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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (WO2012147751A1, 2012-11-01) herein referred to as Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a performance diagnosing device that diagnoses performance of a work machine (Abstract), comprising:
a data acquiring section that acquires data describing a type of operation performed by the work machine (Abstract), a duration from start of the operation to end of the operation (Abstract), an amount of load of the operation (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 2-3), a detail of the operation (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 2-3), and a physical characteristic of a site where the work machine is placed (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 2-3); and
a performance diagnosing section that diagnoses performance of the work machine by referring to a reference performance model that describes a reference performance of the work machine, wherein the reference performance model describes the reference performance for each of combinations of the type, the amount of load, the detail, and the physical characteristic, wherein the performance diagnosing section refers to the reference performance model using the type, the amount of load, the detail, and the physical characteristic, thereby acquiring a reference performance of the operation for the type, the amount of load, the detail, and the physical characteristic, and wherein the performance diagnosing section compares the acquired reference performance with the duration, thereby diagnosing performance of the work machine to output a result of the diagnosis (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 3-4);
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki teaches the performance diagnosing device according to claim 1, further comprising an operation categorizing section that categorizes the operation, wherein the operation categorizing section categorizes the operation using at least one of: an image acquired by capturing the operation; acceleration data that describes a result acquired by measuring an acceleration caused at the work machine along with the operation; or sensor data that describes a result of measuring a physical state of the work machine caused along with the operation, the physical state being acquired by a sensor detecting the physical state, thereby identifying a type of the operation (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 2-3);
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki further teaches the performance diagnosing device according to claim 1, further comprising a work duration measuring section that measures the duration,wherein the work duration measuring section identifies a start time of the operation and an end time of the operation using at least one of: an image acquired by capturing the operation; acceleration data that describes a result acquired by measuring an acceleration caused at the work machine along with the operation; or sensor data that describes a result of measuring a physical state of the work machine caused along with the operation, the physical state being acquired by a sensor detecting the physical state, thereby measuring the duration (pg. 2, last paragraph; pg. 5; Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki teaches The performance diagnosing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a data storing section that stores the data (20); and a model creating section that creates the reference performance model using the data stored in the data storing section (pg. 4-5; operation time calculation unit, operation history storage unit).
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki teaches the performance diagnosing device according to Claim 4, wherein the model creating section creates the reference performance model for each of combinations of the type described in the data, the amount of load described in the data, the detail described in the data, and the physical characteristic described in the data (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki teaches the performance diagnosing device according to claim 1, further comprising a data storing section that stores the data, wherein the performance diagnosing section uses a history of the data stored in the data storing section, thereby predicting the duration after a predetermined duration has passed, and wherein the performance diagnosing section predicts whether performance degradation will occur at a time when the predetermined period has passed, according to whether a difference between the predicted duration at a time when the predetermined period has passed and the reference performance described by the reference performance model is at or above a threshold. (pg. 4-5);
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki teaches the performance diagnosing device according to Claim 1 wherein the physical characteristic is a parameter that influences on work efficiency of the work machine when performing the operation. (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 2-3);
Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki teaches he performance diagnosing device according to The performance diagnosing device according to wherein the amount of load is defined by a discharging pressure of a hydraulic pump that drives the work machine (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 15, Suzuki teaches a performance diagnosing method for diagnosing performance of a work machine (Abstract), comprising:
acquiring data that describing a type of operation performed by the work machine (Abstract), a duration from start of the operation to end of the operation (Abstract), an amount of load of the operation (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 2-3), a detail of the operation (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 2-3), and a physical characteristic of a site where the work machine is placed (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 2-3); and
diagnosing performance of the work machine by referring to a reference performance model that describes a reference performance of the work machine, wherein the reference performance model describes the reference performance for each of combinations of the type, the amount of load, the detail, and the physical characteristic, wherein the diagnosing performance includes referring to the reference performance model using the type, the amount of load, the detail, and the physical characteristic, thereby acquiring a reference performance of the operation for the type, the amount of load, the detail, and the physical characteristic, and wherein the performance diagnosing performance includes comparing the acquired reference performance with the duration, thereby diagnosing performance of the work machine to output a result of the diagnosis (Description of Embodiment, Pg. 3-4);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim1-6, 12, 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Breed, David (US20070271014A1, 2007-11-22), herein referred to as Breed.
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki teaches the performance diagnosing device according to Claim 1, wherein the performance diagnosing device is further comprising: an operation categorizing section that categorizes the operation [0036-0039]; a work duration measuring section that measures the duration [0036-0039].
Suzuki fails to teach the performance diagnosing device configured as a mobile terminal that is attachable to and detachable from the work machine; and an accelerometer that measures acceleration applied to the mobile terminal, wherein the operation categorizing section categorizes the operation using acceleration measured by the accelerometer, and wherein the work duration measuring section uses acceleration measured by the accelerometer to identify a start time of the operation and an end time of the operation, thereby measuring the duration.
However, in a related field, Breed teaches the performance diagnosing device configured as a mobile terminal that is attachable to and detachable from the work machine [0193]. Further, Breed teaches an accelerometer that measures acceleration applied to the mobile terminal, wherein the operation categorizing section categorizes the operation using acceleration measured by the accelerometer, and wherein the work duration measuring section uses acceleration measured by the accelerometer to identify a start time of the operation and an end time of the operation, thereby measuring the duration [0238-0239]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Breed by including: the limitations above in order to enable a determination of the actual or impending failure of a moving component.
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki teaches the performance diagnosing device according to Claim 1, wherein the performance diagnosing device is further comprising: an operation categorizing section that categorizes the operation [0036-0039]; a work duration measuring section that measures the duration [0036-0039]; and a communicating section that acquires, by communication from the work machine, sensor data that describes a result of measuring a physical state of the work machine caused along with the operation, the physical state being acquired by a sensor detecting the physical state [0032], wherein the operation categorizing section categorizes the operation using the sensor data acquired by the communicating section ([0037; [Fig. 4]), and wherein the work duration measuring section uses the sensor data acquired by the communicating section to identify a start time of the operation and an end time of the operation, thereby measuring the duration ([0037]; [0070]; Fig. 5, 8, and 14)
Suzuki fails to teach the performance diagnosing device configured as a mobile terminal that is attachable to and detachable from the work machine.
However, in a related field, Breed teaches the performance diagnosing device configured as a mobile terminal that is attachable to and detachable from the work machine [0193].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Breed by including: the limitations above in order to enable a determination of the actual or impending failure of a component remotely.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination further teaches the performance diagnosing device according to Claim 7 wherein the work machine comprising: a data storing section that stores the data (Suzuki: Storage Unit (20)); and a model creating section that creates the reference performance model using the data stored in the data storing section (Suzuki: [0048]; Fig. 14), wherein the performance diagnosing section further comprising a communicating section that acquires the reference performance model from the work machine (Suzuki: Communication Unit (30)), and wherein the performance diagnosing section uses the reference performance model acquired by the communicating section from the work machine, thereby diagnosing performance of the work machine (Suzuki: Fig. 9-11; [0048-0058]).
Claim 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Satou et al. (US20200401098A1, 2020-12-24) herein referred to as Satou.
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki teaches all of the limitations according to Claim 1. Suzuki fails to teach wherein the performance diagnosing device is configured as an external operating terminal that is attachable to and detachable from the work machine and that is used by a worker to control the work machine. However, in a related filed, Satou teaches an external operating terminal that is attachable to and detachable from the work machine and that is used by a worker to control the work machine (Fig. 10; [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Satou by including: the limitations above in order to enable a determination of the actual or impending failure of a component remotely.
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki teaches the performance diagnosing device according to claim 1, further comprising a communicating section (communication device (8); communication unit (30)). Suzuki fails to specifically teach a terminal that collects the data to acquire the data from the terminal, wherein the performance diagnosing section uses the data acquired by the communicating section from the terminal, thereby diagnosing performance of the work machine. However, in a related field, Satou teaches an external device (72) that connects to the diagnostic device and acquires all data of the work machine with the diagnostic device (Fig. 1; [0028-0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Satou by including: the limitations above in order to enable a determination of the actual or impending failure of a component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 13, no prior art teaches nor suggest the performance diagnosing device according to Claim 12, wherein the physical characteristic is defined by at least one of: a soil characteristic of the site; a type of the site; or a shape of the site. It is for this reason, Claim 13 would be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Hidai et al. (Data Processing Device, Data Processing Method, And Program, 2018-02-20) teaches a data processing device includes: a data obtaining section obtaining time series data on a total value of current consumed by a plurality of electric apparatuses; and a parameter estimating section obtaining a model parameter when states of operation of the plurality of electric apparatuses are modeled by a factorial HMM on a basis of the obtained time series data;
Fayneh et al. (INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DEGRADATION ESTIMATION AND TIME-OF-FAILURE PREDICTION USING WORKLOAD AND MARGIN SENSING, 2023-07-16) teaches An integrated circuit (IC) comprising: a margin measurement circuit configured to monitor multiple data paths of the IC and to output, at different times, different ranges of remaining margins of the multiple data paths; a workload sensor configured to output a value representing aggregate operational stress experienced by the IC over a period of time ending at each of the different times; and a processor configured to: (i) compute, based on the value output by said workload sensor, an upper bound and a lower bound of change of the remaining margin of the IC, and (ii) compute upper and lower bounds of a current remaining margin of the IC, based on (a) the upper and lower bounds of change, and (b) a remaining margin indicated by a border between two adjacent ranges outputted by the margin measurement circuit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2863