DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "an attachment configured to load a carried material onto a vehicle" in claim 1 and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A work machine comprising:
an attachment configured to load a carried material onto a vehicle; and
processing circuitry configured to
calculate a load weight of the carried material loaded onto the vehicle when the carried material is loaded onto the vehicle with the attachment,
receive a weighbridge measured value measured with a weighbridge device after the carried material is loaded onto the vehicle, the weighbridge measured value being a load weight of the carried material loaded onto the vehicle measured with the weighbridge device, and
generate a correction value based on the received weighbridge measured value and the calculated load weight, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to correct the calculated load weight using the generated correction value.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of apparatus Claim 7 which performs a similar process as claim 1.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a machine claim. Likewise, claim 7 is an system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and a Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “calculate a load weight of the carried material loaded onto the vehicle when the carried material is loaded onto the vehicle with the attachment”, “receive a weighbridge measured value measured with a weighbridge device after the carried material is loaded onto the vehicle”, “generate a correction value based on the received weighbridge measured value and the calculated load weight”, and “the processing circuitry is further configured to correct the calculated load weight using the generated correction value” which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to calculate a corrected load weight, these steps are basically taking measurements, comparing numbers, and adjusting the result and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations, e.g. see Spec. [Page 41, Lines 1-25] these steps involve doing math to figure out the relationship between the measured and calculated weights, such as finding a correction value or difference, and then using that to adjust the final load weight.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 7.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed system recites additional elements including “an attachment configured to load a carried material onto a vehicle” however the attachment is recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the use of the abstract calculations to loading carried material onto a vehicle. Loading the carried material is insignificant extra solution activity because the material must be loaded onto the vehicle before its load weight can be measured, compared, and corrected. The attachment does not improve the operation of the processing circuitry, the weighbridge device, or the load measurement technology, and therefore does not impose a meaningful limit on the recited abstract idea. Furthermore, the claim recites that the steps, e.g. “calculate, are performed by the “processing circuitry” however this is found to be equivalent to adding the words “apply it” and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a general purpose computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Apparatus claim 7 recites the same additional elements as system claim 1.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality (e.g. using “work machine” and “processing circuitry”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. The attachment merely loads the carried material onto the vehicle before the weight data is obtained and processed. The attachment does not use the calculated or corrected load weight to control or change the loading operation recited in claims 1 and 7. The processing circuitry merely performs the recited calculations on the obtained weight data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, but merely apply the exception in the technological environment of a work machine used to load material onto a vehicle.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (claims 1 and 7). The additional elements include the attachment and processing circuitry. The attachment performs its ordinary function of loading carried material, and the processing circuitry performs the ordinary functions of receiving weight data and carrying out the recited calculations. The use of an attachment for loading material and processing circuitry for processing load measurements was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant field, as evidenced by Rosgardt (US 20230314206 A1) at paragraphs [0027] and [0034]-[0036]. The elements merely apply the recited mathematical calculations using conventional loading and processing components and do not provide an inventive concept. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. mere instructions to apply using generic processing circuitry and computer-readable instructions, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 7, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-5, 8, and 10-11, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for claims 1 and 7. Specifically:
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 8 specifically, the claims further recite receiving or transmitting the weighbridge measured value from a weighbridge device. These are basic data communication steps that involve routine transmission of measured values between components. Such activity is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not add meaningfully to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 (g)(h).
With respect to dependent claims 3 specifically, the claims further recite that the weighbridge measured value is input by an operator or corresponds to a weight of the carried material, with the vehicle weight measured by the weighbridge device. These simply specify the source or type of data and do not alter how the system functions. The limitations are directed to conventional data entry and measurements, which are standard in the field and do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05 (f)(h).
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 5 specifically, the claims further recite generating a correction value as a ratio or difference between the weighbridge measured value and load weight, divided by a number of loaded times. These are purely mathematical computations based on collected data and do not improve the operation of the sensors or processing circuitry. The limitations are directed to mathematical relationships and post-processing of data, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 10 specifically, the claim further recites causing the work machine to load the carried material onto the vehicle with the attachment based on the corrected load weight. This merely uses the result of the abstract calculations to control when loading occurs and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not improve the functioning of the work machine, processing circuitry, or any other technology, but instead merely applies the abstract idea in the particular field of material loading. Accordingly, the additional limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(h).
With respect to dependent claim 11 specifically, the claim further recites receiving a sensor detected value for the work machine, calculating the load weight based on the received sensor detected value and transmitting the corrected load weight to the work machine so that loading is performed based on the transmitted corrected load weight. These limitations do not improve the operation of the sensor, processing circuitry, or communication technology, but instead merely use generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(h).
Accordingly, for the reasons above and those discussed in relation to independent claim 1 and 7, the dependent claims are insufficient to integrate the claimed abstract ideas into a practical application or significant more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230314206 A1, Rosgardt et al (hereinafter Rosgardt) in view of US 20200041329 A1 , Shike et al. (hereinafter Shike).
Regarding Claim 1 and 7, Rosgardt discloses a work machine (Rosgardt, [0025] In FIG. 1, a two-axle truck 10 for road traffic is shown positioned on a weighbridge (or truck scale) 80. The truck 10, which may be an autonomous or conventional vehicle) comprising:
an attachment configured to load a carried material onto a vehicle (Rosgardt, [0035] The loader 20 for its part has a front axle load sensor 21, a rear axle load sensor 22 and a bucket load sensor 23): and
processing circuitry (Rosgardt, [0027] To implement an embodiment of the present invention, the truck 10 may be communicatively connectable to the weighbridge 80 over a wired or wireless communication interface (not shown) and may comprise processing circuitry (not shown)) configured to
calculate a load weight of the carried material loaded onto the vehicle (Rosgardt, [0035] The bucket load sensor 23 is configured to sense the mass of the material currently present in the bucket 29 [0036] Between the two vehicles 10, 20, there is established a communication link of one of the types discussed above, so that the loader (second vehicle) 20 may assist the truck (first vehicle) 10 in determining a bedload (load) of the truck 10. The endpoints of the communication link may be a respective communication interface in each vehicle 10, 20) when the carried material is loaded onto the vehicle with the attachment (Rosgardt, [0034] FIG. 2 shows two independently operating vehicles which perform embodiments of the present invention. More precisely, the “first vehicle” in the sense of the appended claims is a construction truck 10 and the “second vehicle” is a loader 20. The truck 10 is shown receiving goods from the bucket 29 of the loader 20),
receive a weighbridge measured value (Rosgardt, [0026] The weighbridge 80 generally consists of a plate 89, which is supported by one or more weight sensors 81, 82. The gross vehicle weight of the truck 10 standing on the weighbridge 80 may be computed as the sum of the readings of the weight sensors 81, 82); and
generate a correction value, based on the received weighbridge measured value and the calculated load weight (Rosgardt, [0012] A “combination” of the internal and external value may be an average or a weighted average, wherein weights may be (inversely) related to the respective accuracies of the values. A value captured by the vehicle's sensor which has then been calibrated using the external value is another “combination” in the sense of the claims. This applies in particular to post-calibrated values from the vehicle's sensor, i.e., values to which has been applied a correction term or correction factor computed on the basis of the external value), wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to correct the calculated load weight by using the generated correction value (Rosgardt, [0012] Also covered by the term “combination” is the output of a machine-learning algorithm (artificial intelligence, AI) having been trained to correct the internal value reading on the basis of past comparisons with external values).
Rosgardt does not disclose measured with a weighbridge device after the carried material is loaded onto the vehicle, the weighbridge measured value being a load weight of the carried material loaded onto the vehicle measured with the weighbridge device
However, Shike teaches measured with a weighbridge device after the carried material is loaded onto the vehicle (Shike, [0020] A load weight management system 1 manages weight of soil loaded on a transport vehicle T at a loading site of the soil), the weighbridge measured value being a load weight of the carried material loaded onto the vehicle measured with the weighbridge device (Shike, [0077] Meanwhile, the load weight receiver 407 of the server device 400 determines whether or not the transport vehicle ID and the load weight information from the work vehicle 100 are received from the work vehicle 100 (Step S2205). In a case where the transport vehicle ID and the load weight information from the work vehicle 100 are received from the work vehicle 100 (Step S2205: YES), the remaining load weight calculator 408 calculates the remaining load weight of the transport vehicle T, according to the allowable vehicle total weight and the no-loading vehicle total weight acquired by the vehicle weight acquirer 405, and the load weight information received by the load weight receiver 407 (Step S2206))
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rosgardt to integrate Shike’s weighbridge load measurements technique because both references are directed to improving load determination and loading management in work vehicles using measured vehicles weight information and externally obtained weight values. Rosgardt teaches calibrating load values using external weighbridge values to improve the accuracy and reliability of the load calculations, while Shike teaches measuring the load weight with a weighbridge device after the carried material is loaded onto the vehicle and using the measured load weight to manage loading operations, including determining remaining loading capacity to prevent overload and improve loading efficiency. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Shike’s weighbridge measurement technique into Rosgardt’s load determination system because doing so would have improved the accuracy and reliability of the calibrated load values while utilizing known weighbridge measurement and vehicle communication techniques.
Regarding Claim 2 and 8, Rosgardt in view of Shike discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive the weighbridge measured value transmitted from the weighbridge device (Rosgardt, [0028] The truck 10 may obtain the external value V.sub.20 by sending a request to a communication interface of the weighbridge 80, to which the weighbridge 80 is expected to respond by sending a data message with the external value V.sub.20)
Rosgardt does not disclose the weighbridge device being configured to measure the weighbridge measured value by subtracting a weight of the vehicle in an unloaded state from a weight of the vehicle loaded with the carried material.
However, Shike teaches the weighbridge device being configured to measure the weighbridge measured value by subtracting a weight of the vehicle in an unloaded state from a weight of the vehicle loaded with the carried material (Shike, [0039] The vehicle weight receiver 1003 receives, from the server device 400, no-loading vehicle total weight in the transport vehicle T to be loaded with the soil measured by the truck scale 300 and allowable vehicle total weight of the transport vehicle T. A combination of the no-loading vehicle total weight measured by the truck scale 300 and the allowable vehicle total weight is an example of weight information on a loadable weight [0043] The remaining load weight calculator 1007 calculates the remaining load weight of the transport vehicle T, according to the no-loading weight and the allowable vehicle total weight received by the vehicle weight receiver 1003 and the load weight calculated by the load weight calculator 1005 [0058] The remaining load weight calculator 408 calculates the remaining load weight of the transport vehicle T, according to the allowable vehicle total weight and the no-loading vehicle total weight acquired by the vehicle weight acquirer 405, and the load weight information received by the load weight receiver 407. [0059] The remaining load weight transmitter 409 transmits the information on the remaining load weight calculated by the remaining load weight calculator 408 to the communication terminal 200. The remaining load weight transmitter 409 is an example of an output unit which outputs the information on the remaining load weight.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rosgardt and Shike teaching because Shike teaches Rosgardt teaches obtaining a weighbridge measured value transmitted from a weighbridge device for calibrating internally determined load values, while Shike teaches determining the weighbridge measured value by subtracting the weight of the vehicle in a unloaded state from the weight of the vehicle loaded with the carried material. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Shike’s weighbridge measurement technique into Rosgardt’s calibrated load determination system because doing so would have provided a reliable technique for determining the load weight measured by the weighbridge device.
Regarding Claim 3, Shike in view of Rosgardt teaches the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive the weighbridge (Shike, [0047] the truck scale body 301 is installed at an entrance of the loading site. As a result, the truck scale 300 can measure the no-loading vehicle total weight of the transport vehicle T entering the loading site) measured value input by an operator (Shike, [0047] a method of acquiring the transport vehicle ID includes a method of acquiring the transport vehicle ID from the communication terminal 200 by short-range wireless communication with the communication terminal 200 provided in the transport vehicle T, a method in which a driver of the transport vehicle T inputs the transport vehicle ID to the identification information acquisition device 302 via an input unit).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rosgardt and Shike’s teachings because Shike teaches a truck scale system comprising structures and devices that can measure the weight of a vehicle and its load. Rosgardt does not explicitly disclose that the weighbridge measured value as inputted by an operator or driver. Shike further teaches that truck drivers may interact with the scale system, as a weighbridge measured value can be attained using the truck driver device and inputted into the driver system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Shike’s system into Rosgardt’s system load system to allow driver data entry or confirmation of the weighbridge value.
Regarding Claim 4, Rosgardt discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the correction value (Rosgardt, [0012] a value captured by the vehicle's sensor which has then been calibrated using the external value is another “combination” in the sense of the claims. This applies in particular to post-calibrated values from the vehicle's sensor, i.e., values to which has been applied a correction term or correction factor computed on the basis of the external value).
Rosgardt does not disclose generating the correction value based on a ratio of the weighbridge measured value to the load weight.
However, Shike teaches generating the correction value based on a ratio of the weighbridge measured value to the load weight (Shike [0097] a display indicating that the loading reaches an ideal loading capacity at a time when reaches the progress ratio of the loading, instead of the remaining load weight. For example, the ideal loading capacity indicates a state within a range of 90% to 100% in the progress ratio of the loading [0098] Moreover, the load weight management system 1 according to still another embodiment may output a display promoting an adjustment of the loading amount due to overloading occurring if the loading is applied by a bucket maximum capacity at the time of the next loading at a time when the loading reaches the predetermined remaining load weight, the number of the remaining loads, or the progress ratio of the loading, instead of the remaining load weight.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rosgardt and Shike’s teachings because both references are directed to improving the accuracy and reliability of load determination in work machines. Rosgardt already relies on calibrated sensor values and correction factors derived from external measurements, while Shike provides a method of expressing load information using ratios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrated Shike’s ratio based computation with Rosgardt’s calibrated sensor system to achieve improved correction values without changing the fundamental operation of Rosgardt’s system.
Regarding Claim 5, Rosgardt discloses the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the correction value (Rosgardt, [0012] a value captured by the vehicle's sensor which has then been calibrated using the external value is another “combination” in the sense of the claims. This applies in particular to post-calibrated values from the vehicle's sensor, i.e., values to which has been applied a correction term or correction factor computed on the basis of the external value) in the generating is generated based on a value obtained… (Rosgardt, [0012] a value captured by the vehicle's sensor which has then been calibrated using the external value is another “combination” in the sense of the claims. This applies in particular to post-calibrated values from the vehicle's sensor, i.e., values to which has been applied a correction term or correction factor computed on the basis of the external value)…
Rosgardt does not disclose generating the correction value based on dividing a difference between the calculated load weight and the weighbridge measured value by a number of loading times.
However, Shike teaches generating the correction value based on dividing (Shike, [0096] the number of the remaining loads can be obtained by dividing the remaining load weight by the load weight when is loaded once by the work vehicle 100. For example, the load weight when is loaded once may be a value input in advance, or may be a value measured in advance using the load weight calculator 1005, or may be a value calculated from an average value of the past loading history or the like. The remaining load weight and the number of the remaining loads are examples of information on the remaining loading capacity) a difference between the calculated load weight and the weighbridge measured value by a number of loading times (Shike, [0076] the information on the remaining load weight of the transport vehicle T is displayed on the input/output device 122. More specifically, the progress bar i2 displayed on the input/output device 122 displays a ratio of a loaded weight to the initial value of the remaining load weight. The loaded weight is a value obtained by subtracting a current remaining load weight from the initial value of the remaining load weight or by accumulating the load weight calculated by the load weight calculator 1005. In addition, the current remaining load weight is displayed on the capacity label i3. Moreover, for example, in addition to these, the input/output device 122 according to another embodiment may display the loaded weight or the number of loading. The number of loading is equal to the number of times that it is determined that the soil is unloaded in Step S2105)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rosgardt and Shike’s teachings because both references teach load measurement and correction using internal and external weight data. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Shike’s technique of deriving a correction or load-weight adjustment based on parameters such as the difference of measured and actual load weights across multiple loads into Rosgardt’s system to improve the accuracy of the correction value through averaging over repeated load attempts.
Regarding Claim 10, Rosgardt in view of Shike discloses the work machine according to claim 1, work machine to load the carried material onto the vehicle with the attachment (Rosgardt, [0035] The loader 20 for its part has a front axle load sensor 21, a rear axle load sensor 22 and a bucket load sensor 23)
Rosgardt does not disclose based on the corrected load weight.
However, Shike teaches wherein the processing circuitry (Shike, [0099] a display indicating that the loading reaches an overload state at the time when the loading reaches the predetermined remaining load weight, the number of the remaining loads, or the progress ratio of the loading, instead of the remaining load weight. For example, the loading capacity in the overload state indicates a state where the loading is larger than 100% in the progress ratio of the loading) is further configured to cause the work machine to load the carried material onto the vehicle with the attachment based on the corrected load weight (Shike, [0076] in a case where the vehicle weight receiver 1003 receives the loadable weight, the remaining load weight may be calculated according to the loadable weight. The output unit 1008 outputs an instruction to display the information on the remaining load weight calculated by the remaining load weight calculator 1007 to the input/output device 122 (Step S2109). Accordingly, the information on the remaining load weight of the transport vehicle T is displayed on the input/output device 122. More specifically, the progress bar i2 displayed on the input/output device 122 displays a ratio of a loaded weight to the initial value of the remaining load weight. The loaded weight is a value obtained by subtracting a current remaining load weight from the initial value of the remaining load weight or by accumulating the load weight calculated by the load weight calculator 1005)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rosgardt and Shike teaching because Shike teaches controlling and managing loading operations using remaining load weight, loadable weight, loading progress rations, and overload-state determinations based on calculated load information. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have integrated Shike’s loading management and overload prevention techniques into Rosgard’s calibrated load determination system would have improved loading accuracy, loading efficiency, and overload prevention while utilizing payload measurement, vehicle weighing, and communication techniques.
Regarding Claim 11, Rosgardt in view of Shike discloses the system according to claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to
receive a sensor-detected value from the work machine (Rosgardt, [0019] FIG. 1 shows a truck on a weighbridge, wherein the truck is equipped with load sensors and configured in accordance with an embodiment of the invention; [0020] FIG. 2 shows a construction truck which is in the process of receiving goods from the bucket of a loader, the two vehicles being equipped with load sensors, connected by a communication link and each configured in accordance with an embodiment of the invention; [0021] FIG. 3 shows a construction truck which is receiving a bulk material from a stationary facility, the construction truck being equipped with load sensors, connected to the stationary facility by a communication link and configured in accordance with an embodiment of the invention; [0022] FIG. 4 is a sequence diagram showing an exchange of data messages between two vehicles, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention),
calculate the load weight of the carried material loaded onto the vehicle based on the received sensor-detected value (Rosgardt, [0030] The processing circuitry of the truck 10 compares the two accuracy values ACC(V10), ACC(V20) and decides whether the gross vehicle weight shall be determined to be equal to the internal value V.sub.10, an external value V.sub.20 or a combination thereof [0035] The bucket load sensor 23 is configured to sense the mass of the material currently present in the bucket 29; this may for example be achieved by measuring strain of a mechanical element or a hydraulic pressure), and
Rosgardt does not disclose calculate the load weight of the carried material loaded onto the vehicle based on the received sensor-detected value, and
transmit the corrected load weight to the work machine so that the work machine loads the carried material onto the vehicle with the attachment based on the transmitted corrected load weight.
However, Shike teaches calculate the load weight of the carried material loaded onto the vehicle based on the received sensor-detected value (Shike, [0020] A load weight management system 1 manages weight of soil loaded on a transport vehicle T at a loading site of the soil), and
transmit the corrected load weight to the work machine so that the work machine loads the carried material onto the vehicle with the attachment based on the transmitted corrected load weight (Shike, [0084] the server device 400 according to the first embodiment transmits the calculated remaining load weight on the transport vehicle T to the communication terminal 200. In a case where the communication terminal 200 is provided in the transport vehicle T, after the driver of the transport vehicle T checks that the weight of the transport vehicle T operated by the driver is within the allowable vehicle total weight, the driver can transport the soil. [0042] The soil weight transmitter 1006 transmits load weight information indicating the load weight calculated by the load weight calculator 1005 to the server device 400. The soil weight transmitter 1006 is an example of a weight transmitter which transmits the weight information indicating the weight measured by the payload meter 117 to the outside)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rosgardt and Shike teaching because Rosgardt teaches calculating a load weight based on sensor detected values obtained from the work machine, while Shike teaches transmitting the calculated load weight and remaining load weight information from the work machine to a transport vehicle for use in loading management, remaining loading capacity determination, and overload prevention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Shike’s load information technique into Rosgardt’s load determination system because doing so would have enabled the calculated load weight to be communicated for loading operations using weighbridge communication techniques, thereby improving load efficiency, load management, and reducing the likelihood of overload.
Response to Amendment
35 USC§ 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 of the 35 35 USC§ 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive. Although, Applicant amended the claims to recite a weighbridge measured value and correction of a calculated load weight, the claims still recite receiving data, performing mathematical calculations, and generating corrected load values, which are abstract ideas. The additional elements including the attachment, weighbridge device, processing circuitry, work machine, and communication of measured values, are generic components performing their ordinary functions and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC§ 101 is maintained.
35 USC§ 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 6-9 of the 35 USC§ 102 rejection and with respect to claims 3-5 of the 35 USC§ 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Rosgardt does not teach calculating or receiving the load weight of the carried material loaded onto the vehicle, the rejection does not rely on Rosgardt alone for this limitation. Rather, as explained above, Shike is relied upon for teaching the weighbridge measurement and load determination limitations and it would have been motivating to integrate Shike’s teaching into Rosgardt for the reasons set forth in the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC§ 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6612. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights