Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 14/124,078, filed on 04 June 2012.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 December 2023 was filed and is being considered by the examiner.
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 30 (and dependent claims 31-35) recite “A method of determining usage of at least one construction machine including a milling drum having a milling width, and at least one GNSS receiver configured to generate positioning data corresponding to substantially continuous positions of the construction machine along a trajectory worked thereby, the method comprising: computing a distance traveled along the trajectory based at least in part on the generated positioning data; and computing, based on at least the computed distance traveled, a usage value corresponding to milling work performed along the trajectory in two dimensional or three dimensional coordinates.”
Claims 30-35, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “computing a distance traveled along the trajectory based at least in part on the generated positioning data; and computing, based on at least the computed distance traveled, a usage value corresponding to milling work performed along the trajectory in two dimensional or three dimensional coordinates.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “computing a distance traveled along the trajectory based at least in part on the generated positioning data; and computing, based on at least the computed distance traveled, a usage value corresponding to milling work performed along the trajectory in two dimensional or three dimensional coordinates.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claims 16 and 23, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 17-22 and 24-29 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0068] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 17-22, 24-29 and 31-35 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16-35 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berning et al (US 2008/0152428) in view of Haehn (US 6,371,566).
Berning et al disclose the following claimed features:
Regarding claim 16, a construction machine (Figures 1-6, element 1) comprising: a milling drum (6) having a milling width; and a controller (23) configured to: compute a distance traveled along the trajectory (“milling depth s”) based at least in part on the received positioning data (Figures 4 and 5, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]); and compute, based on at least the computed distance traveled, a usage value corresponding to milling work performed along the trajectory in two dimensional or three dimensional coordinates (Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Berning et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting at least one GNSS receiver configured to generate positioning data.
Haehn teaches in Figure 4 at least one GNSS receiver (16c) configured to generate positioning data.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include at least one GNSS receiver configured to generate positioning data, as taught by Haehn into Berning et al, for the purpose of tracking and communicating between devices wirelessly and/or remotely.
Regarding claim 17, Berning et al as modified by Haehn further disclose the controller is further operatively associated with a stationary GNSS receiver (16c) or a data reference service to receive reference positioning data for determining the substantially continuous positions of the construction machine along the trajectory worked thereby (Figure 4). It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a stationary GNSS receiver, as taught by Haehn into Berning et al, for the purpose of tracking and communicating between devices wirelessly and/or remotely.
Regarding claim 18, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose in the event of interference with reception of the at least one GNSS receiver, the controller (23) is configured to compute substitute positioning data for missing or incorrect positioning data (Berning et al: paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose the controller (23) is configured to interpolate the substitute positioning data for missing or incorrect positioning data based on one or more previous machine positions and one or more further machine positions on the trajectory (Berning et al: Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 20, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose the controller (23) is configured to interpolate the substitute positioning data for missing or incorrect positioning data based on a recorded distance traveled and steering angle data of the construction machine (Berning et al: Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 21, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose the controller (23) is configured to determine when milling work is being performed, and wherein the usage value is only computed along portions of the computed distance traveled along the trajectory for which the milling work is performed (Berning et al: Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 22, Berning et al as modified by Haehn further disclose the controller (23) is configured to determine when milling work is being performed based on one or more of: whether the milling drum (6) is rotating; whether a transport conveyor (13) of the construction machine is in operation; and an output generated from an engine of the construction machine (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 23, Berning et al disclose a system (Figures 1-6)comprising: one or more construction machines (1), each construction machine including a milling drum (6) having a milling width, and a controller (23) configured to: compute distances traveled along the respective trajectories based at least in part on the received positioning data (Figures 4 and 5, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]); and compute, based on at least the computed distances traveled, respective usage values corresponding to milling work performed by each of the one or more construction machines along the respective trajectories and stored in two dimensional or three dimensional coordinates (Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Berning et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting at least one GNSS receiver configured to generate positioning data and an external computer.
Haehn teaches in Figure 4 at least one GNSS receiver (16c) configured to generate positioning data; and an external computer (not shown but it’s well known in the art).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include at least one GNSS receiver configured to generate positioning data and an external computer, as taught by Haehn into Berning et al, for the purpose of tracking and communicating between devices wirelessly and/or remotely.
Regarding claim 24, Berning et al as modified by Haehn further disclose the controller (23) is further operatively associated with a stationary GNSS receiver (16c) or a data reference service and configured to receive reference positioning data for determining the substantially continuous positions of the construction machine along the trajectory worked thereby (Figure 4). It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a stationary GNSS receiver, as taught by Haehn into Berning et al, for the purpose of tracking and communicating between devices wirelessly and/or remotely.
Regarding claim 25, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose wherein, for any of the one or more construction machines (1), and in the event of interference with reception of the respective at least one GNSS receiver, the respective controller (23) and/or the external computer are configured to compute substitute positioning data for missing or incorrect positioning data (Berning et al: paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 26, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose the respective controller (23) and/or the external computer are configured to interpolate the substitute positioning data for missing or incorrect positioning data based on one or more previous machine positions and one or more further machine positions on the trajectory (Berning et al: Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 27, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose the respective controller (23) and/or the external computer are configured to interpolate the substitute positioning data for missing or incorrect positioning data based on a recorded distance traveled and steering angle data of the construction machine (Berning et al: Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 28, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose the respective controller (23) and/or the external computer are configured to determine when milling work is being performed, and wherein the usage value is only computed along portions of the computed distance traveled along the trajectory for which the milling work is performed (Berning et al: Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 29, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose the respective controller (23) and/or the external computer are configured to determine when milling work is being performed based on one or more of: whether the milling drum (6) is rotating; whether a transport conveyor (13) of the construction machine is in operation; and an output generated from an engine of the construction machine (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 30, Berning et al disclose a method (Figures 1-6) of determining usage of at least one construction machine (1) including a milling drum (6) having a milling width, the method comprising: computing a distance traveled along the trajectory (“milling depth s”) based at least in part on the generated positioning data (Figures 4 and 5, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]); and computing, based on at least the computed distance traveled, a usage value corresponding to milling work performed along the trajectory in two dimensional or three dimensional coordinates (Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Berning et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting at least one GNSS receiver configured to generate positioning data.
Haehn teaches in Figure 4 at least one GNSS receiver (16c) configured to generate positioning data.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include at least one GNSS receiver configured to generate positioning data, as taught by Haehn into Berning et al, for the purpose of tracking and communicating between devices wirelessly and/or remotely.
Regarding claim 31, Berning et al as modified by Haehn further disclose the controller (23) is further operatively associated with a stationary GNSS receiver (16c) or a data reference service and configured to receive reference positioning data for determining the substantially continuous positions of the construction machine along the trajectory worked thereby (Figure 4). It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a stationary GNSS receiver, as taught by Haehn into Berning et al, for the purpose of tracking and communicating between devices wirelessly and/or remotely.
Regarding claim 32, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose for any of the one or more construction machines, and in the event of interference with reception of the respective at least one GNSS receiver, computing substitute positioning data for missing or incorrect positioning data (Berning et al: paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 33, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose interpolating the substitute positioning data for missing or incorrect positioning data based on one or more previous machine positions and one or more further machine positions on the trajectory (Berning et al: Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 34, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose interpolating the substitute positioning data for missing or incorrect positioning data based on a recorded distance traveled and steering angle data of the construction machine (Berning et al: Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 35, Berning et al as modified by Haehn also disclose determining when milling work is being performed based on one or more of: whether the milling drum (6) is rotating; whether a transport conveyor (13) of the construction machine is in operation; and an output generated from an engine of the construction machine (paragraph [0056]); and wherein the usage value is only computed along portions of the computed distance traveled along the trajectory for which the milling work is performed (Berning et al: Figure 6, Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0057]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights