientation sensor (not shown) configured to determine a heading, direction, and/or inclination of mobile machine 102 on the surface of worksite 100.”, [0073], “slope or inclination information 414,”, [0075]);
Gudat doesn’t disclose constructing, by the computing system, an initial water-level timeline from the data snapshots based, at least in part, on the timestamp and the tank reading in each of the data snapshots; identifying, by the computing system, sections of the initial water-level timeline from the water-activity data and the movement data, the sections including a refilling section, a stable section, and a draining section; maintaining, by the computing system, the tank reading within the refilling section and the tank reading within the stable section, respectively, for the initial water-level timeline; adjusting, by the computing system, the initial water-level timeline for the draining section according to the slope of the water truck to produce an adjusted draining section; applying, by the computing system, a smoothing filter to the adjusted draining section to produce a smoothed draining section; generating, by the computing system, a smoothed water-level timeline from the initial water- level timeline and the smoothed draining section; and transmitting, by the computing system, the smoothed water-level timeline to one of a display device or the water truck for controlling the water truck in a new watering mission.
However, Miller teaches:
constructing, by the computing system, an initial water-level timeline from the data snapshots based, at least in part, on the timestamp and the tank reading in each of the data snapshots (Fig. 5, at least Col 6 Lines 41-42, “product level 12 in the tank 16 (FIG. 1) is observed or under surveillance at various times during a twenty-four hour period”, Col 4 last paragraph).
identifying, by the computing system, sections of the initial water-level timeline from the water-activity data and the movement data, the sections including a refilling section, a stable section, and a draining section; maintaining, by the computing system, the tank reading within the refilling section and the tank reading within the stable section, respectively, for the initial water-level timeline (Fig 4 and Fig. 5, different section of Fig. 5 reads on different sections as recited in the claim, Col 9, Lines 43-64);
However, Arreaza teaches:
adjusting, by the computing system, the initial water-level timeline for the draining section according to the slope of the water truck to produce an adjusted draining section ([0005], [0036]-[0039], [0042], “The level of the fluid 18 when the first sensor 22 has been triggered at the determined degree of inclination θ is indicative that a certain amount of fluid has been depleted and is additionally representative of the amount of fluid remaining in the reservoir 20.”);
However, Begin discloses a system and method relating to fluid level measuring like fuel level in a vehicle fuel tank (See at least abstract and paragraph [0001] and teaches:
applying, by the computing system, a smoothing filter to the adjusted draining section to produce a smoothed draining section; generating, by the computing system, a smoothed water-level timeline from the initial water- level timeline and the smoothed draining section; (Abstract, [0002], [0009], [0022], “Various filtering techniques have been employed to process fuel level readings”, __Note: filtering technique for processing the fuel level readings (or in general fluid level measuring according to paragraph [0002]), can be also used for water-level reading in water dispensing vehicles reads on the smoothing filter to produce a smoothed measurement of water level during draining operation__) and transmitting, by the computing system, the smoothed water-level timeline to one of a display device or the water truck for controlling the water truck in a new watering mission ([0002], “The measuring unit (e.g., a sending unit) measures the fuel level and sends electronic signals representative of the fuel level to the fuel gauge for display. Depending on the particular application, signal filtering techniques may be used to accommodate several conditions and reduce inaccurate and fluctuating fuel level readings.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the water dispensing vehicle as taught by Gudat with generating a water-level timeline including different section (refill-stable-drain) as also taught implicitly according to at least Fig. 5 by Miller, and further generating a smoothed water-level by filtering the noise due to water sloshing creating by at least vehicle’s movement as taught by Begin, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the accuracy of the measurement of water level and improving controlling of the vehicle’s performance.
Claims 3-4, 10-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gudat, in view of Miller, further in view of Begin and further in view of Arreaza, and further in view of Sheehan, US20150233245A1, hereinafter “Sheehan”.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 11, 18 and 19, Modified Gudat teaches the system and method and storage medium of claims 1, 7, 10,15 and 18, however, it doesn’t teach wherein the computing system further comprises: a coverage engine configured to: identify spray geometries for corresponding ones of the dispensing elements indicated within the parameters as being active, assign the spray geometries to the corresponding ones of the dispensing elements for the batch of the parameters, and aggregate the spray geometries across a subset of the batch to form a spatiotemporal event.
Sheehan teaches:
wherein the computing system further comprises: a coverage engine configured to: identify spray geometries for corresponding ones of the dispensing elements indicated within the parameters as being active ([0021]), assign the spray geometries to the corresponding ones of the dispensing elements for the batch of the parameters ([0015], [0024]), and aggregate the spray geometries across a subset of the batch to form a spatiotemporal event (at least Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the water dispensing vehicle as taught by modified Gudat with the step of identifying and assigning the spray geometries to the corresponding ones of the dispensing element and aggregate the spray geometry as taught by Sheehan, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the water delivery operation of the water-dispensing vehicle for different purposes such as removing the dust of the worksite of the water-dispensing vehicle.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Gudat discloses:
wherein the coverage engine is further configured to: accumulate the spatiotemporal events along a movement path of the liquid-dispensing vehicle to form a coverage map representative of treatment of the worksite with the liquid (Abstract, [0037], [0067], “worksite map database 360 may contain information identifying which paths are eligible for fluid delivery.”, __the information periodically or in real time is gathered regarding the location of the machine and the delivery path segments which reads on the claimed limitation__).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Gudat teaches the method of claim 12, and Sheehan teaches wherein the accumulating the spatiotemporal events comprises forming a polygon representing a cumulative spray pattern from the water truck along the movement path ([0015], Fig 6, hatch lines A1 and A2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the water dispensing vehicle as taught by Gudat with forming a polygon representing spray pattern from the watter truck along the movement path as taught by Sheehan, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the performance of the water-dispensing truck.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669