DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The Information Disclosure Statements, filed 17 November 2023 and 09 January 2025 have been fully considered by the examiner. Signed copies are attached.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected, grounds follow.
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 an Abstract Idea without significantly more. Regarding Claim 1, The claim(s) recite(s) “identifying… a production circuit assigned to a machine at a worksite, wherein: the production circuit comprises a sequence of activities associated with operations at the worksite” “individual activities, of the sequence of activities are associated with corresponding entry criteria defining conditions for performing the individual activities”, “determining… that the machine satisfies the entry criteria associated with an activity of the production circuit” “causing… based on determining that the machine satisfies the entry criteria associated with the activity, the machine to perform the activity.” which is a mental process that may be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Notwithstanding the apparent implementation of the process by a computer; as the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335; USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites the additional limitations of “a computing system comprising a processor”, “sensor data indicative of a state of the machine”, “a machine”, and “a worksite”, these limitations appear to be no more than using a general purpose computer to receive input, perform repetitive calculations, store and retrieve data, and fail to recite sufficient details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering steps necessary to carry out the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and the machine and worksite are recited at a high level of generality such that the recitation appears to be no more than a drafting effort to generally link the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment which is not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When viewed as a whole the claim is recited at such a high level of generality as to apparently embrace the routine mental tasks performed by technicians during operation of machinery at a worksite, particularly because the “causing… the machine to perform the activity” may be merely presenting instructions to a human operator (see Claim 11) – routine tasks that are practicably performable in the human mind, by application of general purpose computing systems, loosely tied to a technological field of industrial processes, and recited at such a high level of generality as to amount to no more than general instructions to apply the abstract idea to the field of use by application of general purpose computation, which does not demonstrate integration into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because while the claim recites the additional limitations of “a computing system comprising a processor”, “sensor data indicative of a state of the machine”, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components to perform necessary data gathering and general-purpose computer functions; and recite activity that has been generally recognized by the courts to be insignificant, well-understood, routine and conventional functions of general purpose computers. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) used to carry out insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering by general purpose sensors, and the additional limitations of “a machine”, and “a worksite”, is no more than a drafting effort to generally link the practice of the abstract idea to a field of use. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Considered as a whole, the claim recites a mental process practicably performable in the human mind, but for reciting performance of the abstract idea using general purpose computer components; and fails to recite any limitations which are significantly more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea loosely linked to a technological field of use. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible.
Independent Claims 13 and 18 reciting substantively the same abstract idea discussed with respect to claim 1 above, are likewise ineligible for the same reason(s) discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 4, 6-10, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19-20 each recite additional features of the abstract idea itself (e.g. that there are two production circuits to consider, that there are second and third activities to evaluate, with their own entry criteria to judge, that the criteria is an evaluation of battery charge level, or material supply level, that there is additional an exit criteria to evaluate, etc.) and are accordingly also practicably performable in the human mind and are not sufficient to evidence integration into a practical application nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 5 recites the additional limitation “connecting to a trolley system at the worksite” and “receiving energy from the trolley system while the machine performs at least one of travel operation or a work operation while receiving the energy” are general field of use limitations that are well understood, routine, and conventional elements to those in the field of mining operations, as exemplified by e.g. Deonnecke, US 3,564,165 (Col. 1 line 6 “Electric powered rubber tired off-highway vehicles are widely used in mining operations, and the like, and are normally provided with a pair of outwardly extending trolley poles which engage a pair of oppositely charged trolley lines or wires in order to provide the electric power for the operation of the vehicle.”) and are accordingly also practicably performable in the human mind and are not sufficient to evidence integration into a practical application nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 11 and 12 recite additional limitations regarding the features of the computing system of claim 1, variously that the computing system is an “electronic control module” (ECM) or “dispatch controller” and limitations describing the computing system carrying out general purpose computer to receive input or transmit output such as by display, perform repetitive calculations, store and retrieve data, and fail to recite sufficient details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This activity has been generally recognized by the courts to be insignificant, well-understood, routine and conventional functions of general purpose computers. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). And accordingly is likewise insufficient to evidence integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10-13, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marsolek, US Pg-Pub 2021/0008997.
Marsolek discloses:
A computer-implemented (control system 120, see [0014]) method, comprising: identifying, by a computing system (ibid) comprising a processor, ([0015] “The system controller 122 may include or access memory, secondary storage devices, processors, and any other components for running an application.”) a production circuit assigned to a machine at a worksite, (fig. 3, “Worksite plan”)
wherein: the production circuit comprises a sequence of activities (see [0049]-[0052]) associated with operations at the worksite, (ibid. inter alia, [0049] “travel path”, “compaction activities”, “operation parameters”, such as vibration frequency of the drum, “steering instructions”, [0051] “delivery schedules”, [0052] “charging” [nb. of the machine], etc.)
and individual activities, (e.g. traversing the return path, 320, operating based on worksite plan 310, 330) of the sequence of activities, are associated with corresponding entry criteria (e.g. available battery power, see fig. 3, 318) defining conditions for performing the individual activities; (such as traveling back to a charging station, see [0059] “At 318, the system controller 122 may determine whether the return power is greater than or equal to the amount of available power stored in the energy storage device 190.”)
determining, by the computing system, and based on sensor data indicative of a state of the machine, ([0020] “may include a location sensor 130 configured to determine a location and/or orientation of the respective machine”; [0043] “the system controller 122 may monitor the amount of available power stored in the energy storage device 190 in substantially real time and/or substantially continuously.”) that the machine satisfies the entry criteria (e.g. adequate power, see fig. 3, 326) associated with an activity (e.g. operation of machine according to worksite plan such as compaction, see fig. 3, 310 and [0050]) of the production circuit; (e.g. fig. 3, 326, determining if available power exceeds a threshold to perform the activity)
and causing, by the computing system, and based on determining that the machine satisfies the entry criteria associated with the activity, (i.e. 326, available power exceeds threshold) the machine to perform the activity. (line leading from 328 to 310 “cause operation of first machine based on worksite plan”).
Regarding Claims 13 and 18, these claims recite substantively the same subject matter as discussed above with respect to claim 1, except embodied as a machine and a computing system, respectively; Mutatis mutandis, these claims are likewise anticipated by Marsolek for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Marsolek discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Marsolek further discloses:
wherein the sequence of activities of the production circuit includes a charging activity configured to charge a battery ([0034] “energy storage device 190 may comprise one or more rechargeable batteries configured to … provide electrical current to the electric motor.”) of the machine. ([0052] “The worksite plan 200 may also include instructions which, when executed by the controller 197 of the charging station 196b, cause the charging station 196b to mate the coupling device 199 thereof with the coupling device 192 of the compaction machine 114a, and to direct fuel and/or energy to the energy storage device 190 of the compaction machine 114a via the coupling 199.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Marsolek discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 4,
Marsolek further discloses:
wherein an energy use profile associated with the activity (e.g. see [0059] “[0059] At 318, the system controller 122 may determine whether the return power is greater than or equal to the amount of available power stored in the energy storage device 190.”) indicates at least one of a nominal charge state value (i.e. threshold, [0059] “If at 318, the system controller 122 determines that the return power is greater than or equal to the amount of available power”) or a range of charge state values to which the battery of the machine is to be charged during performance of the activity. (nb. energy storage device may be a battery, see [0034] “energy storage device 190 may comprise one or more rechargeable batteries configured to … provide electrical current to the electric motor.”)
Regarding Claim 7 and 16, Marsolek discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 1 and 13,
Marsolek further discloses:
wherein the entry criteria associated with the activity indicates at least one of: a minimum battery charge state level for a battery of the machine, or a maximum battery charge state level for the battery of the machine. (Marsolek discloses both minimum and maximum charge levels, see fig. 3, steps 318 (“Return power >= available power”) and 326 (“available power <= power threshold”)”
Regarding Claim 8 and 17, Marsolek discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 7 and 16,
Marsolek further discloses:
(Claim 8 representative) the at least one of the minimum battery charge state level or the maximum battery charge state level are based at least in part on an energy use profile associated with the activity, ([0058] “At 316, the system controller may determine, based at least in part on the operating information received at 312, a return power required for the compaction machine 114a to traverse the return path.
and the energy use profile indicates an amount of energy predicted to be used by, or received or captured by, the machine during performance of the activity. ([0059] “Such a return power may be determined based on a total distance of the return path and on a running average of power consumed by the compaction machine 114a during performance of the current worksite plan 202.”)(nb. Marsolek also teaches ‘received by’ during a charging activity, see [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 recites the limitations of Claims 7 and 8, except dependent upon Claim 18. Mutatis mutandis Claim 20 is likewise anticipated by Marsolek for the same reasons articulated with respect to Claims 7 and 8.
Regarding Claim 10, Marsolek discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Marsolek further discloses:
identifying, by the computing system, exit criteria associated with the production circuit; (e.g. fig. 3, 328 “minimum progress threshold reached?”)
and determining, by the computing system, that the exit criteria associated with the production circuit has not been met, ([0064] “the system controller 122 may, at 328, determine whether a minimum progress threshold has been reached by the compaction machine 114a. For example, such a minimum progress threshold may comprise a minimum amount of compaction time (e.g., 2 hours, 2.5 hours, 3 hours, etc.), a minimum distance traveled/compacted along the travel path (e.g., 1 mile, 1.5 miles, 2 miles, etc., a minimum percentage of the travel path 202 that has been traversed by the compaction machine 114a during its current pass (e.g., 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, etc.) and/or any other indication of progress associated with the travel path 202 and/or the worksite plan 200.”)
wherein the computing system causes the machine to perform the activity (e.g. “cause operation of first machine based on worksite plan” 310) of the production circuit based on: determining that the machine satisfies the entry criteria associated with the activity, (e.g. that available power exceeds a power threshold at 326)
and determining, by the computing system, that the exit criteria associated with the production circuit has not been met. (e.g. that the minimum progress threshold has not been reached at 328).
Regarding Claim 11, Marsolek discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Marsolek further discloses:
the computing system is an electronic control module (ECM) of the machine, ([0014] “the system controller 122 may comprise a component of the paving system 100, the paving material plant 102, one or more of the haul trucks 104, one or more of the paving machines 106, one or more of the compaction machines 114, 116, 118,”)
the ECM receives production circuit assignment data, assigning the machine to the production circuit, from a dispatch controller via a data connection, ([0046] “With reference to FIG. 3, at 302 the system controller 122 may receive first information associated with and/or indicative of the paving plan corresponding to the worksite 112.”
and the ECM causes the machine to perform the activity via at least one of: autonomous operations, ([0034] “In any such examples, one or more of the compaction machines 114, 116, 118 may comprise manually operated machines, autonomous machines, or semi-autonomous machines.”) or by presenting instructions associated with the activity to an operator via a user interface.
Regarding Claim 12, Marsolek discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Marsolek further discloses:
the computing system is a dispatch controller separate from the machine, ([0014] “the control system 120 and/or the system controller 122 may be located remote from the paving material plant 102 and/or remoter from the worksite 112, such as at the remoter command center referred to above.”)
the dispatch controller receives the sensor data from the machine ([0020] “may include a location sensor 130 configured to determine a location and/or orientation of the respective machine”; [0043] “the system controller 122 may monitor the amount of available power stored in the energy storage device 190 in substantially real time and/or substantially continuously.”) via a data connection, ([0017] “The components of the control system 120 may be in communication with and/or otherwise operably connected to any of the components of the paving system 100 via a network 124.”)
and the dispatch controller causes the machine to perform the activity by sending corresponding instructions to the machine via the data connection. ([0024] “an “autonomous” machine of the paving system 100 may comprise a machine (e.g., a haul truck 104, a paving machine 106, a compaction machine 114, 116, 118, etc.) configured to traverse a travel path and/or perform various tasks or operations (e.g., lifting, dumping, paving, compacting paving material, etc.) without operator control or input. In such examples, the system controller 122 and/or a respective controller of the autonomous machine may substantially completely control such machine operations based on instructions, stored logic/programs, learning algorithms, or other components.”)
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 14, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Levien, US Pg-Pub 2014/0025230.
Regarding Claim 2, Marsolek teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Marsolek further teaches:
wherein the production circuit is a first production circuit assigned to the machine, the activity is a first activity of the first production circuit, and the entry criteria associated with the first activity is first entry criteria, (nb. this limitation only applies enumerating labels to the limitations of claim 1, accordingly, Marsolek discloses these features, see rejection of claim 1 supra.)
the method further comprising: determining, by the computing system, and based on the sensor data, (e.g. charge level, see [0043]) that the machine does not satisfy second entry criteria (e.g. fig. 3 318, available power is not below return power requirement) associated with a second activity of the first production circuit; (e.g. returning to station for recharging, see [0041] “return paths extending from a current location of the machine to the charging zone 194.”)
identifying, by the computing system, and based on the sensor data, a third activity (e.g. docking with recharge station)
determining, by the computing system, and based on the sensor data, (e.g. location data, see [0067] “information may also include GPS coordinates and/or other information indicative of a current location of the compaction machine”) that the machine satisfies third entry criteria associated with the third activity […] (e.g. coupling for recharge see [0071] “system controller 122 may cause compaction machine 114a traveling to the charging zone 194 to enter the unoccupied charging station 196b.”)
causing, by the computing system, and based on determining that the machine satisfies the third entry criteria associated with the third activity […], the machine to perform the third activity […] ([0071] “the system controller 122 may provide one or more signals to the controller 188 of the compaction machine 114a including instructions which, when executed by the controller 188, may cause the compaction machine to enter the charging station 196b and which may cause the coupling device 192 of the compaction machine 114a to mate with the coupling device 199 of the charging station 196b. Additionally, at 410, the instructions provided to the controller 197 of the charging station 196b at 408 may cause the charging station 196b to direct power to the energy storage device 190 of the compaction machine 114a at 410.”)
Marsolek differs from the claimed invention in that:
Marsolek does not appear to clearly articulate: [identifying, by the computing system, and based on the sensor data, a third activity of] a second production circuit assigned to the machine;
However, Levien teaches a control technique for autonomous vehicles (unmanned aerial devices, see e.g. [0028]) where the vehicles are assigned a plurality (i.e. at least a first and second) of ranked task sequences (deemed equivalent to ‘production circuits’ - see fig. 12, task scheduler 1220 and [0273] “scalar values 1222 control the respective rankings of the scheduled tasks ) where tasks are performed based on entry criteria (e.g. completion of all higher priority tasks: [0273] “so that an intermediate-priority task 1212 … will be performed before “lower-priority” tasks and after “higher-priority tasks”; or e.g. state conditions [0273] “configured to be performed contingently (with a highest priority, but only if a particular condition… set forth in the task specification … is met”)
Levien is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor of dispatching autonomous vehicles and contains overlapping structural and functional subject matter. Each includes computer systems which interface with autonomous vehicles, each assigns the autonomous vehicles production tasks to perform based on entry criteria in order to realize a production objective.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Marsolek to include separating the production activities into a plurality of production circuits and assigning them separate entry criteria and task specifications, including priority rankings, as suggested by Levien.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have made these modifications in order to ensure high priority tasks are completed before lower priority tasks, and to enable pre-emption of tasks based on operational state or user overrides, as suggested by Levien. ([0273] “overriding a first task being performed by the first unmanned aerial device by transmitting a wireless signal indicative of a second task to the first unmanned aerial device… so that an intermediate-priority task 1212 (energy replenishment, e.g.) will be performed before "lower-priority" tasks and after "higher-priority" tasks. In other variants, however, task implementation module 1139 may be (a) configured to modify the scalar value 1222 of task 1212 (to indicate a higher priority, e.g.) responsive to an indication that one or more higher priority tasks 1213, 1214 will not be completed (due to capacity limitations, e.g.) without first executing task 1212”)
Regarding Claim 3, and 14, Marsolek in view of Levien teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Levien further teaches:
wherein the second production circuit is ranked lower than the first production circuit in a ranked set of production circuits assigned to the machine. ([0273] “scalar values 1222 control the respective rankings of the scheduled tasks 1211-1214 so that an intermediate-priority task 1212 (energy replenishment, e.g.) will be performed before "lower-priority" tasks and after "higher-priority" tasks. In other variants, however, task implementation module 1139 may be (a) configured to modify the scalar value 1222 of task 1212 (to indicate a higher priority, e.g.) responsive to an indication that one or more higher priority tasks 1213, 1214 will not be completed (due to capacity limitations, e.g.) without first executing task 1212”)
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites the limitations of Claims 2 and the ranking feature from claim 3, except dependent upon Claim 13. Mutatis mutandis Claim 14 is likewise taught by Marsolek in view of Levien for the same reasons articulated with respect to Claims 2 and 3.
Regarding Claim 15, Marsolek in view of Levien teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 14,
Levien further teaches:
determine, based on the sensor data, and following performance of the third activity of the second production circuit, that the machine satisfies fourth entry criteria associated with a fourth activity of the first production circuit; (e.g. [0237] higher priority tasks 1213, 1214… without first executing task 1212”)
and causing, based on determining that the machine satisfies the fourth entry criteria associated with the fourth activity of the first production circuit, the machine to: return from the second production circuit to the first production circuit; and perform the fourth activity of the first production circuit. ([0273] “so that an intermediate-priority task 1212 (energy replenishment, e.g.) will be performed before "lower-priority" tasks and after "higher-priority" tasks. In other variants, however, task implementation module 1139 may be (a) configured to modify the scalar value 1222 of task 1212 (to indicate a higher priority, e.g.) responsive to an indication that one or more higher priority tasks 1213, 1214 will not be completed (due to capacity limitations, e.g.) without first executing task 1212 or (b) configured to be performed contingently (with a highest priority, but only if a particular condition (running below a fuel/charge threshold 4594 or other such conditions set forth in the task specification 1223, e.g.) is met.”)
Regarding Claim 19, Marsolek teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 18,
Marsolek differs from the claimed invention in that:
Marsolek does not appear to clearly articulate the memory stores data associated with a ranked set of different production circuits assigned to the machine, the different production circuits being associated with respective priority levels,
And the production circuit has a highest priority level, of the respective priority levels, among two or more of the different production circuits that comprise activities for which the machine satisfies corresponding entry criteria.
However, Levien teaches a control technique for autonomous vehicles (unmanned aerial devices, see e.g. [0028]) where the vehicles are assigned a plurality (i.e. at least a first and second) of ranked task sequences (deemed equivalent to ‘production circuits’ - see fig. 12, task scheduler 1220 and [0273] “scalar values 1222 control the respective rankings of the scheduled tasks ) where tasks are performed based on entry criteria (e.g. completion of all higher priority tasks: [0273] “so that an intermediate-priority task 1212 … will be performed before “lower-priority” tasks and after “higher-priority tasks”; or e.g. state conditions [0273] “configured to be performed contingently (with a highest priority, but only if a particular condition… set forth in the task specification … is met”)
Levien is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor of dispatching autonomous vehicles and contains overlapping structural and functional subject matter. Each includes computer systems which interface with autonomous vehicles, each assigns the autonomous vehicles production tasks to perform based on entry criteria in order to realize a production objective.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Marsolek to include separating the production activities into a plurality of production circuits and assigning them separate entry criteria and task specifications, including priority rankings, as suggested by Levien.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have made these modifications in order to ensure high priority tasks are completed before lower priority tasks, and to enable pre-emption of tasks based on operational state or user overrides, as suggested by Levien. ([0273] “overriding a first task being performed by the first unmanned aerial device by transmitting a wireless signal indicative of a second task to the first unmanned aerial device… so that an intermediate-priority task 1212 (energy replenishment, e.g.) will be performed before "lower-priority" tasks and after "higher-priority" tasks. In other variants, however, task implementation module 1139 may be (a) configured to modify the scalar value 1222 of task 1212 (to indicate a higher priority, e.g.) responsive to an indication that one or more higher priority tasks 1213, 1214 will not be completed (due to capacity limitations, e.g.) without first executing task 1212”)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Kumar, US Pg-Pub 2006/0005736
Regarding Claim 5, Marsolek teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 4,
Marsolek differs from the claimed invention in that:
Marsolek does not appear to clearly articulate: connecting to a trolley system at the worksite; and receiving energy from the trolley system while the machine performs at least one of a travel operation or a work operation while receiving the energy.
However, Kumar teaches an off-highway vehicle which may connect to a trolley system to receive energy from said trolley system ([0040] “a separate primary energy source 102 (e.g., diesel generator, fuel cell, trolley line, etc.) can be used to supply a charging voltage (e.g., a constant charging voltage) to energy capture and storage system 204.” )
Kumar is analogous art because it is reflective of the general background knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application regarding charging voltage supply technologies in use at worksites.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element etc.) with other components – the teachings of Marsolek which differ from the claimed invention by the substitution of a trolley system for the station-based recharging system of Marsolek; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by Kumar, which teaches the use of a trolley system for recharging a machine at a worksite; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for the other, and the results would have been predictable at least because Kumar expressly teaches the use of Trolley lines for providing charging voltage to off-highway machines (see Kumar [0040]).
(nb. although not relied upon for the rejection examiner notes that the use of trolley lines for recharging machines in worksites is also a well understood routine and conventional practice in the art, see e.g. Deonnecke, US 3,564,165 (Col. 1 line 6).)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Gudat et al., US Pg-Pub 2013/0099017
Regarding Claim 9, Marsolek teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Marsolek differs from the claimed invention in that:
Marsolek does not appear to clearly articulate wherein the entry criteria associated with the activity indicates at least one or a type or amount of material carried by the machine.
However, Gudat teaches a dispatching system (see fig. 3) for mining equipment (e.g. [0028] “fluid delivery machine 106”) which determines entry criteria for performing an activity (fluid delivery) dependent upon the amount of material carried by the machine ([0158] “In one case, the amount of fluid onboard the selected fluid delivery machine 106 may be greater than or equal to the total modified fluid delivery requirement F.sub.modified of the route. In other words, there is enough fluid onboard to bring each segment of each path in the route to the desired fluid level F.sub.desired, as reduced by certain factors discussed above, without the selected fluid delivery machine 106 running out of fluid before completing the mission.”)
Gudat is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor of dispatching autonomous vehicles and contains overlapping structural and functional subject matter. Each includes computer systems which interface with autonomous vehicles, each assigns the autonomous vehicles production tasks to perform based on entry criteria in order to realize a production objective.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Marsolek to include considering the available material in the machine as suggested by Gudat.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure adequate available supply for a material dispensing application, as suggested by Gudat ([0193] “ the disclosed embodiments may advantageously provide for efficient scheduling, dispatching, and routing of fluid delivery machines to treat a worksite with fluid. By providing a system for automatically analyzing the fluid delivery requirements of various paths on the worksite in view of a variety of environmental parameters, operational parameters, surface characteristics, and/or other monitored factors, the fluid delivery machines may be automatically dispatched as needed to provide efficient treatment of the worksite.” )
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cserw US PG-Pub 2022/0162812 - particularly figs. 11, 12 and 14, depicting a technique for projecting the expenditure of energy in a worksite machine based on the particular operating profile of the machine per unit time.
Zhang, Sai, et al. "An unmanned intelligent transportation scheduling system for open-pit mine vehicles based on 5G and big data." IEEE access 8 (2020): 135524-135539. – overall disclosure, teaching a wireless dispatching system for autonomous vehicles in an open-pit mine worksite.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights