DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 12/1/2025. Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections of claims 1-9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the amendments to claims 1 and 14 do not introduce new matter (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure does not appear to explicitly include predicting an upcoming violation based on a detected growth rate, and automatically generating output signals upon initiating or reestablishing communication between the vehicle. See rejections below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that waiting until communication is established to transmit information represents an improvement in the function of computer network and machines (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 17-18), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Transmitting an output signal between two vehicles serves to initiate communication, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, between the vehicles. Therefore, selectively generating output signals automatically upon initiating or reestablishing communication between vehicles amounts to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, automatically sending data upon initiating or reestablishing communication between computers represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. It is further noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., waiting before transmitting) is not explicitly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although paragraphs 59 and fig. 3 disclose selectively generating output signals upon initiating or reestablishing communication, there does not appear to be disclosure of the controller stopping, delaying, or otherwise suppressing generating output signals until communication is initiated or reestablished. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they recite a specific technological solution (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 18-19), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The perception sensors and controller are generically recited computer components. Although, in claim 14, the work machines are configured to comminute material, the claims do not explicitly recite them comminuting the material contained in the first stockpile. Similarly, no specific features of the stockpile clearing vehicles are required other than their ability to carry material. Therefore, the additional elements of “one or more work machines configured to comminute material…” and “one or more stockpile clearing vehicles” appear to merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that automatic and simultaneous processes involving continuous sensor data collection, multidimensional analysis and data transformation, and communication availability monitoring are not within the scope of what the human mind is equipped to perform (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 19-20), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person is capable of simultaneously observing a video displaying a material pile, estimating the amount of material in the pile and its rate of growth, and determining if a hauling vehicle is within communication range. The claims do not recite subject matter that cannot be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Thomas only discloses “controller 145 transmitting information regarding the volume of material 180 to machine 110” in response to operator requests, not automatic transmission upon communication establishment and therefore does not address unreliable coverage or implement opportunistic communication based on communication availability (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14-15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Transmitting an output signal between two vehicles serves to initiate communication, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, between the vehicles. Although Thomas discloses transmitting material volume in response to an operator request, Thomas further discloses, in paragraphs 64-65, the controller determining the material volume in real time and transmitting volume information between the vehicles based on the volume of material. Therefore, Thomas discloses selectively generating output signals upon initiating communication between work machines. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Thomas only discloses volume determinations without any boundary condition detection (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s specification, in paragraphs 18, 53 and 68, discloses that the boundary condition may be a volume. Therefore, boundary condition detection, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes the volume determination of Thomas. See rejection below.
Drawings
The drawings received on 12/1/2025 are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 12/1/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, lines 7-9 and 8-10, respectively, the limitation “predict[ing] an upcoming violation … based … on one or more multidimensional characteristics and a detected growth rate” appears to be new matter because the disclosure does not appear to include predicting an upcoming violation based on a detected growth rate. Figure 3 discloses predicting a boundary condition of a stockpile based on its multidimensional characteristics, and that the growth rate is separately detected prior to initiating or reestablishing communication between the vehicles. Paragraph 53 further discloses the controller may detect a growth rate and predict the growth rate based on other multidimensional characteristics. Although paragraph 55 discloses predicting an upcoming violation based on a monitored trend over time with respect to the multidimensional characteristics, the prediction is not inherently based on the one or more multidimensional characteristics and the detected growth rate because a trend over time is not inherently a growth rate, and a prediction based on a trend over time with respect to multidimensional characteristics is not inherently a prediction based on a trend over time and multidimensional characteristics.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, lines 10-13 and 11-14, respectively, the limitation “automatically upon initiating or reestablishing communication … selectively generating output signals” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be inherent or explicit disclosure that the controller automatically generates output signals upon initiating or reestablishing communication between the vehicles. Step 420 of figure 3 and paragraph 59 disclose the controller is configured to selectively generate output signals upon initiating or reestablishing communication between the vehicles, however, the controller could, for example, generate the output signals in response to a selection by the vehicle’s operator upon determining the vehicles are within communication range.
Claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, lines 6-9 and 7-10, respectively, the limitation “detect[ing] a boundary condition associated with the … stockpile … and predict[ing] an upcoming violation … based … on the … multidimensional characteristics and a detected growth rate thereof” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the detected growth rate is a growth rate of the multidimensional characteristics, boundary condition, or the stockpile. Paragraph 53 discloses the controller may be configured to detect a growth rate of the one or more stockpiles, and the growth rate may be a prediction based on other multidimensional characteristics, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the upcoming violation prediction is based on the detected growth rate of the stockpile.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, lines 10-13 and 11-14, respectively, the limitation “automatically … selectively generate output signals” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the output signals are selectively generated automatically by the controller. The disclosure does not appear to define how the output signals are selectively generated, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that selectively generating output signals refers generally to outputting signals that are designated (e.g., selected, predetermined, optimal, etc.) for output in some way.
Claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 14 is directed to a system for coordinating clearance of a work area (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 14 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 14 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 14 recites:
A system for coordinating clearance of a work area, the system comprising:
one or more work machines configured to comminute material from the work area and deliver the comminuted material into one or more stockpiles;
one or more perception sensors configured to monitor, for at least a first stockpile, one or more multidimensional characteristics thereof;
a controller configured to detect a boundary condition associated with the at least first stockpile, and predict an upcoming violation of a predetermined threshold associated with the boundary condition, based at least in part on the monitored one or more multidimensional characteristics and a detected growth rate thereof [mental process/step]; and
wherein the controller is configured to, automatically upon initiating or reestablishing communication between at least a first work machine of the one or more work machines and at least a first stockpile clearing vehicle of one or more stockpile clearing vehicles associated with the work area, selectively generate output signals corresponding to the one or more multidimensional characteristics and/or the boundary condition of the at least one stockpile and to transmit the output signals between the first work machine and the first stockpile clearing vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “detect a boundary condition associated with the at least first stockpile…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at a pile of material and estimating its height. “Predict an upcoming violation…” in the context of this claim encompasses the person estimating how much time remains before the pile height reaches a discharge conveyor. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for coordinating clearance of a work area, the system comprising:
one or more work machines configured to comminute material from the work area and deliver the comminuted material into one or more stockpiles [generic vehicles];
one or more perception sensors configured to monitor, for at least a first stockpile, one or more multidimensional characteristics thereof [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
a controller [applying the abstract idea using a generic computing module] configured to detect a boundary condition associated with the at least first stockpile, and predict an upcoming violation of a predetermined threshold associated with the boundary condition, based at least in part on the monitored one or more multidimensional characteristics and a detected growth rate thereof; and
wherein the controller is configured to, automatically upon initiating or reestablishing communication between at least a first work machine of the one or more work machines and at least a first stockpile clearing vehicle of one or more stockpile clearing vehicles associated with the work area, selectively generate output signals corresponding to the one or more multidimensional characteristics and/or the boundary condition of the at least one stockpile and to transmit the output signals between the first work machine and the first stockpile clearing vehicle [insignificant post-solution activity (transmitting data)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “one or more perception sensors configured to monitor…” and “…automatically … generate output signals…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (controller) to perform the process. In particular, the monitoring step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining dimensional information of the pile), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating output signals step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of sending information to a vehicle), and amounts to merely transmitting data, which is another form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of “one or more work machines” and “one or more stockpile clearing vehicles” are recited at a high level of generality and appear to merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 14 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a controller to “detect a boundary condition associated with the at least first stockpile…” and “predict an upcoming violation…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing module. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Although the work machines are configured to comminute material, the claims do not explicitly recite them comminuting the material contained in the first stockpile. Similarly, no specific features of the stockpile clearing vehicles are required other than their ability to carry material. Therefore, the additional elements of “one or more work machines configured to comminute material…” and “one or more stockpile clearing vehicles” appear to merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “one or more perception sensors configured to monitor…” and “…automatically … generate output signals…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 1 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 14 except drawn to a method (i.e., a process) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. In claims 8 and 20, the additional limitation of “perform a loading operation” amounts to merely transmitting and displaying data, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity, because paragraphs 48, 58 and 61 disclose the loading operation is performed by sending an indication that is displayed to the operator of a stockpile clearing vehicle. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 14.
Therefore, claims 1-17 and 19-20 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2022/0130063) in view of Brammeier et al. (US 2020/0128734), hereinafter Thomas and Brammeier, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a method of coordinating clearance of a work area comprising one or more stockpiles of comminuted material (Thomas; para. 37: The areas of interest may include a location of tool 140 of machine 105, a location of truck bed 175 of machine 110, and/or a location of a pile of material 180.) worked via one or more work machines (Thomas; para. 14: machine 105 is embodied as a loading machine, such as an excavator. Alternatively, machine 105 may be another type of loading machine such as, for example, a dozer, a wheel loader, and/or a similar machine), the method comprising: automatically monitoring, via one or more perception sensors, and for at least a first stockpile of the one or more stockpiles, one or more multidimensional characteristics thereof (Thomas; para. 37: Stereo camera device 160 may configured to obtain image data and transmit the image data to controller 145 to enable controller 145 to determine the volume and/or the density of material 180. The image data may include images of an area associated with machine 105 (e.g., an area surrounding machine 105). The image data may identify areas of interest associated with machine 105. The areas of interest may include a location of tool 140 of machine 105, a location of truck bed 175 of machine 110, and/or a location of a pile of material 180.); detecting a boundary condition associated with the at least first stockpile (Thomas; para. 42: Controller 145 may obtain data from one or more IMUs 150, load sensor device 155, and/or stereo camera devices 160 to determine a volume of material 180 and/or a volume of material 180 moved by machine 105, as described in more detail below. In some examples, controller 145 may receive a request to determine a volume (and/or a density) of material moved and/or to be moved by machine 105 (e.g., a volume and/or a density of material 180 loaded into truck bed 175, a volume and/or a density of material 180 in tool 140, and/or a volume and/or a density of material 180 in a pile within a threshold distance of machine 105 and/or machine 110).), and a detected growth rate thereof (Thomas; para. 61: Controller 145 may store (e.g., in the one or more memories) information identifying the different volumes of the 3D portion over the period of time (e.g., during a work shift); para. 58: the 3D portion may correspond to the pile of material 180); and automatically upon initiating or reestablishing communication between at least a first work machine of the one or more work machines and at least a first stockpile clearing vehicle of one or more stockpile clearing vehicles associated with the work area, selectively generating output signals corresponding to the one or more multidimensional characteristics and/or the boundary condition of the at least first stockpile and transmitting the output signals between the first work machine and the first stockpile clearing vehicle (Thomas; para. 65: Controller 145 may perform an action based on the volume of material 180. For example, the action may include controller 145 transmitting information [i.e., initiating communication by beginning the data transmission then automatically transmitting the data] regarding the volume of material 180 to machine 110).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose predicting an upcoming violation of a predetermined threshold associated with the boundary condition, based at least in part on the monitored one or more multidimensional characteristics and the detected growth rate thereof.
Brammeier, in a reasonably pertinent field of endeavor (agricultural machines), discloses predicting an upcoming violation of a predetermined threshold associated with a boundary condition, based at least in part on monitored one or more multidimensional characteristics (Brammeier; para. 61: Remaining capacity identifier logic 172 also receives a current fill level of the local material repository … This can be based on a sensor input 238 from current fill level sensor 170) and the detected growth rate thereof (Brammeier; para. 111: communication subsystem 202 can be controlled to communicate with a user associated with a haulage vehicle, to provide … predicted time to fill capacity … a haulage vehicle can be automatically controlled for the unloading operation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have predicted when the volume of stored material is expected to exceed a threshold, as disclosed by Brammeier, in the controller of Thomas, with the motivation of preventing idle time spent waiting for the arrival of a hauling unit thereby increasing logistical efficiency (Brammeier; paras. 6-7).
Regarding claim 2, Thomas, as modified, discloses detecting the boundary condition comprises detecting the boundary condition via a controller associated with the at least first work machine (Thomas; para. 42: Controller 145 may obtain data from one or more IMUs 150, load sensor device 155, and/or stereo camera devices 160 to determine a volume of material 180 and/or a volume of material 180 moved by machine 105, as described in more detail below. In some examples, controller 145 may receive a request to determine a volume (and/or a density) of material moved and/or to be moved by machine 105 (e.g., a volume and/or a density of material 180 loaded into truck bed 175, a volume and/or a density of material 180 in tool 140, and/or a volume and/or a density of material 180 in a pile within a threshold distance of machine 105 and/or machine 110).).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas, as modified, discloses detecting the boundary condition comprises detecting the boundary condition via a controller associated with the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle (Thomas; para. 45: Device 230 may include one or more devices that may monitor a volume and/or a density of material moved by different machines (e.g., machine 105, machine 110, and/or other machines) … device 230 may be included in machine 110.).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas, as modified, discloses communication is initiated or reestablished between the at least first work machine and the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle in the work area based at least in part on proximity of the at least first work machine relative to the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle (Thomas; paras. 42-43: controller 145 may receive a request to determine a volume (and/or a density) of material moved and/or to be moved by machine 105 (e.g., a volume and/or a density of material 180 loaded into truck bed 175, a volume and/or a density of material 180 in tool 140, and/or a volume and/or a density of material 180 in a pile within a threshold distance of machine 105 and/or machine 110) … Controller 145 may receive the request from … an operator of machine 110 [i.e., dump truck 110 requests the pile volume from excavator 105 when they are both within a threshold distance from the pile]).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas, as modified, discloses communication between the at least first work machine and the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle is initiated or reestablished via a preexisting work area communications network (Thomas; para. 25: wireless communication component 165 may communicate with the one or more machines via a network that includes one or more wired and/or wireless networks, such as, for example, a wireless local area network (LAN), a cellular network (e.g., a long-term evolution (LTE) network, a code division multiple access (CDMA) network, a 3G network, a 4G network, a 5G network, or another type of cellular network), a public land mobile network (PLMN), a wide area network (WAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), a telephone network (e.g., the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)), a private network, an ad hoc network, an intranet, the Internet, a fiber optic-based network, a cloud computing network, and/or the like, and/or a combination of these or other types of networks).
Regarding claim 6, Thomas, as modified, discloses the monitored one or more multidimensional characteristics comprise the growth rate of the at least first stockpile in the work area ascertained via a controller associated with the at least first work machine (Thomas; para. 61: Controller 145 may store (e.g., in the one or more memories) information identifying the different volumes of the 3D portion over the period of time (e.g., during a work shift); para. 58: the 3D portion may correspond to the pile of material 180).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas, as modified, discloses the step of selectively generating output signals includes selectively generating an output signal corresponding to an alert when the one or more multidimensional characteristics and/or the boundary condition of the at least first stockpile reaches the predetermined threshold (Brammeier; para. 85: the control signals may generate a display or other alert in the operator compartment of a haulage unit indicating that the harvester needs haulage attention).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas, as modified, discloses performing a loading operation via the at least one stockpile clearing vehicle wherein the comminuted material is removed from the at least first stockpile in the work area (Thomas; para. 14: machine 105 may load (or move) material into machine 110).
Regarding claim 9, Thomas, as modified, discloses adjusting the predicted boundary condition associated with the at least first stockpile in the work area in response to the loading operation (Thomas; para. 48: controller 145 may cause the one or more stereo camera devices 160 to obtain the images each time a movement of machine [i.e., a loading operation] 105 (e.g., a movement associated with machine 105 moving material 180) is detected; para. 42: Controller 145 may obtain data from one or more IMUs 150, load sensor device 155, and/or stereo camera devices 160 to determine a volume of material 180 and/or a volume of material 180 moved by machine 105, as described in more detail below. In some examples, controller 145 may receive a request to determine a volume (and/or a density) of material moved and/or to be moved by machine 105 (e.g., a volume and/or a density of material 180 loaded into truck bed 175, a volume and/or a density of material 180 in tool 140, and/or a volume and/or a density of material 180 in a pile within a threshold distance of machine 105 and/or machine 110)).
Regarding claim 13, Thomas, as modified, discloses the boundary condition corresponds at least in part to a volume of the at least one stockpile in the work area (Thomas; para. 42: Controller 145 may obtain data from one or more IMUs 150, load sensor device 155, and/or stereo camera devices 160 to determine a volume of material 180 and/or a volume of material 180 moved by machine 105, as described in more detail below. In some examples, controller 145 may receive a request to determine a volume (and/or a density) of material moved and/or to be moved by machine 105 (e.g., a volume and/or a density of material 180 loaded into truck bed 175, a volume and/or a density of material 180 in tool 140, and/or a volume and/or a density of material 180 in a pile within a threshold distance of machine 105 and/or machine 110).).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Brammeier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Camp et al. (US 2011/0313804), hereinafter Camp.
Regarding claim 10, Thomas, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Thomas, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose selectively generating either a positive response signal or a negative response signal via the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle, wherein the positive response signal indicates the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle will perform a loading operation, and the negative response signal indicates the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle will not intend to perform the loading operation.
Camp discloses selectively generating either a positive response signal or a negative response signal via a work vehicle, wherein the positive response signal indicates the work vehicle will perform a work operation, and the negative response signal indicates the work vehicle will not intend to perform the work operation (Camp; claim 7: accept or decline the request to provide transport for the customer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to generate a signal for transmission indicating a selection by a vehicle operator of whether they accept or decline a task, as disclosed by Camp, in the controller of Thomas, as modified, to yield the predictable result of notifying other operators, vehicles, and/or systems that an available task has been allocated.
Regarding claim 11, Thomas, as modified, discloses generating output signals to additional stockpile clearing vehicles corresponding to the boundary condition of the at least first stockpile in the work area (Thomas; para. 65: Controller 145 may perform an action based on the volume of material 180. For example, the action may include controller 145 transmitting information regarding the volume of material 180 to machine 110, to device 230, and/or to another similar recipient.).
Thomas, as modified, does not explicitly disclose generating the output signals upon receiving the negative response signal from the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle in the work area.
Camp further discloses generating output signals upon receiving a negative response signal from a work vehicle in a work area (Camp; para. 28: if the first candidate respondent declines or fails to accept the invitation, selecting a second candidate respondent using the one or more criteria; (iv) sending the invitation 114 to the second candidate, and giving the second candidate a short duration to accept).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the transmission of material volume information to other work vehicles by the controller of Thomas, to occur in response to receiving an indication that a work vehicle has declined a task, as disclosed by Camp, to yield the predictable result of notifying other operators, vehicles, and/or systems that a task is available.
Regarding claim 12, Thomas, as modified, discloses generation of output signals corresponding to the boundary condition of the at least first stockpile in the work area (Thomas; para. 65: Controller 145 may perform an action based on the volume of material 180. For example, the action may include controller 145 transmitting information regarding the volume of material 180 to machine 110, to device 230, and/or to another similar recipient.).
Thomas, as modified, does not explicitly disclose upon receiving the positive response signal from the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle in the work area, stopping the generation of output signals.
Camp further discloses upon receiving a positive response signal from a work vehicle in a work area, stopping generation of output signals (Camp; para. 28: the pairing process may be repeated (n times) until a respondent 130 from the candidate pool 132 communicates back an acceptance 115 to the invitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the transmission of material volume information to other work vehicles by the controller of Thomas, to stop in response to receiving an indication that a work vehicle has accepted a task, as disclosed by Camp, to yield the predictable result of preventing transmitting redundant information.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Brammeier and Went (US 2005/0116076).
Regarding claim 14, Thomas discloses a system for coordinating clearance of a work area, the system comprising: one or more work machines configured to deliver comminuted material (Thomas; para. 14: machine 110 is embodied as a hauling machine such as a mining truck, a haul truck, a dump truck, and/or a similar machine); one or more perception sensors configured to monitor, for at least a first stockpile, one or more multidimensional characteristics thereof (Thomas; para. 37: Stereo camera device 160 may configured to obtain image data and transmit the image data to controller 145 to enable controller 145 to determine the volume and/or the density of material 180. The image data may include images of an area associated with machine 105 (e.g., an area surrounding machine 105). The image data may identify areas of interest associated with machine 105. The areas of interest may include a location of tool 140 of machine 105, a location of truck bed 175 of machine 110, and/or a location of a pile of material 180.); a controller configured to detect a boundary condition associated with the at least first stockpile (Thomas; para. 42: Controller 145 may obtain data from one or more IMUs 150, load sensor device 155, and/or stereo camera devices 160 to determine a volume of material 180 and/or a volume of material 180 moved by machine 105, as described in more detail below. In some examples, controller 145 may receive a request to determine a volume (and/or a density) of material moved and/or to be moved by machine 105 (e.g., a volume and/or a density of material 180 loaded into truck bed 175, a volume and/or a density of material 180 in tool 140, and/or a volume and/or a density of material 180 in a pile within a threshold distance of machine 105 and/or machine 110).) and a growth rate thereof (Thomas; para. 61: Controller 145 may store (e.g., in the one or more memories) information identifying the different volumes of the 3D portion over the period of time (e.g., during a work shift); para. 58: the 3D portion may correspond to the pile of material 180); and wherein the controller is configured to, automatically upon initiating or reestablishing communication between at least a first work machine of the one or more work machines and at least a first stockpile clearing vehicle of one or more stockpile clearing vehicles associated with the work area, selectively generate output signals corresponding to the one or more multidimensional characteristics and/or the boundary condition of the at least one and to transmit the output signals between the first work machine and the first stockpile clearing vehicle (Thomas; para. 65: Controller 145 may perform an action based on the volume of material 180. For example, the action may include controller 145 transmitting information [i.e., initiating communication by beginning the data transmission then automatically transmitting the data] regarding the volume of material 180 to machine 110).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose predicting an upcoming violation of a predetermined threshold associated with the boundary condition, based at least in part on the monitored one or more multidimensional characteristics and the detected growth rate thereof; and one or more work machines configured to comminute material from the work area into one or more stockpiles.
Brammeier, in a reasonably pertinent field of endeavor (agricultural machines), discloses predicting an upcoming violation of a predetermined threshold associated with a boundary condition, based at least in part on monitored one or more multidimensional characteristics (Brammeier; para. 61: Remaining capacity identifier logic 172 also receives a current fill level of the local material repository … This can be based on a sensor input 238 from current fill level sensor 170) and the detected growth rate thereof (Brammeier; para. 111: communication subsystem 202 can be controlled to communicate with a user associated with a haulage vehicle, to provide … predicted time to fill capacity … a haulage vehicle can be automatically controlled for the unloading operation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have predicted when the volume of stored material is expected to exceed a threshold, as disclosed by Brammeier, in the controller of Thomas, with the motivation of preventing idle time spent waiting for the arrival of a hauling unit thereby increasing logistical efficiency (Brammeier; paras. 6-7).
Thomas, as modified, does not explicitly disclose one or more work machines configured to comminute material from the work area into one or more stockpiles.
Went, in a reasonably pertinent field of endeavor (work machine implements), discloses one or more work machines configured to comminute material from a work area (Went; para. 34: The underground mining vehicle 160 shown in FIG. 10 has operably attached thereto a jaw crusher bucket 162 and has been operated by the vehicle's driver to split a large rock 164 from a mine face 166 and to scoop it into the bucket 162, the large rock 164 then to be subject to the jaw crushing operation of the bucket 162).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the mining truck of Thomas, as modified, with a jaw crusher bucket to crush worksite material, as disclosed by Went, with the motivation of eliminating the need to use dedicated rock and concrete breaking machinery (Went; para. 4) thereby reducing cost (Went; para. 3).
Thomas, as modified, does not explicitly disclose comminuting the material from the work area into one or more stockpiles.
Went further discloses comminuting material from a work area into one or more stockpiles (Went; para. 34: firstly crush large pieces of rubble 156, which it has split from a rock face and loaded in the bucket 154, and secondly deposit the resulting small pieces of rubble 158 upon the ground as may be necessary for stockpiling of useful rubble pieces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to deposit crushed materials onto a stockpile, as disclosed by Went, from the jaw crusher bucket of the mining vehicle of Thomas, as modified, to yield the predictable result of storing useful material.
Regarding claim 15, Thomas, as modified, discloses the controller is associated with the at least first work machine (Thomas; para. 42: Controller 145 may obtain data from one or more IMUs 150, load sensor device 155, and/or stereo camera devices 160 to determine a volume of material 180 and/or a volume of material 180 moved by machine 105, as described in more detail below. In some examples, controller 145 may receive a request to determine a volume (and/or a density) of material moved and/or to be moved by machine 105 (e.g., a volume and/or a density of material 180 loaded into truck bed 175, a volume and/or a density of material 180 in tool 140, and/or a volume and/or a density of material 180 in a pile within a threshold distance of machine 105 and/or machine 110).).
Regarding claim 16, Thomas, as modified, discloses communication is initiated or reestablished between the at least first work machine and the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle based at least in part on proximity of the at least first work machine relative to the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle (Thomas; paras. 42-43: controller 145 may receive a request to determine a volume (and/or a density) of material moved and/or to be moved by machine 105 (e.g., a volume and/or a density of material 180 loaded into truck bed 175, a volume and/or a density of material 180 in tool 140, and/or a volume and/or a density of material 180 in a pile within a threshold distance of machine 105 and/or machine 110) … Controller 145 may receive the request from … an operator of machine 110 [i.e., dump truck 110 requests the pile volume from excavator 105 when they are both within a threshold distance from the pile]).
Regarding claim 17, Thomas, as modified, discloses a work area communications network configured to enable communication between the at least first work machine and the at least first stockpile clearing vehicle (Thomas; para. 25: wireless communication component 165 may communicate with the one or more machines via a network that includes one or more wired and/or wireless networks, such as, for example, a wireless local area network (LAN), a cellular network (e.g., a long-term evolution (LTE) network, a code division multiple access (CDMA) network, a 3G network, a 4G network, a 5G network, or another type of cellular network), a public land mobile network (PLMN), a wide area network (WAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), a telephone network (e.g., the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)), a private network, an ad hoc network, an intranet, the Internet, a fiber optic-based network, a cloud computing network, and/or the like, and/or a combination of these or other types of networks).
Regarding claim 19, Thomas, as modified, discloses the controller is configured to generate an output signal corresponding to an alert when the one or more multidimensional characteristics and/or the boundary condition of the at least first stockpile reaches the predetermined threshold (Brammeier; para. 85: the control signals may generate a display or other alert in the operator compartment of a haulage unit indicating that the harvester needs haulage attention).
Regarding claim 20, Thomas, as modified, discloses the one or more stockpile clearing vehicles are configured to perform a loading operation wherein the comminuted material is removed from the at least first stockpile in the work area (Thomas; para. 14: machine 105 may load (or move) material into machine 110).
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abd El Salam Mohamed et al., in US 2022/0403622, disclose a method for automatically controlling an excavator wherein the height of a dump pile is predicted and a dumping operation is prevented if it would result in the pile’s height exceeding a threshold.
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights