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
Claims 1-17 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.
Regarding to claims 1-11
Claim 1
A vehicle comprising:
a chassis;
a plurality of tractive elements supported by the chassis;
a prime mover configured to drive at least one of the plurality of tractive elements;
an implement configured to receive power from the prime mover; and
a controller configured to:
a. receive, via a local network communicably coupled to the vehicle, a first document associated with the vehicle;
b. store the first document locally on the vehicle;
c. compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network;
d. store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document; and
e. receive, via a user interface of the vehicle, a request for the second document; and
f. provide the second document stored locally on the vehicle to the user interface.
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a vehicle comprising components and a controller to perform at least one step or act, including steps a) - f). Thus, the claim is a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Step c. “compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network” This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) because a person can evaluate similarities or differences between the two documents.
Step. d. “store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document” This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) because a person can evaluate one version of document is a newer version in compare with another version.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, steps c and d fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations (c) and (d) are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations: “a vehicle”, “a chassis”, “tractive elements”, “a prime mover”, “an implement”, “a controller”, “a local network”, “a user interface”, and limitations a, b, e, and f.
a) MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field."
There is no improvement to Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field. The limitation “a vehicle”, “a chassis”, “tractive elements”, “a prime mover”, “an implement”, “a controller”, “a local network”, “a user interface”, and limitations a-receive data, b-store data, e-receive request, and f-provide requested data. These limitations do not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic components such as “a vehicle”, “a chassis”, “tractive elements”, “a prime mover”, “an implement”, “a controller”, “a local network”, “a user interface”. Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The claim operates to a-receive data, b-store data, c-compare data, d – store newer data, e-receive request, and f-provide requested data.. The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The limitations a-receive data, b-store data, e-receive request, and f-provide requested data are not meaningful limitations because collecting and displaying are pre and post-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations a-receive data, b-store data, e-receive request, and f-provide requested data are not meaningful limitations because collecting and displaying are pre and post-solution activities
f) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Limitations “a vehicle”, “a chassis”, “tractive elements”, “a prime mover”, “an implement”, “a controller”, “a local network”, “a user interface” are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations “a vehicle”, “a chassis”, “tractive elements”, “a prime mover”, “an implement”, “a controller”, “a local network”, “a user interface”, and limitations a, b, e, and f do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite any non-convention or non-generic arrangement because limitations “a vehicle”, “a chassis”, “tractive elements”, “a prime mover”, “an implement”, “a controller”, “a local network”, “a user interface” are generic elements. Further, limitations
a. receive, via a local network communicably coupled to the vehicle, a first document associated with the vehicle [Wingdings font/0xF3] data gathering
b. store the first document locally on the vehicle [Wingdings font/0xF3] storing data
e. receive, via a user interface of the vehicle, a request for the second document [Wingdings font/0xF3] data gathering and
f. provide the second document stored locally on the vehicle to the user interface [Wingdings font/0xF3] display data
These additional elements collecting, storing, and displaying are without significantly more technical improvement. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the local network is a local mesh network established by the vehicle and the second vehicle” This step simply making connections between electronic devices. There is no technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the local network is a local mesh network established by the second vehicle and a third vehicle” This step simply making connections between electronic devices. There is no technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to: detect the second vehicle; and automatically join the local network in response to detecting the second vehicle.” This step simply making connections between electronic devices. There is no technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the user interface further comprises a user input and display, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive the request for the second document via the user input; and provide the second document to the display.” The claim includes collecting data (e.g., receive a request) and display data via generic computer components. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to not provide the first document to the display when the controller provides the second document to the display.” The claim includes display data (e.g., second document only) via generic computer components. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the vehicle is a lift device” A lift device is recited as a generic device and there is no technical improvement to the functionalities of the lift device. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to receive the first document from a remote server coupled to the local network” The claim includes collecting data (e.g., receive first document). There is no technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to: receive, via the local network, a second request for a third document from the second vehicle; and provide, via the local network, the third document from the vehicle to the second vehicle” Collecting data (e.g., receive a request) and transmit data (e.g., provide data via the local network) do not make any technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites “wherein to compare the first document with the second document the controller is further configured to determine if the first document is more recent than the second document” Comparing/matching simply are observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to provide the first document to the second vehicle in response to a determination the first document is more recent than the second document” Transmitting data (e.g., provide the first document to the second vehicle) does not make any technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding to claim 12-17
Claim 12
A documentation system comprising:
a plurality of vehicles including a first vehicle and a second vehicle, wherein the first vehicle and the second vehicle are communicatively connected to establish a local area network;
wherein the first vehicle comprises a controller configured to:
a. determine the second vehicle is of a type the same as the first vehicle;
b. compare a first document stored locally in the first vehicle with a second document stored locally in the second vehicle; and
c. store the second document locally on the first vehicle when the second document is more recent than the first document.
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a documentation system comprising vehicles and a controller to perform at least one step or act, including steps a) - c). Thus, the claim is a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Step a. “determine the second vehicle is of a type the same as the first vehicle” This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) because a person can evaluate similarities or differences of the types of the vehicles and judgement whether or not the two vehicles are the same type of vehicle.
Step b. “compare a first document stored locally in the first vehicle with a second document stored locally in the second vehicle” This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) because a person can evaluate similarities or differences between the two documents.
Step c. “store the second document locally on the first vehicle when the second document is more recent than the first document “This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) because a person can evaluate one version of document is a newer version in compare with another version.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, steps c and d fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations (a) and (b) are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations: “vehicles”, “first vehicle”, “second vehicle”, “establish a local area network”, “a local area network”, “storing newer version”.
a) MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field."
There is no improvement to Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field. The limitations “vehicles”, “first vehicle”, “second vehicle”, “establish a local area network”, “a local area network”, “storing newer version.” These limitations do not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic components such as “vehicles”, “first vehicle”, “second vehicle”, “establish a local area network”, “a local area network”, “storing newer version.” Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The claim operates to collecting data and displaying calculated output. The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The limitations “establishing local network”, and c. storing more recent document version is not meaningful limitations because they are pre and post-solution activities. The limitation is not a meaningful limitation.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations “establishing local network”, and c. storing more recent document version are not meaningful limitations because they are pre and post-solution activities
f) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Limitations “vehicles”, “first vehicle”, “second vehicle”, “establish a local area network”, “a local area network”, “storing newer version” are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations “vehicles”, “first vehicle”, “second vehicle”, “establish a local area network”, “a local area network”, “storing newer version” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite any non-convention or non-generic arrangement because limitations “establish a local area network”, “a local area network” simply make connections between electronic devices. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites “wherein to compare the first document with the second document the controller is further configured to determine if the first document is more recent than the second document, and in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document, store the second document locally on the first vehicle” Comparing data is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind. Storing data does not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to determine if the first document is more recent than the second document, and provide the first document to the second vehicle in response to a determination the first document is more recent than the second document” Comparing data is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind. Storing data does not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the first vehicle further comprises a user interface comprising a display, and wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a request for the second document; and provide, via the display, the second document stored locally on the first vehicle to a user” Collecting data (e.g., receive request for second document) and display data via generic components do not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the controller is configured to not provide the first document when the controller provides the second document.” The claim includes display data (e.g., second document only) via generic computer components. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the first vehicle is a lift device” A lift device is recited as a generic device and there is no technical improvement to the functionalities of the lift device. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Extrinsic Evidence
What constitutes Software? An Empirical, Descriptive Study of Artifacts, written by Rolf-Helge Pfeiffer, 2020 IEEE/ACM 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)
The term software is ubiquitous, however, it does not seem as if we as a community have a clear understanding of what software actually is. Imprecise definitions of software do not help other professions, in particular those acquiring and sourcing software from third-parties, when deciding what precisely are potential deliverables. In this paper we investigate which artifacts constitute software by analyzing 23715 repositories from Github, we categorize the found artifacts into high-level categories, such as, code, data, and documentation (and into 19 more concrete categories) and we can confirm the notion of others that software is more than just source code or programs, for which the term is often used synonymously. With this work we provide an empirical study of more than 13 million artifacts, we provide a taxonomy of artifact categories, and we can conclude that software most often consists of variously distributed amounts of code in different forms, such as source code, binary code, scripts, etc., data, such as configuration files, images, databases, etc., and documentation, such as user documentation, licenses, etc
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (U.S. Pub 2005/0262498 A1), in view of John (U.S. Pub 2021/0224056), in view of Wherman (U.S. Pub 2015/0363210 A1)
Claim 1
Ferguson discloses a vehicle comprising ([0016], “… Work machine… such as trucks, cranes, earth moving vehicles, mining vehicles, backhoes, material handling equipment, farming equipment, marine vessels, aircraft, and any type of movable machine that operates in a work environment…” <examiner note: vehicle [Wingdings font/0xF3] cranes):
a chassis (work machine, i.e., cranes, has frame/chassis);
a plurality of tractive elements supported by the chassis (work machine, i.e., cranes, has tracks or wheels [Wingdings font/0xF3] tractive elements);
a prime mover configured to drive at least one of the plurality of tractive elements (work machine, i.e., cranes, has engine(s) to provide powers to components of the crane);
an implement configured to receive power from the prime mover ((work machine, i.e., cranes, has a boom [Wingdings font/0xF3] implement to lift things. Obviously, the crane’s engine provide power to the boom to lifting things); and
a controller configured to ([0017], “… An on-board module… may represent any type of component operating in a work machine that controls or is controlled by other components or sub-components…”):
receive, via a local network communicably coupled to the vehicle, a first document associated with the vehicle ([0030], line 1-4, “… system 100 is configured to allow one or more on-board modules to receive software data, including software updates, from remote off-board system 110…” [0027], line 14-17, “… remote off-board system 110 is connected to work machine 120 through a local wireless communication device and communication module 121…” <examiner note: software [Wingdings font/0xF3] documents>);
store the first document locally on the vehicle ([0030], line 1-4, “… system 100 is configured to allow one or more on-board modules to receive software data, including software updates, from remote off-board system 110…”);
However, Ferguson does not explicitly disclose
compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network;
store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document; and
receive, via a user interface of the vehicle, a request for the second document; and
provide the second document stored locally on the vehicle to the user interface.
John discloses
compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network ([0024], line 13-21, “… the vehicle 102a may communicate with the fleet vehicles 102b . . . 102n via a cellular vehicle-to-everything (CV2X) connection 186 through the TCU 170. For instance, responsive to detecting each other, the fleet vehicles 102 may establish one or more wireless connections 184 and 186 and exchange basic information such as vehicle identification, ECU software version number and availability of software update in the storage of each vehicle…” <examiner note: vehicle 102a/donor [Wingdings font/0xF3] the second vehicle that has the second document/newer software version; vehicle 102b/recipient [Wingdings font/0xF3] the first vehicle that has the first document/current software version. The connection between them is considered as the first vehicle. The first vehicle connects to first LAN, and 1st vehicle connects 2nd vehicle to 2nd LAN. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a bridge between a 1st LAN and 2nd LAN as the same LAN> [0026], “… Responsive to connecting to the recipient vehicle, at operation 210, the donor vehicle 102a verifies a software version of one or more ECUs of the recipient vehicle… At operation 212, if the donor vehicle 102a determines the downloaded software is not newer than the current version of ECU software of the recipient vehicle, the process returns to operation 208. Otherwise, the process proceeds to operation 214 and the donor vehicle 102 request to transmit the software update data to the recipient vehicle… Otherwise, the process proceeds to operation 218 and the donor vehicle 102a starts to transmit the software update data via the wireless connection 184, 186…” <examiner note: when the software versions of the recipient is older, the recipient receives the software updates >)
store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document ([0026], line 28-21, “… Otherwise, the process proceeds to operation 218 and the donor vehicle 102a starts to transmit the software update data via the wireless connection 184, 186…” <examiner note: the recipient receives software updates>); and
Ferguson discloses a vehicle is received 1st document/software data; however, Ferguson does not disclose to receive a second document that is more recent than the 1st document/software data. John discloses a donor vehicle that includes more recent software version and shares the more recent software version to a recipient vehicle that includes older version of the software. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sharing more recent software version from one vehicle to another vehicle as disclosed by John into Ferguson because the donor vehicle, as a surrogate, may have access to free/low cost data and may download the OTA update data for the recipient vehicle. The next time the two vehicles encounter one another… the update data may be transmitted from the donor vehicle to the recipient vehicle/work machine. The donor vehicle may receive rewards for its activities in offering help to other vehicles.
Wherman discloses
receive, via a user interface of the vehicle, a request for the second document ([0048], “… the user interface 400 may include a details control 406 for receiving an indication from the user that the user would like to view details of the installed software updates 206…”); and
provide the second document stored locally on the vehicle to the user interface ([0048], “… The installation details may include information such as which vehicle modules 202 were updated and what versions of software updates 206 were installed. As the software updates 206 may be installed by the update management application 216 automatically, the message prompt 402 may accordingly allow the user to be informed of the status of the automatic vehicle 31 updates…” <examiner note: when user selects a detail control 406, information relates the software updates are displayed on the display of the vehicle>)
John discloses the newer software version, i.e., 2nd document, is downloaded to the vehicle. Wherman discloses an installation process of downloaded software updates [Wingdings font/0xF3] 2nd document. The installation process allows user to acquire information about the software updates [Wingdings font/0xF3] 2nd document. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the installation process of software updates as disclosed by Wherman into John and Ferguson to allow user to view the information, e.g., vehicle modules were updated and what versions of software updates were installed, of the software updates/2nd document.
Claim 2
Claim 1 is included, John discloses wherein the local network is a local mesh network established by the vehicle and the second vehicle ([0024], line 13-21, “… the vehicle 102a may communicate with the fleet vehicles 102b . . . 102n via a cellular vehicle-to-everything (CV2X) connection 186 through the TCU 170. For instance, responsive to detecting each other, the fleet vehicles 102 may establish one or more wireless connections 184 and 186 and exchange basic information such as vehicle identification, ECU software version number and availability of software update in the storage of each vehicle…” <examiner note: vehicle 102a/donor [Wingdings font/0xF3] the second vehicle that has the second document/newer software version; vehicle 102b/recipient [Wingdings font/0xF3] the first vehicle that has the first document/current software version. The connection between them is considered as the first vehicle. The first vehicle connects to first LAN, and 1st vehicle connects 2nd vehicle to 2nd LAN. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a bridge between a 1st LAN and 2nd LAN as the same LAN>
Claim 3
Claim 1 is included, John discloses wherein the local network is a local mesh network established by the second vehicle and a third vehicle (fig. 1, the donor vehicle 102a connects multiple recipient vehicles 102b-n on the same LAN)
Claim 4
Claim 3 is included, John further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: detect the second vehicle; and automatically join the local network in response to detecting the second vehicle (([0024], line 13-21, “… the vehicle 102a may communicate with the fleet vehicles 102b . . . 102n via a cellular vehicle-to-everything (CV2X) connection 186 through the TCU 170. For instance, responsive to detecting each other, the fleet vehicles 102 may establish one or more wireless connections 184 and 186 and exchange basic information such as vehicle identification, ECU software version number and availability of software update in the storage of each vehicle…”)
Claim 5
Claim 1 is included, Wherman discloses wherein the user interface further comprises a user input and display, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive the request for the second document via the user input; and provide the second document to the display ([0048], “… The installation details may include information such as which vehicle modules 202 were updated and what versions of software updates 206 were installed. As the software updates 206 may be installed by the update management application 216 automatically, the message prompt 402 may accordingly allow the user to be informed of the status of the automatic vehicle 31 updates…” <examiner note: when user selects a detail control 406, information relates the software updates are displayed on the display of the vehicle>)
Claim 6
Claim 5 is included, Wherman discloses wherein the controller is further configured to not provide the first document to the display when the controller provides the second document to the display ([0048], “… The installation details may include information such as which vehicle modules 202 were updated and what versions of software updates 206 were installed. As the software updates 206 may be installed by the update management application 216 automatically, the message prompt 402 may accordingly allow the user to be informed of the status of the automatic vehicle 31 updates…” <examiner note: when user selects a detail control 406, information relates the software updates are displayed on the display of the vehicle>)
Claim 7
Claim 1 is included, Ferguson discloses wherein the vehicle is a lift device ([0016], “… Work machine… such as trucks, cranes, earth moving vehicles, mining vehicles, backhoes, material handling equipment, farming equipment, marine vessels, aircraft, and any type of movable machine that operates in a work environment…” <examiner note: vehicle [Wingdings font/0xF3] cranes)
Claim 8
Claim 1 is included, Ferguson discloses wherein the controller is further configured to receive the first document from a remote server coupled to the local network ([0030], line 1-4, “… system 100 is configured to allow one or more on-board modules to receive software data, including software updates, from remote off-board system 110…” [0027], line 14-17, “… remote off-board system 110 is connected to work machine 120 through a local wireless communication device and communication module 121…” >)
Claim 9
Claim 1 is included, John discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: receive, via the local network, a second request for a third document from the second vehicle; and provide, via the local network, the third document from the vehicle to the second vehicle ([0026], “… Responsive to connecting to the recipient vehicle, at operation 210, the donor vehicle 102a verifies a software version of one or more ECUs of the recipient vehicle… At operation 212, if the donor vehicle 102a determines the downloaded software is not newer than the current version of ECU software of the recipient vehicle, the process returns to operation 208. Otherwise, the process proceeds to operation 214 and the donor vehicle 102 request to transmit the software update data to the recipient vehicle… Otherwise, the process proceeds to operation 218 and the donor vehicle 102a starts to transmit the software update data via the wireless connection 184, 186…” <examiner note: Obviously, when the donor vehicle has another newer version [Wingdings font/0xF3] 3rd software updates, it will transmit the newer version to the recipient vehicle>)
Claim 10
Claim 1 is included, John discloses wherein to compare the first document with the second document the controller is further configured to determine if the first document is more recent than the second document ([0024], line 13-21, “… the vehicle 102a may communicate with the fleet vehicles 102b . . . 102n via a cellular vehicle-to-everything (CV2X) connection 186 through the TCU 170. For instance, responsive to detecting each other, the fleet vehicles 102 may establish one or more wireless connections 184 and 186 and exchange basic information such as vehicle identification, ECU software version number and availability of software update in the storage of each vehicle…” <examiner note: vehicle 102a/donor [Wingdings font/0xF3] the first vehicle that has the first document/newer software version; vehicle 102b/recipient [Wingdings font/0xF3] the second vehicle that has the second document/older software version. The connection between them is considered as the first vehicle. The first vehicle connects to first LAN, and 1st vehicle connects 2nd vehicle to 2nd LAN. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a bridge between a 1st LAN and 2nd LAN as the same LAN> [0026], “… Responsive to connecting to the recipient vehicle, at operation 210, the donor vehicle 102a verifies a software version of one or more ECUs of the recipient vehicle… At operation 212, if the donor vehicle 102a determines the downloaded software is not newer than the current version of ECU software of the recipient vehicle, the process returns to operation 208. Otherwise, the process proceeds to operation 214 and the donor vehicle 102 request to transmit the software update data to the recipient vehicle… Otherwise, the process proceeds to operation 218 and the donor vehicle 102a starts to transmit the software update data via the wireless connection 184, 186…”)
Claim 11
Claim 10 is included, John discloses wherein the controller is further configured to provide the first document to the second vehicle in response to a determination the first document is more recent than the second document [0026], “… Responsive to connecting to the recipient vehicle, at operation 210, the donor vehicle 102a verifies a software version of one or more ECUs of the recipient vehicle… At operation 212, if the donor vehicle 102a determines the downloaded software is not newer than the current version of ECU software of the recipient vehicle, the process returns to operation 208. Otherwise, the process proceeds to operation 214 and the donor vehicle 102 request to transmit the software update data to the recipient vehicle… Otherwise, the process proceeds to operation 218 and the donor vehicle 102a starts to transmit the software update data via the wireless connection 184, 186…”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lancioni (U.S. Pub 2018/0285088 A1).
Claim 12
Lancioni discloses a documentation system comprising (fig. 1):
a plurality of vehicles including a first vehicle and a second vehicle, wherein the first vehicle and the second vehicle are communicatively connected to establish a local area network ([0036], “… FIG. 1… a vehicle may be updated while the vehicle is being driven, using an opportunistic peer-to-peer networking connection… means that the peer-to-peer connection is a temporary ad hoc connection that is made when one device is within range of another device with a similar ad hoc peer-to-peer networking capability…”);
wherein the first vehicle comprises a controller configured to (fig. 4, programmable device):
determine the second vehicle is of a type the same as the first vehicle (fig. 2, device A [Wingdings font/0xF3] 1st vehicle, and device B [Wingdings font/0xF3] 2nd vehicle, abstract, “… a device broadcast for updates to nearby devices of the same type…”);
compare a first document stored locally in the first vehicle with a second document stored locally in the second vehicle ([0054], line 14-16, “… FIG. 2, device B is running firmware version 1.1, while device A is running firmware version 1.0, an earlier version…” [0055], line 1-3, “… [0055] Upon receipt of the acknowledgment 230, device A may compare the identification data to determine if a new update is available from device B…”); and
store the second document locally on the first vehicle when the second document is more recent than the first document ([0057], line 1-4, “… If device A detects that the identification information or hash code provided by device B resolves on a more recent firmware version, device A may switch to a second stage of the handshaking protocol. At this point, device A may start sending update-sync requests 250…” [0061], line 1-4, “… When a near-by device B… receives the update-transfer request, if device B has at least one of the requested blocks, a byte stream transfer 290 is started from device B to device A…”)
Claim 13
Claim 12 is included, Lancioni discloses wherein to compare the first document with the second document the controller is further configured to determine if the first document is more recent than the second document, and in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document, store the second document locally on the first vehicle ([0057], line 1-4, “… If device A detects that the identification information or hash code provided by device B resolves on a more recent firmware version, device A may switch to a second stage of the handshaking protocol. At this point, device A may start sending update-sync requests 250…” [0061], line 1-4, “… When a near-by device B… receives the update-transfer request, if device B has at least one of the requested blocks, a byte stream transfer 290 is started from device B to device A…” <examiner note: the first document having version 1.0 on device A/1st vehicle is less recent than the second document having version 1.1 on device B/2nd vehicle. Therefore, the second document having version 1.1 is stored on the first vehicle>)
Claim 14
Claim 12 is included, Lancioni discloses wherein the controller is further configured to determine if the first document is more recent than the second document, and provide the first document to the second vehicle in response to a determination the first document is more recent than the second document ([0057], line 1-4, “… If device A detects that the identification information or hash code provided by device B resolves on a more recent firmware version, device A may switch to a second stage of the handshaking protocol. At this point, device A may start sending update-sync requests 250…” [0061], line 1-4, “… When a near-by device B… receives the update-transfer request, if device B has at least one of the requested blocks, a byte stream transfer 290 is started from device B to device A…” <examiner note: If first vehicle has more recent version, then the propagation is from A to B>)
Claim 17
Claim 13 is included, Lancini discloses wherein the first vehicle is a lift device ([0037], “… Any type of vehicle may provide this capability, although trucks and consumer automobiles may be the most common types of vehicles to employ the techniques…” <examiner note: Lancioni discloses any type of vehicle. A lift device, e.g., a fork lift, is a vehicle)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancioni (U.S. Pub 2018/0285088 A1), as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Wherman (U.S. Pub 2015/0363210 A1)
Claim 15
Claim 13 is included, however, Lancioni does not explicitly disclose wherein the first vehicle further comprises a user interface comprising a display, and wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a request for the second document; and provide, via the display, the second document stored locally on the first vehicle to a user.
Wherman discloses
a user interface comprising a display, and wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a request for the second document ([0048], “… the user interface 400 may include a details control 406 for receiving an indication from the user that the user would like to view details of the installed software updates 206…”); and
provide, via the display, the second document stored locally on the first vehicle to a user ([0048], “… The installation details may include information such as which vehicle modules 202 were updated and what versions of software updates 206 were installed. As the software updates 206 may be installed by the update management application 216 automatically, the message prompt 402 may accordingly allow the user to be informed of the status of the automatic vehicle 31 updates…” <examiner note: when user selects a detail control 406, information relates the software updates are displayed on the display of the vehicle>)
Lancioni discloses the newer software version, i.e., 2nd document, is downloaded to the vehicle. Wherman discloses an installation process of downloaded software updates [Wingdings font/0xF3] 2nd document. The installation process allows user to acquire information about the software updates [Wingdings font/0xF3] 2nd document. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the installation process of software updates as disclosed by Wherman into Lancioni to allow user to view the information, e.g., vehicle modules were updated and what versions of software updates were installed, of the software updates/2nd document.
Claim 16
Claim 15 is included, Wherman discloses wherein the controller is configured to not provide the first document when the controller provides the second document ([0048], “… The installation details may include information such as which vehicle modules 202 were updated and what versions of software updates 206 were installed. As the software updates 206 may be installed by the update management application 216 automatically, the message prompt 402 may accordingly allow the user to be informed of the status of the automatic vehicle 31 updates…” <examiner note: when user selects a detail control 406, information relates the software updates are displayed on the display of the vehicle>)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154