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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “configured to generate a first sensor signal affected by the material within the mixer drum” in lines 3-4 which is understood to mean that the first sensor generates a signal due to being affected by the material. Claim 8 recites a similar limitation which is likewise interpreted as above.
The limitations of claim 2 and claim 9 (and similarly for claim 16) are understood to mean that the processing circuitry is configured to determine if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge by determining if the material is sufficiently mixed by using the second sensor signal to count a number of completed revolutions of the mixer drum and by comparing the property of the material to a range (per claim 1 or claim 8 from which claim 2 or claim 9 depend respectively).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “700A” and “700B” (see Fig. 7A-B), “1112a”, “1114a” and “1110c” (see Fig. 12 and Fig. 13).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the second signal” in line 9 and it is recommended to amend this to “the second sensor signal” for consistency and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “wherein determining if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge by determining if the material is sufficiently mixed by using the baseline sensor signal to count a number of completed revolutions of the mixer drum” and it is unclear as written if the claim includes the previous limitation of claim 15 (as required per 35 U.S.C. 112(d)) for determining if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge or not.
This could be amended as “wherein determining if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge [[by]] further comprises determining if the material is sufficiently mixed by using the baseline sensor signal to count a number of completed revolutions of the mixer drum” or similar.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Datema et al. (US 20200230842) in view of Berman (US 20150355160) and Assh (US 5752768).
The applied reference (Datema et al.) has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Datema et al. discloses a mixer vehicle (Abstract, Fig. 6) comprising:
a mixer drum (mixer drum 102) configured to rotate to mix a material within the mixer drum (para. [0002]); a first sensor (sensor 198, Fig. 9) coupled with the mixer drum (at hatch portion 192, Fig. 9 and Fig. 15) and configured to generate a first sensor signal affected by the material within the mixer drum as the first sensor passes through the material within the mixer drum (“second acceleration sensor 198 is configured to measure disturbed acceleration signals due to a presence of material/mixture within mixer drum 102”, para. [0055]); a second sensor (sensor 196, Fig. 9) coupled with the mixer drum (Fig. 15) and configured to generate a second sensor signal (“first acceleration sensor 196 is configured to measure/produce undisturbed acceleration signals”, para. [0055]); and processing circuitry (para. [0087], Fig. 16) configured to: use an amount of noise in the first sensor signal relative to the second signal to determine a presence of material (para. [0003]) and a property of the material within the mixer drum (pars. [0058], [0064]-[0065] and [0072]).
Datema et al. discloses determining if material is ready for discharge by comparing the property of the material to a range (exceeds a threshold or deviates by a standard deviation, para. [0088]) or otherwise Berman discloses a mixer vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising a mixer drum configured to rotate to mix a material within the mixer drum (mixer 10), a sensor configured to obtain values of one or more properties of the material within the mixer drum (sensor 100 located within hollow interior of mixer 10, para. [0078], Fig. 2, with strain gauges to measure force, para. [0085], which is used to calculate slump, para. [0086], and other characteristics of the concrete within the mixer drum, para. [0087]) and Berman teaches a controller/processing circuitry (a computer processing unit is connected to sensors, para. [0023]) where the controller is configured to compare a property of the material to a range of acceptable values of the property (para. [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Datema et al. wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge or not by comparing the property of the material to a range.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a range of acceptable values in a system which relies on sensor data in order to facilitate efficient operation of the mixing vehicle.
Insomuch as a Datema et al. does not disclose limiting discharge of the material from the mixer drum in response to determining that the property of the material is not within an acceptable range; Assh discloses a system for control of a mobile cement mixer (Abstract) and Assh teaches a controller prevents discharge when the concrete is not ready (col. 8, lines 66-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Datema et al. wherein the processing circuitry is configured to limit discharge of the material from the mixer drum in response to determining that the property of the material is not within an acceptable range.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prevent discharge before the material is ready for discharge to help ensure the concrete has the proper characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, Datema et al. discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge (sufficiently mixed, para. [0112]) by determining if the material is sufficiently mixed by using the second sensor (sensor 196) signal to count a number of completed revolutions of the mixer drum (para. [0121]). It is noted that Assh also teaches counting (col. 3, line 13, col. 6, lines 64-67, col. 22, line 45).
Regarding claim 3, Datema et al. discloses wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are accelerometers (para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Datema et al. discloses wherein the property of the material is a slump of the material (pars. [0065] and [0072]). It is noted that Berman likewise teaches slump as a property determined by sensor data (Abstract, pars. [0086] and [0092]).
Regarding claim 5, Datema et al. discloses wherein the property of the material is a viscosity of the material (para. [0097]). It is noted that Berman likewise teaches viscosity as a property determined by sensor data (pars. [0015] and [0087]).
Regarding claim 6, Datema et al. discloses wherein the first sensor (sensor 198) signal is a disturbed sensor signal that includes an amount of noise as a result of the first sensor passing through the material within the mixer drum (para. [0058]), and the second sensor (sensor 196) signal is a baseline signal that does not include the amount of noise (para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, Datema et al. discloses wherein the first sensor (sensor 198) is coupled with a probe that protrudes into an inner volume of the mixer drum (Fig. 9 and Fig. 20) and the second sensor (sensor 196) is coupled externally to the inner volume of the mixer drum (Fig. 9 and Fig 20).
Regarding claim 8, Datema et al. discloses a control system for a mixer vehicle, comprising:
processing circuitry (para. [0087], Fig. 16) configured to: use an amount of noise in a first sensor signal relative to a second sensor signal to determine a presence of material (para. [0003]) and a property of a material within a mixer drum (pars. [0058], [0064]-[0065] and [0072]), the first sensor signal obtained from a first sensor coupled with the mixer drum and configured to generate the first sensor signal affected by the material within the mixer drum as the first sensor passes through the material within the mixer drum (“second acceleration sensor 198 is configured to measure disturbed acceleration signals due to a presence of material/mixture within mixer drum 102”, para. [0055]), and the second sensor signal obtained from a second sensor (sensor 196) coupled with the mixer drum (Fig. 20) and configured to generate the second sensor signal.
Datema et al. discloses determining if material is ready for discharge by comparing the property of the material to a range (exceeds a threshold or deviates by a standard deviation, para. [0088]) or otherwise Berman discloses a mixer vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising a mixer drum configured to rotate to mix a material within the mixer drum (mixer 10), a sensor configured to obtain values of one or more properties of the material within the mixer drum (sensor 100 located within hollow interior of mixer 10, para. [0078], Fig. 2, with strain gauges to measure force, para. [0085], which is used to calculate slump, para. [0086], and other characteristics of the concrete within the mixer drum, para. [0087]) and Berman teaches a controller/processing circuitry (a computer processing unit is connected to sensors, para. [0023]) where the controller is configured to compare a property of the material to a range of acceptable values of the property (para. [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Datema et al. wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge or not by comparing the property of the material to a range.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a range of acceptable values in a system which relies on sensor data in order to facilitate efficient operation of the mixing vehicle.
Insomuch as a Datema et al. does not disclose limiting discharge of the material from the mixer drum in response to determining that the property of the material is not within an acceptable range; Assh discloses a system for control of a mobile cement mixer (Abstract) and Assh teaches a controller prevents discharge when the concrete is not ready (col. 8, lines 66-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Datema et al. wherein the processing circuitry is configured to limit discharge of the material from the mixer drum in response to determining that the property of the material is not within an acceptable range.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prevent discharge before the material is ready for discharge to help ensure the concrete has the proper characteristics.
Regarding claim 9, Datema et al. discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge (sufficiently mixed, para. [0112]) by determining if the material is sufficiently mixed by using the second sensor (sensor 196) signal to count a number of completed revolutions of the mixer drum (para. [0121]). It is noted that Assh also teaches counting (col. 3, line 13, col. 6, lines 64-67, col. 22, line 45).
Regarding claim 10, Datema et al. discloses wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are accelerometers (para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Datema et al. discloses wherein the property of the material is a slump of the material (pars. [0065] and [0072]). It is noted that Berman likewise teaches slump as a property determined by sensor data (Abstract, pars. [0086] and [0092]).
Regarding claim 12, Datema et al. discloses wherein the property of the material is a viscosity of the material (para. [0097]). It is noted that Berman likewise teaches viscosity as a property determined by sensor data (pars. [0015] and [0087]).
Regarding claim 13, Datema et al. discloses wherein the first sensor (sensor 198) signal is a disturbed sensor signal that includes an amount of noise as a result of the first sensor passing through the material within the mixer drum (para. [0058]), and the second sensor (sensor 196) signal is a baseline signal that does not include the amount of noise (para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Datema et al. discloses wherein the first sensor (sensor 198) is coupled with a probe that protrudes into an inner volume of the mixer drum (Fig. 9 and Fig. 20) and the second sensor (sensor 196) is coupled externally to the inner volume of the mixer drum (Fig. 9 and Fig 20).
Regarding claim 15, Datema et al. discloses a method of controlling a mixer vehicle (Abstract), the method comprising: obtaining a disturbed sensor signal (“second acceleration sensor 198 is configured to measure disturbed acceleration signals due to a presence of material/mixture within mixer drum 102”, para. [0055]) and a baseline sensor signal (“first acceleration sensor 196 is configured to measured baseline acceleration signals”, para. [0055]) from a first sensor (sensor 198) and a second sensor (sensor 196); determining an amount of noise in the disturbed sensor signal relative to the baseline sensor signal based on a comparison between the baseline sensor signal and the disturbed sensor signal (para. [0005]); using the amount of noise in the disturbed sensor signal to determine a presence of material (para. [0003]) and a property of a material within a mixer drum (pars. [0058], [0064]-[0065] and [0072]).
Datema et al. discloses determining if material is ready for discharge by comparing the property of the material to an acceptable range (exceeds a threshold or deviates by a standard deviation, para. [0088]) or otherwise Berman discloses a mixer vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising a mixer drum configured to rotate to mix a material within the mixer drum (mixer 10), a sensor configured to obtain values of one or more properties of the material within the mixer drum (sensor 100 located within hollow interior of mixer 10, para. [0078], Fig. 2, with strain gauges to measure force, para. [0085], which is used to calculate slump, para. [0086], and other characteristics of the concrete within the mixer drum, para. [0087]) and Berman teaches a controller/processing circuitry (a computer processing unit is connected to sensors, para. [0023]) where the controller is configured to compare a property of the material to a range of acceptable values of the property (para. [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Datema et al. wherein the method includes determining if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge by comparing the property of the material to an acceptable range.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a range of acceptable values in a system which relies on sensor data in order to facilitate efficient operation of the mixing vehicle.
Insomuch as a Datema et al. does not disclose limiting discharge of the material from the mixer drum in response to determining that the property of the material is not within an acceptable range; Assh discloses a system and method for control of a mobile cement mixer (Abstract) and Assh teaches a controller prevents discharge when the concrete is not ready (col. 8, lines 66-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Datema et al. wherein the method includes limiting discharge of the material from the mixer drum in response to determining that the property of the material is not within the acceptable range.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prevent discharge before the material is ready for discharge to help ensure the concrete has the proper characteristics.
Regarding claim 16, Datema et al. discloses determining if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge (sufficiently mixed, para. [0112]) by determining if the material is sufficiently mixed by using the baseline sensor signal to count a number of completed revolutions of the mixer drum (para. [0121]). It is noted that Assh also teaches counting (col. 3, line 13, col. 6, lines 64-67, col. 22, line 45).
Regarding claim 17, Datema et al. discloses wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are accelerometers (para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 18, Datema et al. discloses wherein the property of the material is a slump of the material (pars. [0065] and [0072]). It is noted that Berman likewise teaches slump as a property determined by sensor data (Abstract, pars. [0086] and [0092]).
Regarding claim 19, Datema et al. discloses wherein the property of the material is a viscosity of the material (para. [0097]). It is noted that Berman likewise teaches viscosity as a property determined by sensor data (pars. [0015] and [0087]).
Regarding claim 20, Datema et al. discloses wherein the disturbed sensor (sensor 198, Fig. 20) signal includes an amount of noise as a result of the first sensor passing through the material within the mixer drum (para. [0058]), and the baseline sensor (sensor 196) signal does not include the amount of noise (para. [0058]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,897,167 hereinafter “’167” in view of Assh (US 5752768).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20, ‘167 claims the subject matter of the claims except that ‘167 does not claim limiting discharge of the material from the mixer drum in response to determining that the property of the material is not within an acceptable range and ‘167 does not claim determining if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge by determining if the material is sufficiently mixed by using a sensor signal to count a number of completed revolutions of the mixer drum. However, Assh teaches a controller prevents discharge when the concrete is not ready (col. 8, lines 66-67) and Assh also teaches counting revolutions of a mixer drum (col. 3, line 13, col. 6, lines 64-67, col. 22, line 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘167 to include limiting discharge of the material from the mixer drum in response to determining that the property of the material is not within an acceptable range and determining if the material within the mixer drum is ready for discharge by determining if the material is sufficiently mixed by using a sensor signal to count a number of completed revolutions of the mixer drum.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,381 hereinafter “’381”.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while terminology may differ, all the claimed features are claimed in ‘381.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,381 hereinafter “’381” as applied to claim 1 or claim 8 above and in further view of Compton (US 8727604) and Berman (US 20150355160).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, ‘381 does not claim a probe that protrudes into an inner volume of the mixer drum and ‘381 does not claim the second sensor is coupled externally to the inner volume.
However, Berman teaches a mixer vehicle where a probe with sensors protrudes into an inner volume of the mixer drum (sensor 100, Fig. 2, para. [0082]) and Compton teaches a sensor is coupled externally to the inner volume (col. 4, lines 37-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘381 to include wherein the first sensor is coupled with a probe that protrudes into an inner volume of the mixer drum and the second sensor is coupled externally to the inner volume of the mixer drum.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights