Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method for usage profile monitoring with respect to a ground-engaging track unit of a work vehicle, wherein the ground-engaging track unit is driven according to selected track commands, the method comprising:
ascertaining respective usage values corresponding to a duty cycle of the track unit operating at each of one or more selected track commands over a specified time period, wherein the respective usage values are further scaled according to specified factors associated with the respective track commands; and
generating an output signal corresponding to a determined intervention event, based at least in part on the scaled usage values.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claim 16).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional element:
wherein the ground-engaging track unit is driven according to selected track commands.
The additional element “wherein the ground-engaging track unit is driven according to selected track commands” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, wherein the ground-engaging track unit is driven according to selected track commands is disclosed by “Sadilek US 12487596 B1”, Col. 24, Lines 11-31; Col.28, Lines 54-59; and “Sulzer US 20210340729”, Abstract, [0038], [0039], [0049].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 16 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-15 and 17-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “Sadilek US 12487596 B1”, “Sulzer US 20210340729”, "Domingos US 20190359240", "Ge US 20160003171",
"Cliff US 20220316502", "Ramberg US 20240003309",and "Wash US 20150134189".
As to claims 1 and 16, Sadilek teaches a ground-engaging track unit driven in a forward or backward direction, independently or in conjunction with one or more other ground-engaging track unit of the work vehicle, according to selected track commands provided via a user interface tool (Sadilek, Col. 5, Lines 4-20; Col. 23, Lines 49-67; Col. 24, Lines 11-43); and
a controller (Sadilek, FIG. 1A, operation controller 145) configured to:
ascertain respective usage values corresponding to a duty cycle of the track unit operating (Sadilek, Col. 23, Lines 57-61; Col. 24, Lines 60-67).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “ascertain respective usage values corresponding to a duty cycle of the track unit operating at each of one or more selected track commands over a specified time period, wherein the respective usage values are further scaled according to specified factors associated with the respective track commands”; and
“generate an output signal corresponding to a determined intervention event, based at least in part on the scaled usage values” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1 and 16.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Singh US 20190351944” teaches “A method for executing straight tracking control may include receiving an input command(s) associated with controlling the operation of a first-side drive system and/or a second-side drive system of a hydrostatic transmission of a work vehicle to drive the vehicle along a straight path. The method may also include receiving first and second speed signals associated with the output speeds of the drive systems, and modifying the first speed signal or the second speed signal based on a speed scaling factor to generate a corrected speed signal. In addition, the method may include determining an adjusted control command for controlling the operation of the hydrostatic transmission as a function of the input command(s) and a control output determined based on the corrected speed signal. Further, the method may include controlling the operation of the hydrostatic transmission based at least in part on the adjusted control command.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857