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 .
Claims 1-16 have been cancelled.
Claims 17-32 have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 27 recites: “making assessable information material which is adapted …” instead of “making accessible information material which is adapted…”. 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 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 31 is directed to a data system for handling data relating to an agricultural machine and claim 32 is directed to an agricultural machine comprising a data system. The specification of the instant application does not explicitly recite that the data system is implemented in hardware or comprises of hardware such as a processor and memory. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art can construe the data system to be implemented just using software which renders claims 31 and 32 non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17, 19-22, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant provided prior art US 20200409353 to Hanrieder (hereinafter Hanrieder).
As per claims 17, 31, and 32, Hanrieder teaches:
A method for handling data relating to an agricultural machine, the method comprising:
enabling an access to the data relating to an operation of the agricultural machine via at least one user interface; and automatically determining on a person-specific basis which access is enabled for a specific person via a data system (Hanrieder: [0006]: implementing a host system for maintaining a plurality of user accounts, each of the user accounts including offboard electronic device information and agricultural machine information specific to a user. The agricultural machine information includes agricultural machine access rights, user onboard application access rights, machine onboard application access rights and machine onboard application data for at least one agricultural machine. [0007] The host system is configured to receive a request for user access, the request for user access including user identification information and source identification information, use the user identification information to identify a user account from the plurality of user accounts corresponding to the request for user access, use the source identification information to determine whether the source of the request for user access is an offboard electronic device or an onboard computing system of an agricultural machine, and use the source identification information and information from the user account corresponding to the request for user access to determine whether the user has access rights to the offboard electronic device or the agricultural machine. [0009] If the source of the request for user access is an onboard computing system and the user has access rights to the agricultural machine, the host system identifies onboard applications that are authorized for the user and that are authorized for the agricultural machine according to the user account. [0037] Agricultural machines also include onboard computing systems such as the systems 22, 24 and 26. An onboard computing system also includes a human-machine interface (HMI) that may include one or more of touch-sensitive displays, buttons, switches, knobs, levers and the like).
As per claim 19, Hanrieder teaches:
The method as recited in claim 17, wherein the automatically determining on the person-specific basis which access is enabled for the specific person via the data system is dependent on an affiliation of the specific person in a defined category of persons (Hanrieder: [0030]: With particular reference to FIGS. 2 and 3, the host system 12 maintains a plurality of user accounts 42a-n, each of the user accounts including offboard electronic device information 44, agricultural machine information 46 and general information 48. [0031] The agricultural machine information 46 includes information that is unique to particular machines as well as information that pertains to two or more machines. User access rights and authorized onboard apps are examples of information that is unique to a particular machine. [0061]: some rights and settings may be determined by a third party. An example of a third party determining rights and settings for a user account is the owner of a fleet of agricultural machines determining which of the agricultural machines the user has access to as well as the settings associated with the user for each of the machines the user has access to, i.e., the access rights are defined for the category of a user of the agricultural machines).
As per claim 20, Hanrieder teaches:
The method as recited in claim 19, further comprising: distinguishing between at least one of a user, an owner, a manufacturer, and a service employee with regard to the defined category of persons (Hanrieder: [0030]: With particular reference to FIGS. 2 and 3, the host system 12 maintains a plurality of user accounts 42a-n, each of the user accounts including offboard electronic device information 44, agricultural machine information 46 and general information 48. [0031] The agricultural machine information 46 includes information that is unique to particular machines as well as information that pertains to two or more machines. User access rights and authorized onboard apps are examples of information that is unique to a particular machine. [0061]: some rights and settings may be determined by a third party. An example of a third party determining rights and settings for a user account is the owner of a fleet of agricultural machines determining which of the agricultural machines the user has access to as well as the settings associated with the user for each of the machines the user has access to, i.e., the access rights are set by the owner for a user of the agricultural machines).
As per claim 21, Hanrieder teaches:
The method as recited in claim 19, further comprising: enabling access of the specific person to different data categories depending on the defined category of persons of the specific person (Hanrieder: [0057] If the source of the request for user access is an onboard computing system and the user has access rights to the agricultural machine, the host system 12 identifies onboard applications that are authorized for the user and that are authorized for the agricultural machine according to the user account, as depicted in block 98. The onboard applications run on the onboard computing system and enabling functionality of mechanical systems of the agricultural machine. [0058] The host system 12 then communicates authorized onboard application information to the onboard computing system, as depicted in block 100, wherein the authorized onboard application information enables onboard applications. [0061]: some rights and settings may be determined by a third party. An example of a third party determining rights and settings for a user account is the owner of a fleet of agricultural machines determining which of the agricultural machines the user has access to as well as the settings associated with the user for each of the machines the user has access to).
As per claim 22, Hanrieder teaches:
The method as recited in claim 21, further comprising: enabling the specific person to at least one of read out data and to process data depending on the defined category of persons of the specific person (Hanrieder: [0061]: Rights associated with the account include apps purchased or otherwise accessible by the user, authorization to use particular machines or implements, authorization to use a particular implement with a particular vehicle, the maximum length of time the user is authorized to use a particular machine or implement, purchase and/or access rights related to purchasing and/or downloading applications, user management rights, rights to transfer data between onboard and offboard applications, and rights to change settings. Settings associated with an account include maximum speed and geographic limitations of agricultural machine operation, the look and feel of a display including font size and type, size and arrangement of application icons and payment information such as credit card or bank account information).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanrieder and US 20220321343 to Bahrami et al (hereinafter Bahrami).
As per claim 18, Hanrieder does not teach the limitations of claim 18. However, Bahrami teaches:
wherein the agricultural machine is an autonomous vehicle (Bahrami: [0004]: The method may comprise receiving vehicle data, including information associated with a plurality of sensors of an autonomous vehicle. The method may further comprise segmenting the received vehicle data into non-public data and public data and partitioning the public data into a plurality of data partitions. The method may further comprise generating a plurality of data levels of the public data. Each data level of the plurality of data levels may be generated according to an access level of a plurality of access levels. [0027] The autonomous vehicle 106 may be one of a semi-autonomous vehicle, a fully autonomous vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Bahrami in the invention of Hanrieder to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to enhance safety amongst the vehicles and pedestrians on a road (Bahrami: [0021]).
Claims 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanrieder and US 20130145482 to Ricci et al (hereinafter Ricci).
As per claim 23, Hanrieder does not teach the limitations of claim 23. However, Ricci teaches:
wherein, the data system comprises a decision unit, and further comprising: detecting an at least potentially imminent operational malfunction of the agricultural machine, automatically deciding via the decision unit of the data system as to which specific person must be informed of the at least potentially imminent operational malfunction, and automatically making data accessible to the specific person so as to inform the specific person of the at least potentially imminent operational malfunction (Ricci: [0013] The vehicle can include one or more of: [0020] (g) a diagnostic module to receive a warning and/or error signal from a vehicle component and select a destination for the signal, the possible destinations including a vehicle input/output system to present the warning and/or error to a vehicle occupant, an emergency service provider, an emergency responder, and a remotely located diagnostic service to diagnose a cause of the warning and/or error signal. [0329] In step 1404, the diagnostic module 2028, in step 1404, determines user and/or default preferences regarding treatment of the signal. The various options include one or more of present the signal to a third party such as a manufacturer or servicing entity (option 1408), presenting the signal to an occupant of the vehicle (option 1412), etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Ricci in the invention of Hanrieder to include the above limitations. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)).
As per claim 24, Hanrieder in view of Ricci teaches:
The method as recited in claim 23, wherein, the decision unit of the data system is implemented on the agricultural machine, or the decision unit of the data system is implemented external to the agricultural machine, and the automatic deciding via the decision unit of the data system is performed via the decision unit which is implemented on the agricultural machine or via the decision unit which is external to the agricultural machine (Ricci: [0013] The vehicle can include one or more of: [0020] (g) a diagnostic module to receive a warning and/or error signal from a vehicle component and select a destination for the signal, the possible destinations including a vehicle input/output system to present the warning and/or error to a vehicle occupant, an emergency service provider, an emergency responder, and a remotely located diagnostic service to diagnose a cause of the warning and/or error signal).
The examiner provides the same rationale to combine prior arts Hanrieder and Ricci as in claim 23 above.
As per claim 25, Hanrieder in view of Ricci teaches:
The method as recited in claim 23, wherein, the data system further comprises a malfunction detection unit which is implemented on the agricultural machine or which is implemented external to the agricultural machine, and further comprising: automatically detecting the at least potentially imminent operational malfunction of the agricultural machine via the malfunction detection unit which is implemented on the agricultural machine, or automatically detecting the at least potentially imminent operational malfunction of the agricultural machine via the malfunction detection unit which is external to the agricultural machine, or detecting the at least potentially imminent operational malfunction of the agricultural machine by a person (Ricci: [0326] The diagnostic module 2028 queries on board sensors 1516 and/or on board sensor monitor(s) 2020, and/or critical and/or non-critical system controller(s) 2012 and 2016 to determine states of various parts, components, subsystems, tasks, functions, and/or operations of the vehicle. The diagnostic module 2028 can then perform diagnostics using locally stored or remotely stored (at remote node 1500) pre-determined logic to identify faults, malfunctions, or other problems).
The examiner provides the same rationale to combine prior arts Hanrieder and Ricci as in claim 23 above.
As per claim 26, Hanrieder in view of Ricci teaches:
The method as recited in claim 23, further comprising: automatically deciding via the data system, depending on an operational disturbance, that at least one action must be taken by the specific person in order to counteract the operational disturbance; and making data available to the specific person so as to inform the specific person of the at least one action to be taken (Ricci: [0328] In step 1400, the diagnostic module 2028 receives, from a local or remote source (such as the remote node 1500), a signal warning of an actual or potential malfunction of an on board component, including any of the components discussed above. [0329] In step 1404, the diagnostic module 2028, in step 1404, determines user and/or default preferences regarding treatment of the signal. The various options include one or more of present the signal to a third party such as a manufacturer or servicing entity (option 1408), presenting the signal to an occupant of the vehicle (option 1412), etc. [0333] The present disclosure can provide an Internet enabled car that is capable of transmitting vehicle codes, error code readings, and to remotely diagnose and display these codes to a user and/or a mechanic. This diagnostic information may be performed on-board or remotely. It is anticipated that the information may be accessed according to chosen preferences. Additionally, it is anticipated that based on the type of warning/error code, the system may suggest a recommended course of action).
The examiner provides the same rationale to combine prior arts Hanrieder and Ricci as in claim 23 above.
As per claim 27, Hanrieder in view of Ricci teaches:
The method as recited in claim 23, further comprising: making assessable information material which is adapted to the at least potentially imminent operational malfunction to the specific person via the data system (Ricci: [0335] Referring to FIG. 28, the diagnostic module 2028, in step 2800, receives and interprets a maintenance and/or system error and/or warning code. [0337]: The diagnostic module 2028, in accordance with the pertinent rule, may contact a remote node for additional information relevant to the code, including the conversational advice to be provided to the vehicle operator. [0338] In step 2816, the diagnostic module 2028 provides the conversational advice to the operator. The advice may be interactive in which event the operator would query the diagnostic module 2028 for information not clear from the initially provided conversation meaning and/or advice. A menu-type structure can be used by the diagnostic module to respond to the operator request for further information).
The examiner provides the same rationale to combine prior arts Hanrieder and Ricci as in claim 23 above.
As per claim 28, Hanrieder in view of Ricci teaches:
The method as recited in claim 27, wherein information material is made accessible from a database which is external to the data system (Ricci: [0338] In step 2816, the diagnostic module 2028 provides the conversational advice to the operator. The advice may be interactive in which event the operator would query the diagnostic module 2028 for information not clear from the initially provided conversation meaning and/or advice. A menu-type structure can be used by the diagnostic module to respond to the operator request for further information. Such further information may require the diagnostic module to initiate a contact, on behalf of the operator, with a remote node 1500. [0207] FIG. 27 depicts a particular configuration of a remote node 1500. The remote node 1500, configured as a central repository for vehicle information, includes a server 2700 and associated database 2704. The remote node 1500 is in wireless communication, via network 1504, with first, second, . . . nth vehicles 100a-n).
The examiner provides the same rationale to combine prior arts Hanrieder and Ricci as in claim 23 above.
As per claim 29, Hanrieder in view of Ricci teaches:
The method as recited in claim 23, further comprising: enabling the specific person to remotely access the data (Ricci: [0338]: A menu-type structure can be used by the diagnostic module to respond to the operator request for further information. Such further information may require the diagnostic module to initiate a contact, on behalf of the operator, with a remote node 1500. [0207] FIG. 27 depicts a particular configuration of a remote node 1500. The remote node 1500, configured as a central repository for vehicle information, includes a server 2700 and associated database 2704. The remote node 1500 is in wireless communication, via network 1504, with first, second, . . . nth vehicles 100a-n).
The examiner provides the same rationale to combine prior arts Hanrieder and Ricci as in claim 23 above.
As per claim 30, Hanrieder in view of Ricci teaches:
The method as recited in claim 23, further comprising: enabling access to at least two persons of the defined category of persons to the data in the event of the at least potentially imminent malfunction, wherein, at least one of the at least two persons is enabled access to the data via a remote access ([0329] In step 1404, the diagnostic module 2028, in step 1404, determines user and/or default preferences regarding treatment of the signal. The various options include one or more of present the signal to a third party such as a manufacturer or servicing entity (option 1408), presenting the signal to an occupant of the vehicle (option 1412), contacting an emergency service provider or first responder, etc. In one application, the signal is forwarded to a manufacturer or repair service vendor that compares the reported fault and vehicle-specific parameters (e.g., mileage, date of last service, and/or environmental conditions) to the maintenance and/or fault history for the vehicle model and provides, to the vehicle operator, the result of the comparison along with a probability of the diagnosis being correct. [0333] The present disclosure can provide an Internet enabled car that is capable of transmitting vehicle codes, error code readings, and to remotely diagnose and display these codes to a user and/or a mechanic. This diagnostic information may be performed on-board or remotely. It is anticipated that the information may be accessed according to chosen preferences).
The examiner provides the same rationale to combine prior arts Hanrieder and Ricci as in claim 23 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150052581 to Miura et al: Data on agricultural machines can be outputted to mobile terminals easily and properly. A data collection device is provided separately from a control device that controls the operation of an agricultural machine and is connected to a vehicle communication network installed in the agricultural machine, and is removably connected to the vehicle communication network. The data collection device includes a data collection unit for collecting agricultural machine data outputted to the vehicle communication network, an authorization determination unit for implementing authentication with a mobile terminal to determine whether or not the collected data is transmitted to the mobile terminal by wireless communication, and a data communication unit for transmitting data to the mobile terminal by wireless communication when the authorization determination unit authorizes data transmission.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADHURI R HERZOG whose telephone number is (571)270-3359. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at (571)272-3787. 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.
MADHURI R. HERZOG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2438
/MADHURI R HERZOG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438