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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024 and 06/14/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are pending.
Claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 are independent.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 14 has been canceled.
This NON-FINAL action is in response to “Amendments and Remarks” received on 10 February 2026.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed 10 February 2026, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not wholly persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that claim rejections under 101 should be withdrawn because amended claims recite determining movement patterns for during a common time interval and that movements patterns are based on a correlation of movement from two distinct components during the common time. The presented claims encompass mental processes that encompass making a user determine if an attachment move, determine if an arm or boom moves, compare a movement of the arm/boom to the movement of the attachment, and determine if the attachment is attached to the arm or boom.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, there is a new ground(s) of rejection made in view of newly found prior art.
Non-Final Office Action
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 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a process. Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 13 is directed to an apparatus (vehicle). Therefore, Claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 16 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 16 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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.
Claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) with claim 13 generally linking “a vehicle” to the method of claim 1, and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 1 recites: A computer-implemented method for a working machine, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor device of a computer system, first movement data from a first sensor device configured to measure a movement of the working machine,
determining, by the processor device, a movement pattern of the working machine based on the received first movement data,
receiving, by the processor device, second movement data from a second sensor device installed on an attachment tool and configured to measure a movement of the attachment tool simultaneously with the measurement performed by the first sensor device,
determining, by the processor device, a movement pattern of the attachment tool based on received second movement data,
comparing, by the processor device, said movement pattern of the attachment tool with said movement pattern of the working machine, wherein the movement patterns are determined for a common time interval,
and upon determination by the processor device that the movement pattern of the attachment tool matches the movement pattern of the working machine by exhibiting a correlation between the movements of the attachment tool and the working machine during said common interval time,
determining, by the processor device, that the attachment tool is attached to an arm or a boom of the working machine.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “determining” and “comparing” steps encompass a user determine a movement pattern from sensor data and compare sensor data from two sources to see if they match. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “by a processor”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining and comparing steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the processor is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processor. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of determining and comparing movement data is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that receiving movement data and using a processor, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a controller or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are 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 the apparatus, the controller 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 additional limitations of receiving data and dividing data, and determinizing errors, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the data and determining errors are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, Claims 13, 15, and 16 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-12 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claim 1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a working machine with the determination that an attachment tool is attached to an arm or a boom of the working machine. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al (US 20190112792 A1), hereinafter Reed, in view of Shiina et al. (US 20190249399 A1), hereinafter Shiina, and further in view of Arshad et al. (US 11851851 B2), hereinafter Arshad.
Regarding claim 1, Reed discloses:
A computer-implemented method for a working machine, the method comprising (Reed: [0001], system and method for identifying a connected work tool of a machine):
receiving, by a processor device of a computer system, first movement data from a first sensor device configured to measure a movement of the working machine (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement),
receiving, by the processor device, second movement data from a second sensor device installed on an attachment tool and configured to measure a movement of the attachment tool simultaneously with the measurement performed by the first sensor device (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement),
determining, by the processor device, that the attachment tool is attached to an arm or a boom of the working machine (Reed: [0005], identify the work tool as a connected work tool).
However, Reed does not specifically state:
determining, by the processor device, a movement pattern of the working machine based on the received first movement data,
determining, by the processor device, a movement pattern of the attachment tool based on received second movement data,
comparing, by the processor device, said movement pattern of the attachment tool with said movement pattern of the working machine, wherein the movement patterns are determined for a common time interval,
and upon determination by the processor device that the movement pattern of the attachment tool matches the movement pattern of the working machine by exhibiting a correlation between the movements of the attachment tool and the working machine during said common interval time,
Shiina teaches:
determining, by the processor device, a movement pattern of the working machine based on the received first movement data (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures),
determining, by the processor device, a movement pattern of the attachment tool based on received second movement data (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiina into the invention of Reed to include machine operation pattern storage as Shiina discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that stores and monitors movement of a machine’s operation and to ensure that the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed and storing operational movement data to compare with stored operations and determine the posture of a working machine as taught by Shiina. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
However, Reed in view of Shiina does not specifically state:
comparing, by the processor device, said movement pattern of the attachment tool with said movement pattern of the working machine, wherein the movement patterns are determined for a common time interval,
and upon determination by the processor device that the movement pattern of the attachment tool matches the movement pattern of the working machine by exhibiting a correlation between the movements of the attachment tool and the working machine during said common interval time,
Arshad teaches:
comparing, by the processor device, said movement pattern of the attachment tool with said movement pattern of the working machine, wherein the movement patterns are determined for a common time interval (Col. 1, Lines 49-60, For a working machine working at a construction site, or another working site, misplacement of the attachment device may be related to time-consuming searching and localization of the attachment device, as the construction site, or a working site, may extend over several acres. US 2004/0227645 relates to a motion detector and signal transmitter for use in an apparatus for detecting and reporting dislocation of heavy mining equipment. The motion detector has an electromagnetic transducer that detects relative motion between two metal parts that are normally held together in surface engagement (according to the Abstract of US 2004/0227645); Col. 4, Lines 42-56, It should be understood that the attachment device carrying equipment may be interpreted as the equipment of the working machine intended for carrying and/or coupling the attachment device. Hence, according to one embodiment, the attachment device carrying equipment comprises at least one arm, preferably hydraulic driven by hydraulic actuators. Additionally or alternatively, the attachment device carrying equipment comprises a coupler or a coupling arrangement configured for a releaseably connection to a coupling unit of the attachment device. According to one embodiment, said control unit is configured to record when the attachment status of said attachment device indicates that the attachment device is de-attached from said attachment device carrying equipment by a time-stamp.),
and upon determination by the processor device that the movement pattern of the attachment tool matches the movement pattern of the working machine by exhibiting a correlation between the movements of the attachment tool and the working machine during said common interval time (Col. 1, Lines 49-60, For a working machine working at a construction site, or another working site, misplacement of the attachment device may be related to time-consuming searching and localization of the attachment device, as the construction site, or a working site, may extend over several acres. US 2004/0227645 relates to a motion detector and signal transmitter for use in an apparatus for detecting and reporting dislocation of heavy mining equipment. The motion detector has an electromagnetic transducer that detects relative motion between two metal parts that are normally held together in surface engagement (according to the Abstract of US 2004/0227645); Col. 4, Lines 42-56, It should be understood that the attachment device carrying equipment may be interpreted as the equipment of the working machine intended for carrying and/or coupling the attachment device. Hence, according to one embodiment, the attachment device carrying equipment comprises at least one arm, preferably hydraulic driven by hydraulic actuators. Additionally or alternatively, the attachment device carrying equipment comprises a coupler or a coupling arrangement configured for a releaseably connection to a coupling unit of the attachment device. According to one embodiment, said control unit is configured to record when the attachment status of said attachment device indicates that the attachment device is de-attached from said attachment device carrying equipment by a time-stamp.),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arshad into the invention of Reed in view of Shiina to include comparison of data from sensor pairs to verify attachment of a tool as Arshad discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that ensures the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed and comparing sensor data to verify tool attachment as disclosed by Arshad. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
The computer system comprising the processor device configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Reed: [0025], controller may include a processing component and a data component, with the processing component configured to execute computer readable program code, which may be stored using the data storage component).
Regarding claim 3, Reed on view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
receiving, by the processor device, identification data from said second sensor device, said identification data providing an identity of the attachment tool or a type of attachment tool on which the second sensor device is installed (Reed: [0022], the work tool may support a short-range wireless device for connected work tool identification),
and configuring, by the processor device, operational settings of the working machine and/or settings of a graphical user interface of the working machine based on the received identification data (Reed: [0025] wireless device may communicate with one or more of a controller and an operator display; [0037], machine settings may be auto-configured based on the connected work tool; Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
wherein said attachment tool is an attachment tool in a group of attachment tools, wherein each attachment tool in said group is provided with a respective sensor device for measuring movements of the attachment tool on which it is installed, the method further comprising (Reed: [0021], although work tool is illustrated as a bucket, the machine may support any variety of tools):
receiving, by the processor device, respective movement data from at least two of the said sensor devices installed on respective attachment tools (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement),
determining, by the processor device, based on said respective movement data, a respective movement pattern of the attachment tools on which said at least two sensor devices are installed (Shiina: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiina into the invention of Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad to include machine operation pattern storage as Shiina discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that stores and monitors movement of a machine’s operation and to ensure that the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad and storing operational movement data to compare with stored operations and determine the posture of a working machine as taught by Shiina. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
comparing, by the processor device, the respective movement pattern of each attachment tool for which a movement pattern has been determined with said movement pattern of the working machine (Shiina: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures; [0046], comparison and determination of the posture of hydraulic excavator),
identifying, by the processor device, which one of the movement patterns of the respective attachment tools that matches the movement pattern of the working machine, and determining, by the processor device, that the attachment tool whose determined movement pattern has been identified as matching the movement pattern of the working machine, is attached to the arm or boom of the working machine (Shiina: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures; [0046], comparison and determination of the posture of hydraulic excavator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiina into the invention of Reed to include machine operation pattern storage as Shiina discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that stores and monitors movement of a machine’s operation and to ensure that the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed and storing operational movement data to compare with stored operations and determine the posture of a working machine as taught by Shiina. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
recording during a time period, by the processor device, the movement patterns of the working machine as well as respective movement patterns of the attachment tools in said group (Shiina: Fig. 6; Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], controller is programmed to store for a time period operation procedures, standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures),
and after said time period, determining, by the processor device, based on the recorded movement patterns, which attachment tool or tools has/have been attached to the arm or boom of the working machine during said time period (Shiina: [0046], comparison and determination of the posture of hydraulic excavator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiina into the invention of Reed to include machine operation pattern storage as Shiina discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that stores and monitors movement of a machine’s operation and to ensure that the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed and storing operational movement data to compare with stored operations and determine the posture of a working machine as taught by Shiina. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
wherein said second sensor device comprises an accelerometer configured to measure the accelerations of the attachment tool on which it is installed (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement).
Regarding claim 9, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
wherein the first sensor device comprises at least one of an accelerometer and GPS-sensor (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement).
Regarding claim 10, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
wherein said processor device is a local on-board processor device located on the working vehicle (Reed: Fig. 3; Fig. 8; [0025], controller on the machine, controller may include processing component).
Regarding claim 12, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
wherein said acts of receiving movement data from the sensors, comprises receiving said movement data wirelessly (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement).
Regarding claim 13, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
A vehicle comprising the processor device to perform the method of claim 1 (Reed: Fig. 3; Fig. 8; [0025], controller on the machine, controller may include processing component).
Regarding claim 15, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
A control system comprising one or more control units configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Reed: [0022], work tool may support a short-range wireless device which may include a processor for processing instructions that control operation of the short-range wireless device; [0025], controller on the machine, controller may include a processing component and a data component, with the processing component configured to execute computer readable program code, which may be stored using the data storage component).
Regarding claim 16, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device, cause the processor device to perform the method of claim 1 (Reed: [0025], controller may include a processing component and a data component, with the processing component configured to execute computer readable program code, which may be stored using the data storage component).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad, and further in view of Petrany et al. (US 20210004744 A1), hereinafter Petrany.
Regarding claim 4, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad teaches:
further comprising, subsequent to said determining that the attachment tool is attached to the arm or boom of the working machine, receiving, by the processor device, third movement data from the second sensor device, said third movement data acquired by the second sensor device during a working operation performed by the working machine with the attachment tool attached (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement),
determining by the processor device, a working operation movement pattern of the attachment tool based on the received third movement data (Shiina: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures),
identifying, by the processor device, based on the determined working operation movement pattern of the attachment tool, an operation type performed by the attachment tool (Shiina: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiina into the invention of Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad to include machine operation pattern storage as Shiina discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that stores and monitors movement of a machine’s operation and to ensure that the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad and storing operational movement data to compare with stored operations and determine the posture of a working machine as taught by Shiina. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
However, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad does not specifically state:
and determining, by the processor device, a geographical position at which said operation type is performed by the attachment tool.
Petrany teaches:
and determining, by the processor device, a geographical position at which said operation type is performed by the attachment tool (Petrany: [0030], sensor signals may include sensor information such as image data, LIDAR, RADAR, SONAR, GPS, etc., sensor information may include, identify, and/or be indicative of one or more tool characteristics of the work tool).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Petrany into the invention of Reed as modified by Shiina and Arshad to include determination of geographical position which may be indicative of one or more tool characteristics of the work tool as Petrany discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that uses sensor information (e.g. GPS data) to identify and/or indicate work tool characteristics (Petrany: [0030]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed as modified by Shiina and Arshad and using GPS data to indicate work tool characteristics as taught by Petrany. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad, and further in view of Matzelle et al. (US 20210123218 A1), hereinafter Matzelle.
Regarding claim 11, Reed in view of Shiina and Arshad does not specifically state:
wherein said processor device is a remote off-board processor device located separately from the working machine.
Matzelle teaches:
wherein said processor device is a remote off-board processor device located separately from the working machine (Matzelle: [0022], work tool identification system may be operatively associated with a telematics system to communicate with an external or remote location to send and receive operational and/or status information, the remote location may be associated with a remote computer system that can provide additional processing capabilities for operation of the machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matzelle into the invention of Reed as modified by Shiina and Arshad to include remote processing as Matzelle discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that is associated with a remote computer system that can provide additional processing capabilities for operation of the machine (Matzelle: [0022]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed as modified by Shiina and Arshad and using a remote computing system as taught by Matzelle. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Documents Considered but Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 20160312432 A1) discloses using computer vision for work tool recognition and installation. Matzelle (US 20210132577 A1) discloses a data system for tracking use of a work tool attachment that may be interchangeably attached to a machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZCALLI ANDRE RIOS-AGUIRRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 - 17:00 EST.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/I.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights