DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The 10/17/2025 amendments are entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-3 are canceled. Claims 1 and 4-5 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The 10/17/2025 Remarks have been fully considered by the Examiner. The arguments presented therein are unconvincing for the reasons below.
The Prior Art Rejections
Applicant contends on p. 7 of the Remarks that Matsui does not teach a determination condition as required by the present claims.
This argument is unconvincing because a controller inherently considers some kind of determination condition to make any determination. Therefore, because Matsui teaches a controller that makes a determination, it reads on the broadly-recited determination condition of claim 1. The Examiner notes that further description of the claimed determination condition appears to at least overcome Matsui’s inherent disclosure of a broadly-recited determination condition.
Applicant further contends on p. 9 that while Ogura teaches a management server identifying a failure cause and sending that cause to the excavator, Ogura contrasts with the present claims because it does not teach a server requesting the transmission collection data as recited in the claims. To support their claim, Applicant argues that the management server 32 of Ogura merely teaches instructing the operator to select “normal” or “abnormal” in response to a request by the server. This, Applicant contends, does not read on the present claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this contention. The Broadest Reasonable interpretation of “determin[ing] a collection data, which is an operation data to be collected for diagnosis of the work machine” and “ a second communicator configured or programmed to transmit a request transmission of the collection data determined by the collection determiner to the work machine” includes a management server determining to request certain diagnosis information from an operator and receiving a tailored response.
The Examiner contends that a specific diagnostic command (the “request”) made by the management server reads on broadly-recited limitations above because the “normal”/”abnormal” response of the operator indicates to the server 32 the results of the specific diagnostic activity requested by the management server 32. The management server receives a specific type of requested diagnostic information based on the operator’s response because it comes to a different diagnostic conclusion based on the progressive indication of normal/abnormal for each request. See FIG. 6- S25, S29, and S31 identify the cause of the failure based on the information associated with the requests. Therefore, the normal/abnormal information received reads on the collection data transmitted by the first communicator in response to a request for that information transmitted by the second communicator.
In other words, Ogura’s operator receiving a transmitted request from a server to perform a diagnostic and send a normal/abnormal transmission back to the server based on the result reads on a broadly-recited request for transmission of data by the server like in the present claims.
Claim 1 was initially rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Because the subject matter of claims 2-3, initially rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is now incorporated into claim 1, the § 102 rejection is withdrawn but subject matter claim 1 is rejected under the same portions of Matsui in the § 103 rejection as shown below. The prior art rejections stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2015045144A to Matsui, Homare (hereinafter “Matsui”), further in view of US 20040186687 A1 to Ogura, Hiroshi et al. (hereinafter “Ogura”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsui discloses a work machine information collection system comprising:
a work machine ([Matsui 0009]: “”FIG. 1 is a side view showing an example of an excavator.”) including an operation hardware assembly and a server communicably connected to each other ([Matsui 0045]: “Further, the management device 90 may be a device that can wirelessly communicate with the shovel indirectly via the server 94 . . ..” Devices comprising the shovel taken as the operation hardware assembly.);
a data collection processor ([Matsui FIG. 3]: Controller 30.) configured or programmed to include:
an operation data output configured or programmed to output an operation data corresponding to an operation state of the operation hardware assembly ([Matsui 0029]: “Furthermore, various types of data are supplied to the controller 30 as described below and stored in the temporary storage unit 30a of the controller 30.”);
a determiner configured or programmed to determine whether not the operation data satisfies a determination condition ([Matsui 0040]: “In the excavator having the above-described configuration, the controller 30 determines whether or not an abnormality has occurred in the excavator based on the information including the various data described above.”) to determine whether or not to transmit the operation data output by the operation data output to the server ([Matsui 0049]: “For example, the controller 30 transmits the excavator abnormality detection information and the current position information to the server 94 or the management device 90 via the control device 190 . . ..”); and
a first communicator configured or programmed to transmit the operation data to the server when the determiner determines that the operation data satisfies the determination condition ([Matsui 0049]: Control device 190 used to send the abnormality information to the server.).
Matsui does not appear to expressly teach wherein
the server is configured or programmed to include:
a collection determiner configured or programmed to determine a collection data, which is an operation data to be collected to for diagnosis of the work machine, based on the operation data transmitted from the first communicator;
a second communicator configured or programmed to transmit a request signal to request transmission of the collection data determined by the collection determiner to the work machine; and
a diagnostic processor configured or programmed to diagnose a state of the operation hardware assembly based on the collection data; and
the first communicator is configured or programmed to transmit the collection data corresponding to the request signal to the server when the request signal is received.
However, Ogura teaches the server is configured or programmed to include:
a collection determiner configured or programmed to determine a collection data, which is an operation data to be collected for diagnosis of the work machine, based on the operation data transmitted from the first communicator ([Ogura 0061]: “At the server 32, the database 33 is accessed through the processing described earlier (step S13->step S14->step S15), the failure diagnosis procedure corresponding to the failure code “1” is read and a first command is transmitted to the hydraulic excavator 1 (step S23). In response to this signal, an electrical conduction check command is brought up on display at the display device 11, as shown in the figure (step S24).” The failure information, including the failure code, was transmitted from the excavator to the server in a previous step. Electrical conduction information taken as the determined collection data based on the received failure code, part of the operation data transmitted from the excavator (taken as the first communicator). APOSITA would have understood that the abnormality information sent by the excavator of Matsui would have been received by the server of the combination of Ogura and Matsui.);
a second communicator configured or programmed to transmit a request signal to request transmission of the collection data determined by the collection determiner to the work machine ([Ogura 0061, FIG. 1]: “ . . . a first command is transmitted to the hydraulic excavator 1 (step S23).” Ogura at least implicitly teaches a second communicator by teaching that the server is able to transmit commands.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the server that receives abnormality information from an excavator when an abnormality is detected taught by Matsui with the server that, upon receiving a failure code and other abnormality information, transmits a command requesting further information from the excavator taught by Ogura. Doing so would have improved ease of maintenance by “provid[ing] an operator with appropriate information indicating a failure location in a working machine . . . and enable[ing] maintenance work to be performed on the working machine” as taught in [0008] of Ogura.
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the transmitter configured to send various excavator data taught by Matsui with the transmitter of the excavator configured to respond to a further information request from a server taught by Ogura. Doing so would have improved ease of maintenance by “provid[ing] an operator with appropriate information indicating a failure location in a working machine . . . and enable[ing] maintenance work to be performed on the working machine” as taught in [0008] of Ogura.
The above combination of Matsui and Ogura does not appear to expressly teach a diagnostic processor configured or programmed to diagnose a state of the operation hardware assembly based on the collection data.
However, Ogura further teaches a diagnostic processor configured or programmed to diagnose a state of the operation hardware assembly based on the collection data ([Ogura 0053]: “In addition, a failure diagnosis procedure for identifying a failure location and the cause of the failure in correspondence to a given failure code is stored in memory at the database 33.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have further combined the server system that transmits and receives data regarding abnormality and failure information taught by the above combination of Matsui and Ogura with the database storing a failure diagnosis procedure on the server-side taught by Ogura. Doing so would have improved ease of maintenance by “provid[ing] an operator with appropriate information indicating a failure location in a working machine . . . and enable[ing] maintenance work to be performed on the working machine” as taught in [0008] of Ogura.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood before the date of filing that the above combination of Matsui and Ogura further teaches the first communicator is configured or programmed to transmit the collection data corresponding to the request signal to the server when the request signal is received ([Ogura 0061]: “The operator checks the state of electrical conduction at the harness connector by following the instruction on display to verify whether or not the state of electrical conduction is normal. If “abnormal” is selected through an operation of the input unit 16, the server 32 accesses the database 33, identifies the cause of the failure by using the transmitted information and sends information indicating the identified cause to the excavator 1 (step S25). ” By teaching transmitting the operator’s response to the server’s command, Ogura teaches the communicator on the excavator is at least configured to transmit the collection data when the request is received.).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2015045144A to Matsui, Homare (hereinafter “Matsui”), further in view of US 20180025560 A1 to Matsuzaki, Yushi et al. (hereinafter “Matsuzaki”).
Regarding claim 4, Matsui teaches the work machine information collection system according to claim 1.
Matsui does not appear to expressly teach wherein the data collection processor is configured or programmed to include:
a first determiner configured or programmed to determine whether or not the operation data satisfies a first determination condition to determine whether or not to issue a warning; and
a warning generator configured or programmed to issue a warning when the first determiner determines that the operation data satisfies the first determination condition;
the determiner of the data collection processor is a second determiner;
the determination condition is a second determination condition;
the first determination condition includes a first threshold value to determine a state of a signal included in the operation data; and
the second determination condition includes a second threshold value that is to determine a state of a signal included in the operation data and is higher than the first threshold value.
However, Matsuzaki teaches wherein the data collection processor is configured or programmed to include:
a first determiner configured or programmed to determine whether or not the operation data satisfies a first determination condition to determine whether or not to issue a warning ([Matsuzaki 0030]: “The notification unit 58 generates notification information (including a display signal, a voice signal, a lamp drive signal, and a buzzer drive signal) for externally notifying information regarding an . . . actual abnormality . . . When the abnormality processing module 60 determines an actual abnormality that is more serious than the early abnormality, the second notification unit 582 notifies the actual abnormality outside the work vehicle.” Abnormality processing module 60 understood as comprising a first determiner because it can detect the actual abnormality.); and
a warning generator (Notification unit 58, comprising first and second units 581 and 582.) configured or programmed to issue a warning when the first determiner determines that the operation data satisfies the first determination condition ([Matsuzaki 0047]: “When an actual abnormality is determined based on a second condition that is more rigorous than the first condition, since the tractor (work vehicle) could be damaged if the travelling work continues, the content of the actual abnormality is externally notified to the supervisor by means of a visual or audio device . . . ”);
the determiner of the data collection processor is a second determiner ([Matsuzaki FIG. 3]: Abnormality processing module 60 understood as comprising a second determiner because it can detect an early abnormality different from the actual abnormality.);
the determination condition is a second determination condition ([Matsuzaki 0030]: “ . . . when the abnormality processing module 60 determines an early abnormality in a particular travelling work state, the first notification unit 581 notifies the early abnormality outside the work vehicle.” Early abnormality taken as the second determination condition.);
the first determination condition includes a first threshold value to determine a state of a signal included in the operation data ([Matsuzaki 0053]: “The detected signal on a residual fuel quantity is compared with a first value and a second value, which are thresholds for residual fuel quantity set beforehand as conditions for determining abnormality. The second value is set lower than the first value (a value close to a minimum fuel quantity). . . . When an abnormality where a detected signal lowers below the second value (a type of an actual abnormality) further occurs, an insufficient fuel warning is notified to urge immediate supply of fuel.” Second value taken as first threshold. The notification taken as the warning.); and
the second determination condition includes a second threshold value that is to determine a state of a signal included in the operation data and is higher than the first threshold value ([Matsuzaki 0053]: “The detected signal on a residual fuel quantity is compared with a first value and a second value, which are thresholds for residual fuel quantity set beforehand as conditions for determining abnormality. The second value is set lower than the first value (a value close to a minimum fuel quantity). When an abnormality where a detected signal lowers below the first value (a type of an early abnormality) occurs, an insufficient fuel caution is notified.” First value taken as the second threshold of the present invention.; [Matsuzaki 0046]: “When an early abnormality is determined based on a first condition, a content of the early abnormality . . . is sent to other work vehicles and the monitoring communication terminal 110 via a wireless communication or the like.” Upon the first value (second threshold) being reached, Matsuzaki teaches transmitting relevant data. APOSITA would have understood the transmission would have been sent to the server of Matsui in this combination.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the excavator system that determines an abnormality has occurred and sends operation data along with the abnormality indication to a server taught by Matsui with the system for working machines that determines when two levels of abnormality have occurred, and in response, issues a warning and transmits operation data taught by Matsuzaki. Doing so would have improved ease of oversight of the work machine by enabling a supervisor “to take a more appropriate action against the occurred abnormality” as suggested in Matsuzaki [0066].
Regarding claim 5, Matsui teaches the work machine information collection system according to claim 1.
Matsui does not appear to expressly teach wherein the data collection processor is configured or programmed to include:
a first determiner configured or programmed to determine whether or not the operation data satisfies a first determination condition to determine whether or not to issue a warning; and
a warning generator configured or programmed to issue a warning when the first determiner determines that the operation data satisfies the first determination condition;
the determiner of the data collection processor is a second determiner;
the determination condition is a second determination condition;
the first determination condition includes a first threshold value to determine a state of a signal included in the operation data; and
the second determination condition includes a second threshold value that is to determine a state of a signal included in the operation data and is lower than the first threshold value.
However, Matsuzaki teaches wherein the data collection processor is configured or programmed to include:
a first determiner configured or programmed to determine whether or not the operation data satisfies a first determination condition to determine whether or not to issue a warning ([Matsuzaki 0030]: “The notification unit 58 generates notification information (including a display signal, a voice signal, a lamp drive signal, and a buzzer drive signal) for externally notifying information regarding an . . . actual abnormality . . . When the abnormality processing module 60 determines an actual abnormality that is more serious than the early abnormality, the second notification unit 582 notifies the actual abnormality outside the work vehicle.” Abnormality processing module 60 understood as comprising a first determiner because it can detect the actual abnormality.); and
a warning generator ([Matsuzaki Fig. 3]: Notification unit 58, comprising first and second units 581 and 582.) configured or programmed to issue a warning when the first determiner determines that the operation data satisfies the first determination condition ([Matsuzaki 0047]: “When an actual abnormality is determined based on a second condition that is more rigorous than the first condition, since the tractor (work vehicle) could be damaged if the travelling work continues, the content of the actual abnormality is externally notified to the supervisor by means of a visual or audio device . . . ”);
the determiner of the data collection processor is a second determiner ([Matsuzaki FIG. 3]: Abnormality processing module 60 understood as comprising a second determiner because it can detect an early abnormality.);
the determination condition is a second determination condition ([Matsuzaki 0030]: “ . . . when the abnormality processing module 60 determines an early abnormality in a particular travelling work state, the first notification unit 581 notifies the early abnormality outside the work vehicle.” Early abnormality taken as the second determination condition.);
the first determination condition includes a first threshold value to determine a state of a signal included in the operation data ([Matsuzaki 0051]: “The detected signal sent from the water temperature sensor is compared with a first value (first condition) and a second value (second condition), which are water temperature thresholds set beforehand as conditions for determining abnormality.. . . . When an abnormality where a detected signal exceeds the second value (a type of an actual abnormality) further occurs, the tractor is stopped, and notification is provided to urge execution of a measure for driving the engine at an engine speed around an idling speed provided that a radiator is normal.” Second value taken as first threshold. The notification taken as the warning.); and
the second determination condition includes a second threshold value that is to determine a state of a signal included in the operation data and is lower than the first threshold value ([Matsuzaki 0051]: “The detected signal sent from the water temperature sensor is compared with a first value (first condition) and a second value (second condition), which are water temperature thresholds set beforehand as conditions for determining abnormality. The second value is set higher than the first value. When an abnormality where a detected signal exceeds the first value (a type of an early abnormality) occurs, notification is provided to urge execution of a measure for reducing an engine load.” First value taken as the second threshold of the present invention.; [Matsuzaki 0046]: “When an early abnormality is determined based on a first condition, a content of the early abnormality . . . is sent to other work vehicles and the monitoring communication terminal 110 via a wireless communication or the like.” Upon the first value (second threshold) being reached, Matsuzaki teaches transmitting relevant data. APOSITA would have understood the transmission would have been sent to the server of Matsui in this combination.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the excavator system that determines an abnormality has occurred and sends operation data along with the abnormality indication to a server taught by Matsui with the system for working machines that determines when an early and actual abnormality have occurred using two thresholds, and in response, issues a warning and transmits operation data taught by Matsuzaki. Doing so would have improved ease of oversight of the work machine by enabling a supervisor “to take a more appropriate action against the occurred abnormality” as suggested in Matsuzaki [0066].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665