DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 7/10/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/10/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0022] of the specification filed 7/10/2024 references “FIGS. 3 and 4;” however, in light of the reference numbers provided in paragraph [0022], FIGS. 2 and 3 should instead be referenced.
Paragraph [0023] of the specification filed 7/10/2024 references “FIG. 3;” however, in light of the reference numbers provided in paragraph [0023], FIG. 2 should instead be referenced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A work machine, comprising:
a machine frame supported on a traction system;
an implement supported by the machine frame and operable to perform work;
an electrical power supply system configured for powering the traction system and the implement; and
an electronic controller configured for controlling operation of the work machine and for calculating an accumulated damage score for a plurality of work cycles, the electronic controller comprising a human-machine interface comprising a push level selector allowing an operator to select a push level to be used to perform the plurality of work cycles where the electronic controller is configured to select a factor based on the selected push level to be used to calculate the accumulated damage score.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a machine. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating an accumulated damage score for a plurality of work cycles. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of an “accumulated damage score” is data representative of an accumulated damage score. The limitation of “for a plurality of work cycles” merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “accumulated damage score”) and does not require actual operation of the work machine.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “the electronic controller.” That is, other than reciting “electronic controller,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “electronic controller” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. plurality of work cycles) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. calculate an accumulated damage score). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “electronic controller”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “electronic controller” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of select a factor based on the selected push level to be used to calculate the accumulated damage score. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “factor” is data representative of a factor. Generally recited data is merely selected based on other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “the electronic controller.” That is, other than reciting “electronic controller,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “electronic controller” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. selected push level) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. select a factor). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “electronic controller”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “electronic controller” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The recitation of the “work machine” including the “electronic controller” as performing the “calculating” and “select” steps is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. electronic controller residing on a work machine) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. calculating an accumulated damage score and selecting a factor) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
a machine frame supported on a traction system;
an implement supported by the machine frame and operable to perform work;
an electrical power supply system configured for powering the traction system and the implement;
an electronic controller configured for controlling operation of the work machine;
the electronic controller comprising a human-machine interface comprising a push level selector allowing an operator to select a push level to be used to perform the plurality of work cycles.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “push level” is data representative of a push level and does not require actual operation of the work machine. The limitation of “to be used to perform the plurality of work cycles” merely describes an intended use of the generally recited data (i.e. “push level”). Further, the limitation of “plurality of work cycles” is not associated with controlled operation of the work machine. While the claimed “implement” is defined as being “operable to perform work,” there is no claimed relationship between the “work” and the “plurality of work cycles.”
The “select” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general selecting of a push level) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “human-machine interface” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the human-machine interface is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “controlling” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general controlling of operation of the work machine) and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Specifically, the “controlling” step is not functionally linked to the other elements of the claim and contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation).
The “work machine” comprising a machine frame supported on a traction system, an implement supported by the machine frame, and an electrical power supply system configured for powering the traction system and the implement contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (i.e. in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (i.e. “calculating” and “select” steps); therefore, the work machine and its claimed components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
The “work machine” and its claimed components, including the “electronic controller,” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose work machine. The “electronic controller” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the controlling and selecting steps, work machine configuration, and human-machine interface were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the work machine as being known in the art, and the specification does not provide any indication that the human-machine interface and electronic controller are anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), indicate that storing and retrieving data in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-10
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of the implement comprises a boom and a bucket for excavating.
The limitation of “for excavating” does not require actual operation of the work machine and merely describes an intended use of the implement.
Further limiting the “implement” to include a boom and a bucket represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the implement” to include a boom and a bucket does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of the human-machine interface further comprises a site information interface comprising a plurality of input fields.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “site information interface” is data representative of input fields.
No technological details are recited with respect to the “interface” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the site information interface, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limiting the “human-machine interface” to include a site information interface comprising a plurality of input fields represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the human-machine interface” to include a site information interface comprising a plurality of input fields does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the plurality of input fields comprise a site dimension field.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “site dimension field” is data representative of a site dimension input.
Further limiting the “plurality of input fields” to include a site dimension field represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the plurality of input fields to include a site dimension field does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of the site dimension field comprises a site area field.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “site area field” is data representative of a site area input.
Further limiting the “site dimension field” to include a site area field represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the site dimension field to include a site area field does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of the site dimension field comprises a depth field.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “depth field” is data representative of a depth input.
Further limiting the “site dimension field” to include a depth area field represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the site dimension field to include a depth field does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of the plurality of input fields comprises a frozen depth field.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “frozen depth field” is data representative of a frozen depth input.
Further limiting the “plurality of input fields” to include a frozen depth area field represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the plurality of input fields to include a frozen depth field does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of the plurality of input fields comprises a material characteristics field.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “material characteristics field” is data representative of a material characteristics input.
Further limiting the “plurality of input fields” to include a material characteristics field represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the plurality of input fields to include a material characteristics field does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of the accumulated damage score comprises a product of a number of work hours and a push level factor.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “product of a number of work hours and a push level factor” is data representative of a product of a number of work hours and a push level factor.
Further limiting the “accumulated damage score” to include a product of a number of work hours and a push level factor represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the accumulated damage score” to include a product of a number of work hours and a push level factor does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of the accumulated damage score comprises a product of a material factor, a number of work hours, and a push level factor.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “product of a material factor, a number of work hours, and a push level factor” is data representative of a product of a material factor, a number of work hours, and a push level factor.
Further limiting the “accumulated damage score” to include a product of a material factor, a number of work hours, and a push level factor represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the accumulated damage score” to include a product of a material factor, a number of work hours, and a push level factor does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 11
Claim 11. A method of operating a work machine, comprising:
selecting a first push level on a human-machine interface;
calculating a first accumulated damage function of a first plurality of work cycles for the first push level;
selecting a second push level on the human-machine interface;
calculating a second accumulated damage function of a second plurality of work cycles for the second push level;
comparing the first accumulated damage function to the second accumulated damage function; and
selecting a push level for a project based on the comparing and based on a project constraint.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating a first accumulated damage function of a first plurality of work cycles for the first push level. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “first accumulated damage function” is data representative of accumulated damage. The limitation of “first plurality of work cycles” is merely describing the generally recited data (i.e. “first accumulated damage function”) and does not require actual operation of the work machine. Similarly, the limitation of “first push level” is merely describing the generally recited data (i.e. “first accumulated damage function”) and does not require actual operation of the work machine. Generally recited data is merely calculated.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first plurality of work cycles and first push level) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. calculate a first accumulated damage function). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of calculating a second accumulated damage function of a second plurality of work cycles for the second push level. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “second accumulated damage function” is data representative of accumulated damage. The limitation of “second plurality of work cycles” is merely describing the generally recited data (i.e. “second accumulated damage function”) and does not require actual operation of the work machine. Similarly, the limitation of “second push level” is merely describing the generally recited data (i.e. “second accumulated damage function”) and does not require actual operation of the work machine. Generally recited data is merely calculated.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second plurality of work cycles and second push level) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. calculate a second accumulated damage function). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of comparing the first accumulated damage function to the second accumulated damage function. The generally recited data discussed above is merely compared.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first accumulated damage function and second accumulated damage function) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. compare the first accumulated damage function to the second accumulated damage function). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of selecting a push level for a project based on the comparing and based on a project constraint. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “push level” is data representative of a push level. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “project constraint” is data representative of limitations for a project. The limitation of a “project” merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “push level”) and does not require actual operation of the work machine. Generally recited data is merely selected based on other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first and second accumulated damage function and project constraint) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. select a push level). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further, the mere recitation of the claimed method as being “of operating a work machine” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping, given no “operating” steps are claimed.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
selecting a first push level on a human-machine interface;
selecting a second push level on the human-machine interface.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “first push level” and “second push level” are data representative of push levels. Generally recited data is merely selected using generic computing components.
The “selecting” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general selecting of a first or second push level) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “human-machine interface” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the human-machine interface is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the selecting steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the work machine as being known in the art, and the specification does not provide any indication that the human-machine interface is anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), indicate that storing and retrieving data in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 12-20
Dependent claims 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites the additional element of selecting the push level comprises selecting a push level for an autodig process. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “push level” is data representative of a push level. The limitation of “autodig process” merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “push level”) and does not require actual operation of the work machine.
The “selecting” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general selecting of a push level) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further limiting the “selecting” step to include selecting a push level for an autodig process represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the selecting step to include selecting a push level for an autodig process does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 12 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the additional element of calculating a first accumulated damage function comprises multiplying a number of hours to complete a plurality of work cycles by a push level factor. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “number of hours to complete a plurality of work cycles” is data representative of a number of hours and does not require actual operation of the work machine. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “push level factor,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a push level factor.
The limitation of “multiplying” is a well-known mathematical calculation. Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts of grouping abstract ideas.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 13 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 11.
Claim 14 recites the additional element of calculating a first accumulated damage function comprises multiplying a number of hours to complete a plurality of work cycles by a push level factor and a material factor.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “number of hours to complete a plurality of work cycles” is data representative of a number of hours and does not require actual operation of the work machine. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “push level factor,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a push level factor, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “material factor” is data representative of a material factor.
The limitation of “multiplying” is a well-known mathematical calculation. Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts of grouping abstract ideas.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 14 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 11.
Claim 15 recites the additional element of project constraints comprise a period of time to complete the project.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “period of time to complete the project” is data representative of a time period and does not require actual operation of the work machine.
Further limiting the “project constraints” to be a period of time to complete the project represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the project constraints to be a period of time to complete the project does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 15 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 11.
Claim 16 recites the additional element of selecting a push level comprises selecting a lowest push level that allows for meeting the project constraint. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “lowest push level” is data representative of a lowest push level. The limitation of “allows for meeting the project constrain” merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “lowest push level”) and does not require actual operation of the work machine.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. project constraint) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. select a lowest push level). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 16 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 11.
Claim 17 recites the additional element of the push level correlates with a percentage of fullness of a bucket. The limitation of “percentage of fullness of a bucket” merely describes the generally recited data (i.e. “push level”) and does not require actual operation of the work machine.
Further limiting the “push level” to correlate with a percentage of fullness of a bucket represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the push level to correlate with a percentage of fullness of a bucket does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 17 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 11.
Claim 18 recites the additional element of performing a trial work cycle to establish how the push level correlates with the percentage of fullness of the bucket. The limitation of “trial work cycle” is not defined in the claim and does not require to the trial work cycle to be related to the work machine; therefore, the “trial work cycle” may reasonably represent any operation to perform the “establish” step using generally recited data (i.e. “push level” and “percentage of fullness of the bucket”).
Further limiting the correlation of the push level with a percentage of fullness of a bucket to be established by performing a trial work cycle represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the correlation of the push level with a percentage of fullness of a bucket to be established by performing a trial work cycle does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 18 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 11.
Claim 19 recites the additional element of using the percentage of fullness of the bucket and using site dimensions to determine a number of work cycles to complete the project. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “number of work cycles to complete the project” is data representative of a number of work cycles and does not require actual operation of the work machine.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. percentage of fullness of the bucket and site dimensions) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a number of work cycles to complete the project). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, dependent claim 19 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 11.
Claim 20 recites the additional element of multiplying the number of work cycles by a time per work cycle to determine a total project time. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “total project time” is data representative of a total time and does not require actual operation of the work machine. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “time per work cycle,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a time for a work cycle and does not require actual operation of the work machine.
The limitation of “multiplying” is a well-known mathematical calculation. Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts of grouping abstract ideas.
Therefore, dependent claim 20 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 11.
Claims 1-20 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Key to Interpreting the Prior Art Rejections
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
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 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkura et al. (US 2008/0195365 A1), hereinafter Ohkura, in view of Ogasawara et al. (US 2022/0178115 A1), hereinafter Ogasawara.
Claim 1
Ohkura discloses the claimed work machine (i.e. construction machine 3, defined as including a hydraulic shovel in ¶0084), comprising a machine frame supported on a traction system (see Figures 1 and 27, depicting construction machine 3 as an excavator with a “machine frame supported on a traction system”), an implement supported by the machine frame and operable to perform work (see Figures 1 and 27, depicting the “implement supported by the machine frame” of construction machine 3, and Figure 5, depicting the selection of a particular loading machine model, e.g., WA800, that performs the depicted “work”), and an electrical power supply system configured for powering the traction system and the implement (see ¶0064, with respect to Figure 16, regarding that construction machine 3 comprises an engine, transmission, and power line, where construction machine 3 is a hydraulic shovel, as described in ¶0084). The “machine frame,” “traction system,” “implement,” and “electrical power supply system” are inherent features of the loading machines depicted in the figures of Ohkura. For example, Ohkura teaches particular models of construction machine 3 as WA800 and PC1250 in Figure 12, which are known Komatsu loader and excavator models, respectively, which inherently include associated machine frame, traction system, implement, and electrical power supply system, as claimed.
Ohkura further discloses that the claimed work machine comprises an electronic controller configured for controlling operation of the work machine (see ¶0064, with respect to Figure 16, regarding that the construction machine 3 comprises an in-vehicle controller 6 for controlling the engine, transmission, powerline, and other components).
Ohkura further discloses that cumulative load calculation means 13 is configured for calculating an accumulated damage score (i.e. severity of the cumulative load) for a plurality of work cycles (see ¶0072, regarding that cumulative load calculation means 13 calculates the severity of the cumulative load of each component).
Ohkura further discloses a human-machine interface comprising a push level selector (i.e. “work conditions” input for loading machine in Figure 3) allowing an operator to select a push level to be used to perform the plurality of work cycles (see Figure 3, depicting the selection of 0.75 NORMAL and 100.00 for the loading machine under “work conditions,” defined as including the functionality of the loading machine in ¶0083; ¶0082, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that total hours spent working is defined in the preceding production condition input screen 121), where cumulative load calculation means 13 is configured to select a factor based on the selected push level to be used to calculate the accumulated damage score (see ¶0012, regarding that the cumulative load calculation means calculates, by means of a predetermined calculation algorithm, the cumulative load of the predetermined component based on the simulation results, where particular coefficients a, b, c, and d are defined according to the defined conditions, as described in ¶0098-0103, with respect to Figure 15). The limitation of “push level” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure, and thus, the “work conditions” of the loading machine depicted in Figure 3 may reasonably be applied to teach the limitation of a “push level,” given that the “working conditions” are indicative of the functional intensity (“conditions”) and efficiency (“function ratio”) of the loading machine for a specific simulation procedure (see ¶0083).
While Ohkura discloses the step of “calculating an accumulated damage score” as being performed by a remote computer terminal 10 (see Figure 1 or Figure 27) and the “human-machine interface” is associated with remote computer terminal 10 (see ¶0082, with respect to Figure 1), it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to modify the configuration of computing components, such that the calculation of an accumulated damage score and human-machine interface are provided on-board the construction machine, given that an in-vehicle controller 6 is provided (see ¶0064).
Specifically, Ogasawara teaches calculating a cumulative damage degree for each component of a work machine (similar to the step of calculating an accumulated damage score taught by Ohkura) (see ¶0077), where the damage degree calculation section S2 (similar to cumulative load calculation means 13 of Ohkura) is provided as part of controller 15 (see Figure 2), defined as being housed in the upper slewing body 12 of hydraulic excavator 10 and controls operation of the hydraulic excavator (see ¶0047, with respect to Figure 3), similar to the operation of the electronic controller taught by Ohkura. Ogasawara further teaches monitor 19B (similar to the human-machine interface taught by Ohkura) provided in communication with controller 15 (see ¶0035, with respect to Figure 2), defined as a touch panel in ¶0065.
While the calculations of accumulated damage of components of a work machine are performed using different rules and data in Ogasawara and Ohkura, it is the mere technique of performing similar calculations using the electronic controller on-board an excavator that is modified by Ogasawara; therefore, the particular calculations do not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Ohkura and Ogasawara are directed to the same purpose, i.e. calculating accumulated damage of components of a work machine, 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 step of calculating an accumulated damage score taught by Ohkura to be performed by the electronic controller comprising the human-machine interface, in light of Ogasawara, with the predictable result of providing for an integrated control and monitoring system (¶0048 of Ogasawara) that allows for real-time sensor processing (¶0099 of Ogasawara) without the inherent delay of transmission to a remote source via the communication network of Ohkura (see ¶0059).
Claim 2
Ohkura further discloses that the implement comprises a boom and a bucket for excavating (see Figures 1 and 27, depicting embodiments of work machine 3 as an excavator with a boom and bucket). Ohkura further teaches particular models of the loading machine that include PC1250 in Figure 12, known to be a Komatsu excavator with a boom and bucket.
Claim 3
Ohkura further discloses that the human-machine interface further comprises a site information interface comprising a plurality of input fields (see ¶0083, with respect to Figure 3, depicting course condition input screen 122 that includes site elevation, course width, curve radius, etc.).
Claim 4
Ohkura further discloses that the plurality of input fields comprise a site dimension field (see ¶0083, with respect to Figure 3, depicting course condition input screen 122 that includes site elevation, course width, curve radius, etc.).
Claim 5
Ohkura further discloses that the site dimension field comprises a site area field (see ¶0083, with respect to Figure 3, depicting course condition input screen 122 that includes course width and distance).
Claim 8
Ohkura further discloses that the plurality of input fields comprises a material characteristics field (see ¶0083, with respect to Figure 3, depicting course condition input screen 122 that includes state and type of soil).
Claim 9
Ohkura further discloses that the accumulated damage score comprises a product of a number of work hours and a push level factor (see ¶0169, with respect to Figure 26, regarding that cumulative load is calculated by multiplying the load obtained from the simulation by ratio RL, defined as a ratio of the operating time ts of the simulation over the operating time tr of the actual operation in ¶0166-0167; ¶0012, regarding that the cumulative load calculation means calculates, by means of a predetermined calculation algorithm, the cumulative load of the predetermined component based on the simulation results, where the simulation is based on inputted values including work conditions, as described in ¶0083, with respect to Figure 3). Given that the cumulative load (or severity) algorithm is updated by multiplying the simulation result obtained from the algorithm by ratio RL (see ¶0169), where the ratio is defined as ts/tr, and ts is the operating time of the simulation (see ¶0167), Ohkura teaches a “push level factor” represented by the coefficients derived from the input work conditions for determining the cumulative load is multiplied by “a number of work hours” represented by ts.
Claim 10
Ohkura further discloses that the accumulated damage score comprises a product of a material factor, a number of work hours, and a push level factor (see ¶0169, with respect to Figure 26, regarding that cumulative load is calculated by multiplying the load obtained from the simulation by ratio RL, defined as a ratio of the operating time ts of the simulation over the operating time tr of the actual operation in ¶0166-0167; ¶0012, regarding that the cumulative load calculation means calculates, by means of a predetermined calculation algorithm, the cumulative load of the predetermined component based on the simulation results, where the simulation is based on inputted values including work conditions and soil type, as described in ¶0083, with respect to Figure 3). Given that the cumulative load (or severity) algorithm is updated by multiplying the simulation result obtained from the algorithm by ratio RL (see ¶0169), where the ratio is defined as ts/tr, and ts is the operating time of the simulation (see ¶0167), Ohkura teaches the “push level factor” and “material factor” represented by the coefficients derived from the input work conditions and soil type for determining the cumulative load are multiplied by “a number of work hours” represented by ts.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkura in view of Ogasawara, and in further view of Jang et al. (US 2022/0405675 A1), hereinafter Jang.
Claim 6
Ohkura does not explicitly disclose that the site dimension field comprises a depth field. However, including a “depth field” in the course condition input screen of Figure 3 would be reasonable, given Ohkura explicitly discloses that the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments in ¶0178. Further, the “site information” is not used in any claimed calculations, and therefore, it would be reasonable to modify Ohkura to include additional input fields, in light of Jang.
Specifically, Jang teaches a display portion 110 that includes a work plan creating portion 140 for creating the work plan for a manned excavator (see ¶0089). Jang further teaches the work plan creating portion 140 (similar to the site dimension field taught by Ohkura) includes work area creating portion 160 (see ¶0100, with respect to Figure 4) that includes digging work creating/editing unit 162 (see Figure 11) that comprises a depth field (see ¶0145, regarding that an administrator sets conditions for the digging work through digging work creating/editing unit 162 by inputting the excavation depth). Similar to the “site dimension field” of Ohkura, Jang teaches additional fields, such as excavation width, excavation length, etc. (see ¶0145).
In Jang, the inputs are provided for creating a work plan used in operating the construction machine. In Ohkura, the inputs are provided for simulation of the operation of the construction machine. However, it is the inclusion of a depth field that is modified by Jang; therefore, the particular use of the inputs does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Ohkura and Jang are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a user interface for defining site dimensions of a work area, 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 site dimension field of Ohkura to further comprise a depth field, in light of Jang, with the predictable result of providing additional inputs to more accurately define the excavation area (¶0145 of Jang), applicable to the course condition input screen of Figure 3 of Ohkura.
Claim 7
Ohkura does not explicitly disclose that the site dimension field comprises a frozen depth field. However, including a “frozen depth field” in the course condition input screen of Figure 3 would be reasonable, given Ohkura explicitly discloses that the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments in ¶0178. Further, the “site information” is not used in any claimed calculations, and therefore, it would be reasonable to modify Ohkura to include additional input fields, in light of Jang.
Specifically, Jang teaches a display portion 110 that includes a work plan creating portion 140 for creating the work plan for a manned excavator (see ¶0089). Jang further teaches the work plan creating portion 140 (similar to the site dimension field taught by Ohkura) includes work area creating portion 160 (see ¶0100, with respect to Figure 4) that includes digging work creating/editing unit 162 (see Figure 11) that comprises a depth field (see ¶0145, regarding that an administrator sets conditions for the digging work through digging work creating/editing unit 162 by inputting the excavation depth). Similar to the “site dimension field” of Ohkura, Jang teaches additional fields, such as excavation width, excavation length, etc. (see ¶0145).
While Jang does not particularly teach that the “depth field” pertains to a frozen depth, Ohkura teaches a “state” field with respect to the type of soil that would reasonably include “frozen” inputs; therefore, the combination of fields taught by Ohkura and Jang reasonably teaches a frozen depth field. 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 “state” field of Figure 3 of Ohkura to include frozen soil, with the predictable result of being “obvious to try” - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, soil is well known in the art to exist in a finite number of states, e.g., normal, sandy, frozen, wet, etc.
In Jang, the inputs are provided for creating a work plan used in operating the construction machine. In Ohkura, the inputs are provided for simulation of the operation of the construction machine. However, it is the inclusion of a depth field that is modified by Jang; therefore, the particular use of the inputs does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Ohkura and Jang are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a user interface for defining site dimensions of a work area, 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 site dimension field of Ohkura to further comprise a frozen depth field, in light of Jang, with the predictable result of providing additional inputs to more accurately define the excavation area (¶0145 of Jang), applicable to the course condition input screen of Figure 3 of Ohkura.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkura.
Claim 11
Ohkura discloses the claimed method of operating a work machine (see ¶0061-0066, regarding the operation of construction machine 3, defined as a loading machine such as a loader or hydraulic shovel). The following claimed steps of the “method” do not involve operations of the work machine and merely select and calculate data, as discussed in detail in the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Ohkura further teaches that the claimed method comprises:
selecting a first push level on a human-machine interface (see Figure 3, depicting “work conditions” input for the loading machine);
calculating a first accumulated damage function (i.e. severity of the cumulative load) of a first plurality of work cycles for the first push level (see ¶0072, regarding that cumulative load calculation means 13 calculates the severity of the cumulative load of each component; ¶0012, regarding that the cumulative load calculation means calculates, by means of a predetermined calculation algorithm, the cumulative load of the predetermined component based on the simulation results).
Ohkura further teaches the option of modifying the simulation by adjusting the input parameters (see ¶0084), which may reasonably apply to the screen of Figure 3 that includes work conditions for the loading machine (i.e. “push level”), and therefore, the user may reasonably perform a second simulation with different input parameters, such that the claimed method comprises:
selecting a second push level on the human-machine interface (see Figure 3, depicting “work conditions” input for the loading machine);
calculating a second accumulated damage function of a second plurality of work cycles for the second push level (see ¶0072, regarding that cumulative load calculation means 13 calculates the severity of the cumulative load of each component; ¶0012, regarding that the cumulative load calculation means calculates, by means of a predetermined calculation algorithm, the cumulative load of the predetermined component based on the simulation results).
Ohkura further discloses that the claimed method comprises selecting a push level (i.e. “work conditions” for loading machine in Figure 3) for a project based on a project constraint (see ¶0080-0092, with respect to Figures 1-13, regarding the various input screens displayed to define “project constraints” for a simulation). The “project” is defined by the user as the user provides input for the plurality of screens that define production conditions, course conditions, machine conditions, fleet conditions, section time, and simulation conditions in Figures 2, 3, and 5-8.
Ohkura does not further disclose that the claimed method comprises comparing the first accumulated damage function to the second accumulated damage function, such that the step of “selecting a push level” is further based on the comparing. However, no claim language is provided that requires the steps to be performed automatically by a control unit of the work machine for controlled operations; therefore, the claimed steps may be reasonably performed by a human. Given that the simulations provide all necessary data, a user may reasonably decide on “work conditions” using the results of the calculated severity of the cumulative load generated for different simulations.
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 first accumulated damage function and second accumulated damage function of Ohkura, so as to be further compar[ed], such that the step of selecting a push level for a project based on a project constraint taught by Ohkura is further based on the comparing, with the predictable result of providing the user with the option of selecting course conditions (¶0070 of Ohkura) in consideration of the results of previously generated simulations (¶0164 of Ohkura).
Claim 12
Ohkura further discloses that selecting the push level comprises selecting a push level for an autodig process (see ¶0091, with respect to Figure 13, depicting animations of the generated simulation, which include loading machines that perform digging operations in combination with dump trucks that perform dumping operations, where the simulation is executed based on all inputs, as described in ¶0089, that include working conditions of the loading machine, as described in ¶0083, with respect to Figure 3). The claim language does not require actual operation of the work machine, and the “autodig process” may be reasonably performed by the generated simulation in Figure 13.
Claim 13
Ohkura further discloses that calculating a first accumulated damage function comprises multiplying a number of hours to complete a plurality of work cycles by a push level factor (see ¶0169, with respect to Figure 26, regarding that cumulative load is calculated by multiplying the load obtained from the simulation by ratio RL, defined as a ratio of the operating time ts of the simulation over the operating time tr of the actual operation in ¶0166-0167; ¶0012, regarding that the cumulative load calculation means calculates, by means of a predetermined calculation algorithm, the cumulative load of the predetermined component based on the simulation results, where the simulation is based on inputted values including work conditions, as described in ¶0083, with respect to Figure 3). Given that the cumulative load (or severity) algorithm is updated by multiplying the simulation result obtained from the algorithm by ratio RL (see ¶0169), where the ratio is defined as ts/tr, and ts is the operating time of the simulation (see ¶0167), Ohkura teaches a “push level factor” represented by the coefficients defined by the input work conditions for determining the cumulative load are multiplied by “a number of work hours” represented by ts.
Claim 14
Ohkura further discloses that calculating a first accumulated damage function comprises multiplying a number of hours to complete a plurality of work cycles by a push level factor and a material factor (see ¶0169, with respect to Figure 26, regarding that cumulative load is calculated by multiplying the load obtained from the simulation by ratio RL, defined as a ratio of the operating time ts of the simulation over the operating time tr of the actual operation in ¶0166-0167; ¶0012, regarding that the cumulative load calculation means calculates, by means of a predetermined calculation algorithm, the cumulative load of the predetermined component based on the simulation results, where the simulation is based on inputted values including work conditions and soil type, as described in ¶0083, with respect to Figure 3). Given that the cumulative load (or severity) algorithm is updated by multiplying the simulation result obtained from the algorithm by ratio RL (see ¶0169), where the ratio is defined as ts/tr, and ts is the operating time of the simulation (see ¶0167), Ohkura teaches a “push level factor” and “material factor” represented by the coefficients defined by the input soil type and work conditions for determining the cumulative load are multiplied by “a number of work hours” represented by ts.
Claim 15
Ohkura further discloses that project constraints comprise a period of time to complete the project (see ¶0082, with respect to Figure 2, regarding the input related to the operating schedule includes total hours spent working by the operator).
Claim 16
Ohkura further discloses that selecting a push level comprises selecting a lowest push level that allows for meeting the project constraint, such that the user selects “conditions” for the loading machine that are the lowest in light of “project constraints” defined by the user in the plurality of screens that define production conditions, course conditions, machine conditions, fleet conditions, section time, and simulation conditions in Figures 2, 3, and 5-8. As discussed in the rejection of claim 11, no claim language is provided that requires the steps to be performed automatically by a control unit of the work machine for controlled operations; therefore, the claimed steps may be reasonably performed by a human.
Claim 17
Ohkura further discloses that the push level correlates with a percentage of fullness of a bucket (see ¶0070, regarding a simulation of the driving and working conditions is performed by selecting course conditions and machine conditions, where the course conditions include “work conditions” of the loading machine, as depicted in Figure 3, and the machine conditions include “bucket coefficient” of the loading machine, as depicted in Figure 5). Given that the work conditions of the loading machine and bucket coefficient of the loading machine are both input to compute the cumulative load (severity) (see ¶0010), there is a functional correlation between the work conditions and bucket coefficient.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkura in view of Currier et al. (US 2022/0325497 A1), hereinafter Currier.
Claim 18
Ohkura does not further disclose that the claimed method comprises performing a trial work cycle to establish how the push level correlates with the percentage of fullness of the bucket. However, the claimed “correlation” does not influence the claimed steps; therefore, a “trial work cycle” may be reasonably incorporated into the system of Ohkura, in light of Currier.
Specifically, Currier teaches the known technique of performing a trial work cycle to establish how a desired operation (similar to the push level taught by Ohkura) correlates with remaining amount of material in the bucket (similar to the percentage of fullness of the bucket taught by Ohkura) (see ¶0078, with respect to Figure 15, regarding neural network 1503 is trained online using inputs of remaining amount of material in the bucket 1513 and desired change in weight 1525). The desired operation of Currier is related to a desired change in weight of the material loaded in the bucket and is not the same type of “push level” taught by Ohkura; however, Currier is merely applied to teach the known technique of training a model using inputs similar to the inputs provided in Figures 3 and 5 Ohkura, so as to establish operational relationships.
Since the systems of Ohkura and Currier are directed to the same purpose, i.e. receiving inputs related to a work machine, 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 method of Ohkura, so as to further comprise performing a trial work cycle to establish how the push level correlates with the percentage of fullness of the bucket, in light of Currier, with the predictable result of learning relationships associated with operation of a bucket (¶0080 of Currier) for modeling accurate operations of the work machine (¶0075 of Currier).
Claim 19
Ohkura further discloses using the percentage of fullness of the bucket and using site dimensions to determine a number of work cycles to complete the project (see ¶0094-0096, with respect to Figure 14, regarding that the simulation results obtained from the course conditions and machine conditions in ST1 are used to determine the loading work count/time in step ST6, where the course conditions are depicted as including site dimensions in Figure 3 and the machine conditions are depicted as including bucket coefficient of the loading machine in Figure 5).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkura in view of Currier, and in further view of Calculator Academy (“Excavator Cycle Time Calculator,” July 5, 2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20220705182216/https://calculator.academy/excavator-cycle-time-calculator/), hereinafter Calculator Academy.
Claim 20
Ohkura further discloses multiplying the number of work cycles by a time per work cycle to determine a total project time (see Figure 13, depicting the “total project time” of 1:07:06 calculated for the simulation, based on the number of loads defined in Figure 6 and section times defined in Figure 7). While Ohkura does not explicitly disclose “multiplying” these values, given the particular inputs of number of loads and section times, it may be reasonably gleaned that multiplication occurs in order to determine the total time represented in Figure 13. The limitation of “total project time” is not used in any of the claimed steps and is merely determined.
In case this known calculation is not clearly taught by Ohkura, Calculator Academy is applied in combination with Ohkura.
Specifically, Calculator Academy teaches the known relationship of multiplying a number of work cycles (similar to the number of work cycles taught by Ohkura) by a time per work cycle to determine a total project time (see second page, regarding the equation ECT = T/C). The equation for solving the excavator cycle time inherently teaches the claimed equation for solving the “total project time,” in that T = ECT x C.
Since Ohkura and Calculator Academy are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing excavator-related calculations, 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 method of Ohkura, so as to further perform multiplying the number of work cycles by a time per work cycle to determine a total project time, in light of Calculator Academy, with the predictable result of using a known mathematical relationship associated with excavator operation for desirably calculating a total time of operation (second page of Calculator Academy).
Allowable Subject Matter
Due to the broadness of claim language of claim 11, the Examiner has been able to reasonably apply prior art. However, upon conducting a complete search in light of the Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner recommends amendments that use the selected “push level” to operate the “work machine” in a particular manner supported by the Applicant’s disclosure, so as to overcome the prior art rejections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claim 11. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly for guidance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Chitty et al. (US 2017/0089044 A1) teaches displaying the cumulative damage per cycle or for a specific time period and the estimated fatigue life of a component of a hydraulic shovel (see ¶0076), Jung et al. (translation of KR 2006-0033264A) teaches the comparison of a current fatigue endurance life with load condition established in a database, so as to calculate the damage degree of the construction machine (see page 5, second paragraph), and Miwa et al. (US 2009/0259507 A1) teaches comparing first and second service lives of components so as to select the service life that is the shortest for generating a maintenance schedule (see ¶0016).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661