The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 02/26/2026, the following is a Final Office Action for Application No. 18399021.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
As per the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong One of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions). Since the recitation of the claims falls into at least one of the above Groupings, there is a basis for providing further analysis with regard to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine whether the recitation of an abstract idea is deduced to being directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong Two of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor, work machines and/or non-transitory computer-readable media is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic processor server limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, processor, work machines and/or non-transitory computer-readable media to inter alia perform the function of receiving real-time production data comprising at least one of position data, payload data, energy state data, or queue status data from each of the plurality of work machine is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In other words, the present claims use a generic processing device and memory medium to inter alia perform the function of receiving real-time production data comprising at least one of position data, payload data, energy state data, or queue status data from each of the plurality of work machine which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind. The processor is merely used to perform the function(s), and the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Step 2B, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: processor, work machines and/or non-transitory computer-readable media. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, processor, work machines and/or non-transitory computer-readable media to inter alia perform the function of receiving real-time production data comprising at least one of position data, payload data, energy state data, or queue status data from each of the plurality of work machine is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include the non-limiting or non-exclusive examples of MPEP § 2106.05. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
In an effort to further expedite prosecution, see: Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples, October 2019 30, Example 46. Livestock Management. Per claim 1 of Example 46, the memory, display and processor are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory, display and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. As an exemplary direction for similar claim limitations to be eligible, see claims 2-4 of Example 46.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture; hence, the claims fall under statutory category of Step 1.
Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
a central controller communicably coupled with a plurality of production circuits, each of the production circuits comprising at least one production site and at least one dump site, wherein the controller comprises:one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining a plurality of production circuits for the worksite, the production circuits comprising one or more activities performed one or more times at the worksite; determining a production plan for the worksite, the production plan comprising a ranked ordering of the plurality of production circuits; determining a first allocation of a plurality of work machines to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the production plan; causing the plurality of work machines to distribute to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the first allocation; receiving, via a wireless communication network at the worksite, real-time production data comprising at least one of position data, payload data, energy state data, or queue status data from each of the plurality of work machines;determining a compliance score describing compliance with the production plan based at least in part on the real-time production data describing activity of the plurality of work machines, wherein the compliance score quantifies a deviation between an actual production rate of at least one of the plurality of production circuits and a target production rate specified in the production plan; determining a second allocation of the plurality of work machines based at least in part on the production plan and the compliance score; and causing the plurality of work machines to distribute to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the second allocation.
[or]
determining, by a processor, a plurality of production circuits for the worksite, the production circuits comprising one or more activities repeated one or more times at the worksite; determining, by the processor, a production plan for the worksite, the production plan comprising a ranked ordering of the plurality of production circuits;determining, by the processor, a first allocation of a plurality of work machines to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the production plan; causing, by the processor, the plurality of work machines to distribute to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the first allocation; receiving, via a wireless communication network at the worksite, real-time production data comprising at least one of position data, payload data, energy state data, or queue status data from each of the plurality of work machines;determining, by the processor, a compliance score describing compliance with the production plan based at least in part on the real-time production data describing activity of the plurality of work machines, wherein the compliance score quantifies a deviation between an actual production rate of at least one of the plurality of production circuits and a target production rate specified in the production plan;; determining, by the processor, a second allocation of the plurality of work machines based at least in part on the production plan and the compliance score; and causing, by the processor, the plurality of work machines to distribute to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the second allocation.
[or]
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining a plurality of production circuits for a worksite, the production circuits comprising one or more activities performed one or more times at the worksite; determining a production plan for the worksite, the production plan comprising a ranked ordering of the plurality of production circuits; determining a first allocation of a plurality of work machines to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the production plan; causing the plurality of work machines to distribute to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the first allocation; receiving, via a wireless communication network at the worksite, real-time production data comprising at least one of position data, payload data, energy state data, or queue status data from each of the plurality of work machines;determining a compliance score describing compliance with the production plan based at least in part on the real-time production data describing activity of the plurality of work machines, wherein the compliance score quantifies a deviation between an actual production rate of at least one of the plurality of production circuits and a target production rate specified in the production plant; determining a second allocation of the plurality of work machines based at least in part on the production plan and the compliance score; and causing the plurality of work machines to distribute to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the second allocation.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following summarization of the abstract idea which inter alia includes determining a second allocation of the plurality of work machines based at least in part on the production plan and the compliance score and causing the plurality of work machines to distribute accordingly which is executed by the additional element(s) of work machines, non-transitory computer readable storage medium and/or processor. This falls into at least the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mental Processes since the information can be analyzed by an abstract evaluation judgment process. Thus, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity since the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion).
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion).
Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor, work machines and/or non-transitory computer-readable media is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic processor, work machines and/or non-transitory computer-readable media limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, causing the plurality of work machines to distribute to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the second allocation by a processor, work machines and/or non-transitory computer-readable media is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B.
Per Step 2B, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: processor, work machines and non-transitory computer-readable media. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, causing the plurality of work machines to distribute to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the second allocation by a processor, work machines and/or non-transitory computer-readable media is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0054 wherein “The planner 202, which may be implemented in the form of computer executable instructions in non-transitory computer media, includes algorithms that use various computational or algorithmic methods to process a desired production plan. The desired production plan may be provided by a user and input into the system. For example, the planner 202 may include computer hardware and/or software that includes memory devices, user input and output instrumentalities, a processor, database, wired and/or wireless communication devices and other structures that are configured to receive, process and send information to/from the planner.” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims).
The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 3 and similar claims provide additional element of energy availability for charging battery of work machines, however this energy availability is used in determining first allocation which does not rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennagaram Hemanth et al. (US 20220325500 A1) hereinafter referred to as Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson et al. (US 20160216130 A1) hereinafter referred to as Abramson in further view of Kalvenes et al. (US 20230008357 A1) hereinafter referred to as Kalvenes in further view of Cella et al. (US 20220187847 A1) hereinafter referred to as Cella.
Pennagaram Hemanth teaches:
Claim 1. A system for allocating work machines at a worksite, comprising:
a central controller communicably coupled with a plurality of production circuits, each of the production circuits comprising at least one production site and at least one dump site, wherein the controller comprises (Fig. 2 and ¶0017 The work machine 102, which as noted above can be a mining machine, is shown in FIG. 1 as merely an example of but one work machine 102 according to embodiments of the disclosed subject matter. The work machine 102 can include a frame 114, traction elements 116, an engine 118, a front section 120, a rear section 122, one or more mobile ranging devices 124, one or more movement sensor devices 126, and a controller 128. Traction elements 116 may include wheels, tracks, and/or the like that are movably coupled to frame 114 and caused to be driven by engine 118. Front section 120 may be coupled to a front portion of frame 114 and configured to movably support an implement 130 (e.g., a bucket and/or another work tool) of work machine 102. Rear section 122 may be coupled to a rear portion of frame 114 and configured to support engine 118 and an operator cab 132 (though in some embodiments the operator cab 132 may be omitted because the work machine 102 can be a fully autonomous work machine, though on the other hand fully autonomous work machines may not necessarily be without the operator cab 132). Front section 120 and rear section 122 may be rigidly coupled together via frame 114 or pivotally joined about one or more articulated joints. In some examples, work machine 102 may be a load, haul, and dump (LHD) machine and/or another mining machine suited to transport material within a mining site (e.g., tunnel 112). ¶0020 Controller 128 can include a processor 134, a memory 136, and a communication device 140. Optionally, controller 128 can include or otherwise be operative with a user interface 138. Processor 134, which can include one or more processors, can be implemented in hardware, firmware, and/or a combination of hardware and software capable of being programmed to perform one or more functions or operations associated with work machine 102. ¶0022 Communication device 140 may enable processor 134 to receive location data relating to a location of work machine 102 relative to passage 112 (e.g., from communication infrastructure 104), coordinate data relating to a geography of passage 112 (e.g., from network storage device 110), a site plan of a mining operation (e.g., from network storage device 110), and/or the like. Communication device 140 may enable processor 134 to transmit location data (e.g., determined using mobile ranging device 124) and/or movement data (e.g., determined using movement sensor device 126) to communication infrastructure 104, localization platform 106, control station 108, network storage device 110, one or more other work machines.):
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (¶0020 Controller 128 can include a processor 134, a memory 136, and a communication device 140. Optionally, controller 128 can include or otherwise be operative with a user interface 138. Processor 134, which can include one or more processors, can be implemented in hardware, firmware, and/or a combination of hardware and software capable of being programmed to perform one or more functions or operations associated with work machine 102. ¶0076 Turning to FIG. 5, FIG. 5 is a flow chart of a method 500 according to one or more embodiments of the disclosed subject matter. Some or all of the method 500 can be performed using a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (e.g., one or more electronic processors of the control station 108), cause the one or more processors to perform the method 500.):
determining a plurality of production circuits for the worksite, the production circuits comprising one or more activities performed one or more times at the worksite (Fig. 2 and ¶0044 In contrast to selecting all of the nodes 220 and edges 225, FIG. 2 shows an example of selecting a sequence of only some of the nodes 220. The user, via the interactive graphic 200 provided via the user interface 160, can begin the selection process by selecting the node 230(1) as a first node, followed by node 230(2) in FIG. 2. The selection process can proceed with a selection 400 in the form of a sequence of nodes 230(1) up to node 230(8) as shown in FIG. 2.);
determining a production plan for the worksite, the production plan comprising a ranked ordering of the plurality of production circuits (¶0044 In contrast to selecting all of the nodes 220 and edges 225, FIG. 2 shows an example of selecting a sequence of only some of the nodes 220. The user, via the interactive graphic 200 provided via the user interface 160, can begin the selection process by selecting the node 230(1) as a first node, followed by node 230(2) in FIG. 2. The selection process can proceed with a selection 400 in the form of a sequence of nodes 230(1) up to node 230(8) as shown in FIG. 2. In this example, the selected nodes 220, i.e., selected nodes 230(1) to nodes 230(8), can be nodes 220 the user thinks he or she needs to set a property on, for instance, for safety reasons, as noted above, or additional or alternative reasons, such as for noise control, machine longevity, etc., based on characteristics of the passage or passages 112 such as width, traffic, traffic direction (one way or bidirectional), grade, roughness, obstacles, etc.);
determining a first allocation of a plurality of work machines to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the production plan;causing the plurality of work machines to distribute to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the first allocation (¶0021 the user interface 138 may enable the operator of work machine 102 to access a visual model and/or a map of passage 112, access a visual model and/or a map of a site plan of a mining operation, monitor a progress of the mining operation, monitor an efficiency and/or a production rate of the mining operation, track a location of work machine 102, track a location of another work machine, access a record of completed tasks and/or historic events associated with work machine 102, and/or the like);
receiving, via a wireless communication network at the worksite, real-time production data comprising at least one of position data, payload data, energy state data, or queue status data from each of the plurality of work machines (¶0018 Mobile ranging device 124 can be or include a device configured to transmit and/or receive a proximity signal relating to a location of work machine 102. For example, mobile ranging device 124 may include a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag (e.g., a passive RF tag, an active RF tag, and/or the like) that is configured to electromagnetically interact with one or more RFID readers and generate a proximity signal that can be used to determine a range or a location of the RFID tag relative to the RFID readers. Movement sensor device 126 can include a device configured to measure a movement of work machine 102 relative to a frame of reference of the work machine 102.);
determining a compliance score describing compliance with the production plan based at least in part on production data describing activity of the plurality of work machines, wherein the compliance score quantifies a deviation between an actual production rate of at least one of the plurality of production circuits and a target production rate specified in the production plan (¶0023 In some implementations, the communication device 140 may provide to the processor 134 control signaling from the control station 108 for operating work machine 102. For example, communication device 140 may provide to the processor 134, from the control station 108, one or more route properties (e.g., requirements such as restrictions or limitations) set by the control station 108 to control operation of the work machine 102 according to the route properties when the work machine 102 traverses passages 112 of the mine site. ¶0079 At operation 506 the method 500 can include accessing route properties associated with the selected route. Access to the requirements for the route properties can include viewing the requirements. Hence, the user can access the requirements to understand current built-in parameters, if currently any, for autonomous operation of the work machines 102 about the mine site. Such viewing may also be to identify what route properties are even modifiable with requirements for a given part of the mine site or the entirety of the mine site. Access can additionally or alternatively include setting one or more parameters for the requirements for some or all of the mine site, such as some or all of the passages 112 in the mine site shown in FIG. 2));
determining a second allocation of the plurality of work machines based at least in part on the production plan and the compliance score;and causing the plurality of work machines to distribute to the plurality of production circuits based at least in part on the second allocation (¶0060 Such display of indicia can be in real time in response to the selection at the respective requirement landing 345 on the user interface 160. Thus, user interface 160 can display a dynamically changing requirement responsive to inputs to the user interface 160 to change the requirement. Changing one or more requirements for corresponding one or more route properties may be characterized as a modified requirement. ¶0079 At operation 506 the method 500 can include accessing route properties associated with the selected route. Access to the requirements for the route properties can include viewing the requirements. Hence, the user can access the requirements to understand current built-in parameters, if currently any, for autonomous operation of the work machines 102 about the mine site. Such viewing may also be to identify what route properties are even modifiable with requirements for a given part of the mine site or the entirety of the mine site. Access can additionally or alternatively include setting one or more parameters for the requirements for some or all of the mine site, such as some or all of the passages 112 in the mine site shown in FIG. 2).
Although not explicitly taught by Pennagaram Hemanth, Abramson teaches in the analogous art of enhanced navigation instruction:
production plan comprising a ranked ordering of the plurality of production circuits (¶1141 if the route that is generally fastest from a user's home to the user's place of work included turning left at a particular intersection, but that route was not optimal on a particular day/time (e.g., due to road work, heavy traffic, etc.), and the currently best route involved proceeding straight at such intersection, existing navigation systems might simply omit the “turn left” instructions. However, such an omission may well not be recognized by a user, particularly one who frequently travels such a route (e.g., a commuter), and such user may likely turn left at the referenced intersection by force of habit. Accordingly, providing an explicit negative instruction such as “do not turn left at” or an implicit negative instruction ¶1296 The benefits (e.g. time savings, fuel savings, safety gains) of a navigation application (for a navigation provider and/or to a navigation user) can be quantified or otherwise determined, for example, by (a) one or more navigation providers where each such provider effects its own calculations, e.g., according to particular standards or protocols (with or without independent auditing) so that the results can be compared easily across providers or (b) a central server/system which computes, scores, and/or ranks various statistics related to the benefits provided by various providers, thereby allowing a user to compare more effectively across/between providers.);
determining a compliance score (¶0960 in certain implementations one or more of the authentication tasks/modes referenced herein can be stopped prematurely and/or continued indefinitely depending upon inputs received from one or more sensors that correspond to behavior of a user. For example, if, at some point prior to the end of such a task, the device is determined to be likely to be operated by a driver (e.g., the device or aspects thereof are moving in a certain manner that can be determined to resemble that of a driver, such as (a) a relatively significant amount of ‘shaking’ as can be measured/determined based on inputs originating at the accelerometer and/or gyroscope of the device and/or (b) the manner in which the user input is provided can be determined to more closely resemble that of a driver, such as based on relatively inexact key presses, time to press keys, etc.), (a) the task can automatically be ended prematurely in failure, (b) the task can be scored/registered as failed, even despite the fact that the user may have completed the actual task successfully (and vice versa), and/or (c) the task length/time/difficulty is dynamically changed (i.e., the time in which the user must complete the task can be lengthened or shortened, the difficulty of the task can be increased or decreased, etc.), such as in the manner described herein.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the enhanced navigation instruction of Abramson with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth ¶0002 teaches that work machines moving through passages or paths of the mine site may need to adhere to certain operational requirements, particularly when operating autonomously;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth Abstract teaches work machines can be controlled to traverse the mine site according to the requirements set for the route properties, and Abramson Abstract teaches a likelihood of non-compliance by a user with the navigation instruction can be determined with respect to a navigation instruction based on the likelihood of non-compliance by the user with the navigation instruction; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth at least the above cited paragraphs, and Abramson at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the enhanced navigation instruction of Abramson with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Although not explicitly taught by Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson, Kalvenes teaches in the analogous art of overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system:
each of the production circuits comprising at least one production site and at least one dump site (Figs. 1A-2B and ¶0004 Grinding line performance data (or grinding line operation data) that estimates the grinding line performance or capacity can also be accessed. A description of a conveyance network design (i.e., conveyance network data) of the material processing system is generated. The conveyance network design can specifically help identify source nodes, sink nodes, transshipments nodes, and network arcs of the material processing system. In operation, sink nodes (i.e., stockpiles) can be configured to support blending a material. In particular, sink nodes are associated with grinding line performance data (e.g., an efficiency of processing a mineralogical property at each source node) that is a factor in blending the material. Network arcs of the conveyance network are labeled as interrupted source-sink paths or uninterrupted source-sink paths ¶0005 Uninterrupted source-sink paths are configured with fixed routing logic or variable routing logic. The interrupted source-sink paths are configurable with a variable speed routing logic. Interrupted source-sink paths are further configurable with a blending ratio associated with the materials received from a first source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system of Kalvenes with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth ¶0002 teaches that work machines moving through passages or paths of the mine site may need to adhere to certain operational requirements, particularly when operating autonomously;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth Abstract teaches work machines can be controlled to traverse the mine site according to the requirements set for the route properties, and Abramson Abstract teaches a likelihood of non-compliance by a user with the navigation instruction can be determined with respect to a navigation instruction based on the likelihood of non-compliance by the user with the navigation instruction, and Kalvenes Abstract teaches providing an overflow management configuration for a material processing system that blends a material from multiple sources; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson at least the above cited paragraphs, and Kalvenes at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system of Kalvenes with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Although not explicitly taught by Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson in further view of Kalvenes, Cella teaches in the analogous art of robot fleet management for value chain networks:
receiving, via a wireless communication network at the worksite, real-time production data comprising at least one of position data, payload data, energy state data, or queue status data from each of the plurality of work machines (¶0654 For example, machine twins 1770 may continuously capture the key operational metrics of the machines 724 and may be used to monitor and optimize machine performance in real time. Machine twins 1770 may combine sensor, performance, and environmental data, including insights from similar machines 724, enabling prediction of life span of various machine components and informed maintenance decisions. In embodiments, machine twins 1770 may generate an alert or other warning based on a change in operating characteristics of the machine 724. The alert may be due to an issue with a component of the machine 724 ¶0714 Some examples of questions that the predictive model may answer are: when will the machine fail, what type of failure it will be, what is the probability that a failure will occur within the next X hours, what is the remaining useful life of the machine, is the machine behaving in an uncharacteristic manner, which machine requires maintenance most urgently and the like.);
wherein the compliance score quantifies a deviation between an actual production rate of at least one of the plurality of production circuits and a target production rate specified in the production plan (¶0656 The operating facility digital twin 1172 may need to integrate the data from digital twins 1770 of different machines to get a holistic picture of the complete conveyor line in the operating facility 712 (e.g., a warehouse, distribution center, or fulfillment center where packages are moved along a conveyor and inspected before being sent out for delivery. While the digital twin of conveyor line may provide insights about only its performance, the composite digital twin may aggregate data across the different machines in the operating facility 712. Thus, it may provide an integrated view of individual machines and their interactions with environmental factors in the operating facility leading to insights about the overall health of the conveyor line within the operating facility 712. As another example, the supply factor twins 1650 and demand factor twins 1640 may be integrated to create a holistic picture of demand-supply equilibrium for a product 650. The integration of digital twins also enables the querying of multiple value chain network entities 652 and create a 360-degree view of the value chain network 668 and its various systems and subsystems. ¶0714 Some examples of questions that the predictive model may answer are: when will the machine fail, what type of failure it will be, what is the probability that a failure will occur within the next X hours, what is the remaining useful life of the machine, is the machine behaving in an uncharacteristic manner, which machine requires maintenance most urgently and the like. ¶0718 In embodiments, artificial intelligence system 1160 may output scores for each possible prediction, where each prediction corresponds to a possible outcome. For example, in using a predictive model used to determine a likelihood that a machine will fail in the next one week, the predictive model may output a score for a “will fail” outcome and a score for a “will not fail” outcome. The artificial intelligence system 1160 may then select the outcome with the greater score as the prediction. Alternatively, the system 1160 may output the respective scores to a requesting system. In embodiments, the output from system 1160 includes a probability of the prediction's accuracy. ¶1036 if the CEO has less financial experience or training, the CEO digital twin may be configured with summary financial data and may include prompts (which may be generated by an intelligent agent trained on a set of enterprise and/or industry outcomes) to obtain CFO input when states deviate from normal operating conditions. In this example, the CEO digital twin may be configured to depict the desired financial data fields at a granularity level set defined by a user (e.g., the financial data may include various revenue streams, cost streams, and the like));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the robot fleet management for value chain networks of Cella with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson in further view of Kalvenes for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth ¶0002 teaches that work machines moving through passages or paths of the mine site may need to adhere to certain operational requirements, particularly when operating autonomously;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth Abstract teaches work machines can be controlled to traverse the mine site according to the requirements set for the route properties, and Abramson Abstract teaches a likelihood of non-compliance by a user with the navigation instruction can be determined with respect to a navigation instruction based on the likelihood of non-compliance by the user with the navigation instruction, and Kalvenes Abstract teaches providing an overflow management configuration for a material processing system that blends a material from multiple sources and Cella Abstract teaches a robot fleet management platform includes datastores configured to store a governance library defining governance standards; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson in further view of Kalvenes at least the above cited paragraphs, and Cella at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the robot fleet management for value chain networks of Cella with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson in further view of Kalvenes. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Although not explicitly taught by Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson, Kalvenes teaches in the analogous art of overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system:
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein determining the first allocation is based at least in part on a material blend tolerance of material carried by the plurality of work machines to a destination (¶0022 ores can be pooled together or blended together using a material processing system, where pooling (a mix of materials in terms of percentage contribution) can be modeled as a non-linear problem in a network flow, in contrast to blending (a mix of materials in terms of absolute contribution) that can be modeled as a linear problem in a network flow. As such, sophistication in mine planning operations have created the diversity in ores being mined (i.e., ores with different types of hardness or softness) which introduces a different type of problem for material processing systems ¶0024 blending flow configuration is generated based in part on grinding efficiency. In particular, optimizing the grinding process—and the material processing system—can be based on transporting hard ore or soft ore to the grinding line that is most efficient at grinding the corresponding ore. And, in another embodiment, blending flow configuration can be implemented based on maximizing mineral recovery in a downstream flotation process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system of Kalvenes with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth ¶0002 teaches that work machines moving through passages or paths of the mine site may need to adhere to certain operational requirements, particularly when operating autonomously;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth Abstract teaches work machines can be controlled to traverse the mine site according to the requirements set for the route properties, and Abramson Abstract teaches a likelihood of non-compliance by a user with the navigation instruction can be determined with respect to a navigation instruction based on the likelihood of non-compliance by the user with the navigation instruction, and Kalvenes Abstract teaches providing an overflow management configuration for a material processing system that blends a material from multiple sources; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson at least the above cited paragraphs, and Kalvenes at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system of Kalvenes with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Although not explicitly taught by Pennagaram Hemanth, Abramson teaches in the analogous art of enhanced navigation instruction:
Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein determining the first allocation of the plurality of work machines is further based on energy availability for charging battery electric work machines at production circuits of the plurality of production circuits (¶1113 If the device is determined to be connected to a power source, the processes running on the device can also be so notified and can selectively increase the resources that they are using. Determination of the context can be further refined by also taking into account the level of charge of the device's battery. For example, if the device is not connected to power, but its battery is fully charged, it can be reasonable for processes to use resources more aggressively, whereas if the battery not fully charged, processes can be configured to lower their use of power intensive resources.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the enhanced navigation instruction of Abramson with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth ¶0002 teaches that work machines moving through passages or paths of the mine site may need to adhere to certain operational requirements, particularly when operating autonomously;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth Abstract teaches work machines can be controlled to traverse the mine site according to the requirements set for the route properties, and Abramson Abstract teaches a likelihood of non-compliance by a user with the navigation instruction can be determined with respect to a navigation instruction based on the likelihood of non-compliance by the user with the navigation instruction; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth at least the above cited paragraphs, and Abramson at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the enhanced navigation instruction of Abramson with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Although not explicitly taught by Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson, Kalvenes teaches in the analogous art of overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system:
Claim 4. The system of claim 1, further comprising determining a material flow rate associated with a production circuit of the plurality of production circuits, and wherein the second allocation is based at least in part on remaining within a threshold range of an average flow rate for the production circuit (¶0024 blending flow configuration is generated based in part on grinding efficiency. In particular, optimizing the grinding process—and the material processing system—can be based on transporting hard ore or soft ore to the grinding line that is most efficient at grinding the corresponding ore. And, in another embodiment, blending flow configuration can be implemented based on maximizing mineral recovery in a downstream flotation process ¶0032 The blending flow configuration engine 110A supports creating an optimal ore blend for the mill using the conveyance network to blend ore in real time. In particular, creating the optimal ore blend (i.e., solving the pooling or blending ratio problem) is based on routing from a source to a destination based on ore mineralogical properties and grinding line capabilities. Ore pooling (or blending ratio) can be based on an average flow of ore from sources to destination to achieve a desired blend for the grinding lines. Ore can typically be delivered in batches (e.g., truckloads) to the conveyance network.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system of Kalvenes with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth ¶0002 teaches that work machines moving through passages or paths of the mine site may need to adhere to certain operational requirements, particularly when operating autonomously;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth Abstract teaches work machines can be controlled to traverse the mine site according to the requirements set for the route properties, and Abramson Abstract teaches a likelihood of non-compliance by a user with the navigation instruction can be determined with respect to a navigation instruction based on the likelihood of non-compliance by the user with the navigation instruction, and Kalvenes Abstract teaches providing an overflow management configuration for a material processing system that blends a material from multiple sources; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson at least the above cited paragraphs, and Kalvenes at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system of Kalvenes with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Pennagaram Hemanth teaches:
Claim 5. The system of claim 1, wherein determining the compliance score comprises: determining a first work machine of the plurality of work machines causing bunching along a first production circuit of the plurality of production circuits; determining the second allocation comprises:reassignment of the first work machine to a second production circuit; and reassignment of a second work machine from the second production circuit to the first production circuit (¶0044 In contrast to selecting all of the nodes 220 and edges 225, FIG. 2 shows an example of selecting a sequence of only some of the nodes 220. The user, via the interactive graphic 200 provided via the user interface 160, can begin the selection process by selecting the node 230(1) as a first node, followed by node 230(2) in FIG. 2. The selection process can proceed with a selection 400 in the form of a sequence of nodes 230(1) up to node 230(8) as shown in FIG. 2. In this example, the selected nodes 220, i.e., selected nodes 230(1) to nodes 230(8), can be nodes 220 the user thinks he or she needs to set a property on, for instance, for safety reasons, as noted above, or additional or alternative reasons, such as for noise control, machine longevity, etc., based on characteristics of the passage or passages 112 such as width, traffic, traffic direction (one way or bidirectional), grade, roughness, obstacles, etc. ¶0079 At operation 506 the method 500 can include accessing route properties associated with the selected route. Access to the requirements for the route properties can include viewing the requirements. Hence, the user can access the requirements to understand current built-in parameters, if currently any, for autonomous operation of the work machines 102 about the mine site. Such viewing may also be to identify what route properties are even modifiable with requirements for a given part of the mine site or the entirety of the mine site. Access can additionally or alternatively include setting one or more parameters for the requirements for some or all of the mine site, such as some or all of the passages 112 in the mine site shown in FIG. 2).
Pennagaram Hemanth teaches:
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein determining the compliance score comprises: receiving work machine data from the plurality of work machines; determining operating parameters describing operating conditions of individual work machines of the plurality of work machines; and determining the compliance score is further based on the operating parameters being within a predetermined threshold range (¶0079 At operation 506 the method 500 can include accessing route properties associated with the selected route. Access to the requirements for the route properties can include viewing the requirements. Hence, the user can access the requirements to understand current built-in parameters, if currently any, for autonomous operation of the work machines 102 about the mine site. Such viewing may also be to identify what route properties are even modifiable with requirements for a given part of the mine site or the entirety of the mine site. Access can additionally or alternatively include setting one or more parameters for the requirements for some or all of the mine site, such as some or all of the passages 112 in the mine site shown in FIG. 2).
Pennagaram Hemanth teaches:
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein determining the second allocation comprises: determining tool delays associated with scheduled down-time for machines at the worksite; and determining the second allocation is further based at least in part on the tool delays (¶0085 (3) The system according to (1) or (2), further comprising communication infrastructure circuitry at the underground mine, different from the electronic mobile, handheld mine site tool and the communication circuitry of the work machines, to receive the signaling output from the control circuitry of the electronic mobile, handheld mine site tool and output signaling to the work machines to control the future operation of the work machines according to the current route requirements when the work machines traverse the selected route. ¶0057 Specific access upon selecting one of the selection inputs 245(1)-245(n), via the user interface 160, can bring up requirement options for the respective route properties. Notably, the currently selected requirement can be shown in the respective requirement landings 345 as generally shown in FIG. 4. For instance, FIG. 4 may show that the current requirement for Hint Override is “Centre (C).” Additional non-limiting examples including the requirement landing 345 showing the current requirement for Maximum Gear as “Third Gear” or the current requirement for Throttle Limit as maximum, i.e., 100%. According to one or more embodiments, each requirement landing, such as requirement landings 345 may present over a portion of the map 210, such as shown in FIG. 4.).
As per claims 8, 10-12, and 13 the method tracks the system of claims 1, 5-7, and 4 respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1, 5-7 and 4 are applied to claims 8, 10-12, and 13, respectively.
Pennagaram Hemanth teaches:
Claim 9. The method of claim 8, wherein determining the second allocation is further based at least in part on a flow at a station of at least one of the plurality of production circuits by reducing a queue of work machines at the station (¶0075 According to one or more embodiments, the user interface can allow a view of the generated route of the entire operational area. Embodiments can further include an algorithm that helps the user to select a portion/entire route to display generated route properties. Logical nodes and edges can govern the symbolization of the generated route. The user can be able to see a localized view of an interesting portion of the route. Furthermore, the user can change and apply properties of the route such as low of high gear, throttle, hints, bias, and attributes related to machine travel in both directions. The user would be able to see the properties dynamically change when the change is being made. On user satisfaction, the changes can be applied permanently on the selected route. ¶0044 In contrast to selecting all of the nodes 220 and edges 225, FIG. 2 shows an example of selecting a sequence of only some of the nodes 220. The user, via the interactive graphic 200 provided via the user interface 160, can begin the selection process by selecting the node 230(1) as a first node, followed by node 230(2) in FIG. 2. The selection process can proceed with a selection 400 in the form of a sequence of nodes 230(1) up to node 230(8) as shown in FIG. 2. In this example, the selected nodes 220, i.e., selected nodes 230(1) to nodes 230(8), can be nodes 220 the user thinks he or she needs to set a property on, for instance, for safety reasons, as noted above, or additional or alternative reasons, such as for noise control, machine longevity, etc., based on characteristics of the passage or passages 112 such as width, traffic, traffic direction (one way or bidirectional), grade, roughness, obstacles, etc.).
Although not explicitly taught by Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson, Kalvenes teaches in the analogous art of overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system:
a flow at a station of at least one of the plurality of production circuits by reducing a queue of work machines at the station (¶0020 By way of background, a material processing system can be associated with an industrial environment that manages continuous flow of a material as the material is being processed. The material processing system can refer to a complex physical manufacturing system or mining processing system that supports and processes continuous flow of a particular material. During the continuous material flow, the material processing system can extract a particular material property from the material. For example, the material processing system can include components that support extracting a valuable mineral from ores that are in a continuous flow process in the material processing system. The material processing system can also include on-premise gathering of data ¶0022 Conventionally, a material processing system—or mineral processing system (used interchangeably)—can be designed around hauling efficiency, which minimizes wait time for trucks or maximizes the number of tons transported for a fixed period of time. Such systems can further be naively configured as a single source-to-destination pair, without combining multiple sources to a single conveyor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system of Kalvenes with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth ¶0002 teaches that work machines moving through passages or paths of the mine site may need to adhere to certain operational requirements, particularly when operating autonomously;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth Abstract teaches work machines can be controlled to traverse the mine site according to the requirements set for the route properties, and Abramson Abstract teaches a likelihood of non-compliance by a user with the navigation instruction can be determined with respect to a navigation instruction based on the likelihood of non-compliance by the user with the navigation instruction, and Kalvenes Abstract teaches providing an overflow management configuration for a material processing system that blends a material from multiple sources; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson at least the above cited paragraphs, and Kalvenes at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the overflow management configuration engine in a material processing system of Kalvenes with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth in view of Abramson. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Pennagaram Hemanth teaches:
Claim 14. The method of claim 8, wherein determining the first allocation of the plurality of work machines comprises inputting first work machine data and the production plan into a first machine learning algorithm trained to output the first allocation; and determining the second allocation of the plurality of work machines comprises inputting second work machine data, the production plan, and the compliance score into the first machine learning algorithm to determine the second allocation (¶0075 According to one or more embodiments, the user interface can allow a view of the generated route of the entire operational area. Embodiments can further include an algorithm that helps the user to select a portion/entire route to display generated route properties. Logical nodes and edges can govern the symbolization of the generated route. The user can be able to see a localized view of an interesting portion of the route. Furthermore, the user can change and apply properties of the route such as low of high gear, throttle, hints, bias, and attributes related to machine travel in both directions. The user would be able to see the properties dynamically change when the change is being made. On user satisfaction, the changes can be applied permanently on the selected route.).
Although not explicitly taught by Pennagaram Hemanth, Abramson teaches in the analogous art of enhanced navigation instruction:
Claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein determining the compliance score comprises using a second machine learning model trained to receive inputs of work machine progress data and operating parameter data and output the compliance score (¶0607 Moreover, in certain implementations, in addition to (and/or instead of) determining or ‘learning’ the referenced TSLs and LSLs (e.g., using machine learning techniques as are known to those of ordinary skill in the an), the user (or another person knowledgeable about the user's travel patterns, e.g., an employer) can provide various input(s) as to one or more such locations at which she often makes LSLs (e.g., home driveway, work parking lot, etc.) or TSLs and device restrictions can be modified based upon the presence of the device in or near such one or more locations (e.g., as determined by GPS, WiFi access points or other signals) and, in certain implementations, further in conjunction with other inputs (e.g., speed, motion, etc.).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the enhanced navigation instruction of Abramson with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth ¶0002 teaches that work machines moving through passages or paths of the mine site may need to adhere to certain operational requirements, particularly when operating autonomously;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth Abstract teaches work machines can be controlled to traverse the mine site according to the requirements set for the route properties, and Abramson Abstract teaches a likelihood of non-compliance by a user with the navigation instruction can be determined with respect to a navigation instruction based on the likelihood of non-compliance by the user with the navigation instruction; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth at least the above cited paragraphs, and Abramson at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the enhanced navigation instruction of Abramson with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
As per claims 16 and 17 the system and manufacture tracks the method of claims 1 and 14, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1 and 14 are applied to claims 16 and 17, respectively.
Pennagaram Hemanth teaches:
Claim 18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein determining the second allocation of work machines comprises using a virtual controller to modify a short-term plan comprising a set of tasks or reconfigure the worksite to increase the compliance score (¶0040 Access to the requirements for the route properties can include viewing the requirements. Hence, the user can access the requirements to understand current built-in parameters, if currently any, for autonomous operation of the work machines 102 about the mine site. Such viewing may also be to identify what route properties are even modifiable with requirements for a given part of the mine site or the entirety of the mine site. Access can additionally or alternatively include setting one or more parameters for the requirements for some or all of the mine site, such as some or all of the passages 112 in the mine site shown in FIG. 2. Such setting may also be to apply or remove application of some or all of the requirements. The user interface 160 can be operational to receive inputs in this regard to access the route properties and hence set the requirements for select portions of the mine site (including all of the mine site).).
Pennagaram Hemanth teaches:
Claim 19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18, wherein the set of tasks comprise at least one of:modifying priorities of the set of tasks;modifying tasks; adding tasks; opening or closing destinations; pausing or removing tasks; or requesting relocation of equipment (¶0060 Setting each individual requirement, in this case changing the requirement, can cause indicia corresponding to the selected requirement to be displayed on the map 210. For instance, selecting the requirement “Hard Left (HL)” can cause ‘HL’ to be displayed in place of ‘C’ in FIG. 4; selecting the requirement “First Gear” can cause ‘1’ to be displayed in place of ‘3’; and modifying the “Throttle Limit” can cause the selected throttle percentage to be displayed in place of ‘100%.’ Such display of indicia can be in real time in response to the selection at the respective requirement landing 345 on the user interface 160. Thus, user interface 160 can display a dynamically changing requirement responsive to inputs to the user interface 160 to change the requirement. Changing one or more requirements for corresponding one or more route properties may be characterized as a modified requirement.).
Although not explicitly taught by Pennagaram Hemanth, Abramson teaches in the analogous art of enhanced navigation instruction:
Claim 20. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18, wherein the virtual controller may determine the set of tasks using at least one of simulation, machine learning, or reinforcement learning (¶0262 such technique(s) can further incorporate various comparisons and/or machine learning techniques with respect to characteristics pertaining to the battery of a device (e.g., in relation to the performance/operation of the specific battery and/or the specific device and/or across a population of identical and/or similar/comparable model batteries and/or devices over time). In certain implementations a variability in the rate at which a battery charges can be used to determine a context in which a device is operating (e.g., within a vehicle). Such determinations can be made based on the variability in the rate at which the battery of a device charges, as a device that is connected to a car charger is relatively more likely to display a relatively more variable battery charge rate than a device connected to a wall outlet.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the enhanced navigation instruction of Abramson with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth ¶0002 teaches that work machines moving through passages or paths of the mine site may need to adhere to certain operational requirements, particularly when operating autonomously;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth Abstract teaches work machines can be controlled to traverse the mine site according to the requirements set for the route properties, and Abramson Abstract teaches a likelihood of non-compliance by a user with the navigation instruction can be determined with respect to a navigation instruction based on the likelihood of non-compliance by the user with the navigation instruction; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Pennagaram Hemanth at least the above cited paragraphs, and Abramson at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the enhanced navigation instruction of Abramson with the system to select and apply route properties of a mine site of Pennagaram Hemanth. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 PM.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 5712726787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624