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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on July 20, 2024, wherein claims 14-26 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 23 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. In the current claim set presented by the Applicant, claim 24 is dependent of claim 22 but claim 24 is separated by claim 23 which is not dependent of claim 22. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “configured to implement the processing step of the collected information” in claims 23 and 24; “unit configured to carry out a collection step…unit being configured to transmit the collected information…unit being configured to carry out a processing step of the information collected” in claim 25; “collection unit configured to carry out a step of collecting…collection unit being configured to transmit the collected information…unit being configured to carry out a processing step of the information collected” in claim 26.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the categories of work" in the first line (preamble) of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 14-24 are directed to a method (i.e., process) and claims 25-26 are directed to a system (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (14, 25, 26) and dependent claims (15-24) recite collecting/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. time, load, mass of load, position, speed, max load, lifting time, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (e.g. work carried out, categories, various abstract parameters), and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making (establishing inventory of work and categorizations). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (e.g. see dependent claims 20-21 (with pages 10-12 of the specification) showing mathematical concepts used when further defining the independent claim).
The limitations of the independent claims (14, 25, 26) and dependent claims (15-24), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing inventory and construction sites in view of abstract information (fundamental economic activity and managing behavior/interactions by following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (using mathematical techniques and using the results of the techniques). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57. If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (see listing below), in the context of the independent claims (14, 25, 26) and dependent claims (15-24), the independent claims (14, 25, 26) and dependent claims (15-24) encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (managing inventory and construction sites in view of abstract information (fundamental economic activity and managing behavior/interactions by following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (using mathematical techniques and using the results of the techniques)). The old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations used in the claims (and in the specification) by the Applicant are in the following list/listing (additional elements):
automated, units (collection, control-command, local processing, remote processing), artificial intelligence algorithm (no technical specifics provided and the element is only stated as being used), artificial intelligence algorithm “trained during a learning phase” (no technical specifics provided and the element is only stated as being used), signals (provides abstract information), remote server (where the remote processing unit is located), transmitting steps (to a remote processing unit located on a remote server - (transmitting probably using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components as nothing technically specific is stated – see figs. 6, 8-9 showing generic transmission of data/information)), and transmission step to a display unit (transmitting probably using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components as nothing technically specific is stated – see figs. 6, 8-9 showing generic transmission of data/information), etc., (in Independent claim 14 and its dependent claims 15-24);
system, remote server, units (collection, control-command, local processing, remote processing), artificial intelligence algorithm (no technical specifics provided and the element is only stated as being used), artificial intelligence algorithm “trained during a learning phase” (no technical specifics provided and the element is only stated as being used), remote server (where the remote processing unit is located), transmitting step (transmitting probably using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components as nothing technically specific is stated – see figs. 6, 8-9 showing generic transmission of data/information), etc., (in independent claim 25); and
non-transitory computer program product, processor, computing system, fuel dispenser, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 20).
(hereinafter the above list/listing will be referred to as “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” in the rest of the §101 rejection – i.e. whenever “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” is used/stated in the rest of the §101 rejection it is referring to and incorporates the above list/listing).
As shown above, the independent claims (14, 25, 26) and dependent claims (15-24) and specification recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (see list/listing above) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (14, 25, 26) and dependent claims (15-24) do not include additional elements (see list/listing above) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims (14, 25, 26) and dependent claims (15-24) recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, Pages 6 and 9 [where Applicant recites general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., in Applicant’s specification]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claims into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (see list/listing above) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims (14, 25, 26) and dependent claims (15-24) do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims (14, 25, 26) and dependent claims (15-24) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (15-24) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection fully includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims (15-24) further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature – as shown above), data analysis/manipulation to determine more data/information (including using mathematical concepts), possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision making in managing inventory (human activities). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (e.g. see dependent claims 20-21 (with pages 10-12 of the specification) showing mathematical concepts used when further defining the independent claim). These dependent claims are directed towards covers methods of organizing human activity (managing inventory and construction sites in view of abstract information (fundamental economic activity and managing behavior/interactions by following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (using mathematical techniques and using the results of the techniques). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The additional elements (see list/listing above) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements (see list/listing above) either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself.
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 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.
Claims 14-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al., (US 2016/0343095) in view of Bhardwaj et al., (US 2021/0406792).
As per claim 14, Wei discloses an automated method for establishing an inventory of the categories of work carried out by a lifting machine (¶¶ 0002 [machines (that lift as listed and also see fig. 2 as an example)…tasks…work site…work plan…operations…digging, loosening, carrying, etc., (categories of work); see with 0049-0050 [planning…operating…machine…time stamp]]), the method comprising the following steps:
a step of collecting for at least one period of time, by a collection unit, information coming from a control-command unit of the lifting machine (¶¶ 0007-0008 [discusses receiving information from a machine via sensors and signals; see with 0031-0032 [machine…collection of data…a communications system such as wireless communications system 130 for transmitting signals between the machine and a system located remote from the machine]]); and
a step of processing, by a local processing unit and/or a remote processing unit, information collected by the collection unit to determine work carried out by the lifting machine, the carried out work falling within at least one category of carried out work, and to determine at least one parameter associated with the at least one carried out work and/or with the at least one category of carried out work (for example, among many, ¶¶ 0002 [machines (that lift as listed and also see fig. 2 with paras. 0032-0035 as an example)…tasks…work site…work plan…operations…digging, loosening, carrying, etc., (categories of work)], 0038 [e.g. of moving material at work site…movement plans from an initial location to a spread or dump location – see with 0035-0037 [position and orientation of the machine are sometimes collectively referred to as the position of the machine…determine a ground speed of machine], and 0040], 0043-0044 [another example: control system may control the load on the blade…[i]n order to maintain the load at a desired value or within a desired range, the blade control system may raise or lower the blade to decrease or increase the amount of material carried], 0045 [load monitoring]; see also 0049-0050, 0056-0058),
wherein the processing step comprises an implementation by the local processing unit and/or the remote processing unit of an algorithm to carry out the processing step during a planning phase (see citations above and also see, for example, ¶¶ 0008-0009 [work implemented…utilizing a planning system…engaging work implement…moving a volume of material], 0026-0030 [discusses machine carries out/executes processes after information processing – e.g. 0029-0032 [machine…control system…input signals…controller 36 may be an electronic controller that operates in a logical fashion to perform operations, execute control algorithms, store and retrieve data and other desired operations…control system and the controller may be located on the machine 10 and may also include components located remotely from the machine such as at a command center], see with 0037-0040 [shows processes implemented [e.g. worksite material movement, dump location, movement plans. Loading, etc.,]]]), and
wherein the algorithm uses at least one contextual information to determine the carried out work and/or the category of carried out work, the contextual information being at least one among a lifting time, a maximum load, a maximum speed, a position of a load pick-up point and a position of a load drop-off point, a location of a delivery point, a location of a storage area (see citations above and also see ¶¶ 0045-0049 [machine…load…load measurement…direction…location…speed…maximum load; see also 0035-0040]; also see, for example, 0025 [a haul or load truck that automatically follows a path from one location to another and dumps a load at an end point (a position of a load pick-up point and a position of a load drop-off point; with delivery location/point)…operating autonomously…dump a bucket of an excavator in a load truck and a controller may automatically return the bucket to a position to perform another digging operation]).
Although Wei discloses work done sequentially and there being time stamps (see citations above), Wei does not explicitly state time period.
Analogous art Bhardwaj discloses work done at a worksite and monitoring work and production over time periods (for example see, ¶¶ 0035-0036, 0039 [time-series…captures information at regular and irregular time intervals], 0045 [information and data collected or received from a well site equipment or monitoring equipment at a well site within a time interval, for example, 1 second, 2 hours, or another time interval], 0089 [time-series predictive model flow; with 0096]; see also 0085-0087, 0100).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Wei time period as taught by analogous art Bhardwaj in order to show time element when monitoring work done over a time span as work progresses or in sequential works/tasks for optimization since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts (monitoring work at time periods is old and well-known; additionally it is well-known to include time periods in sequential tasks that are scheduled – as shown by Bhardwaj) of Bhardwaj would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Wei also does not explicitly state artificial intelligence algorithm trained during a learning phase and a predictive phase.
Analogous art Bhardwaj discloses artificial intelligence algorithm trained during a learning phase and a predictive phase (for example, ¶¶ 0046-0048 [analytics…predictive machine learning models…training a model…train…machine learning model], 0070-0071 [training…training data… build one or more models… modeling algorithm…techniques… universal kriging, random forest, and other machine learning methods can be used to build the models (artificial intelligence)…predictive power…predictive modeling flow… predictive model can be built using stimulation parameters…support vector machine, random forest, gradient boost, neural networks, deep learning, and other techniques; see with 0074]; see also 0084-0091 [also detailing ML/AI techniques]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Wei artificial intelligence algorithm trained during a learning phase and a predictive phase as taught by analogous art Bhardwaj in order enhance the process for efficiency and optimized outcomes with predictions and forecasts since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts (using ML/AI techniques with predictive phase to generate optimal outcomes in work/task management at worksites is old and well-known) of Bhardwaj would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 25, claim 25 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 14 above; and therefore claim 25 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 14.
As per claim 26, claim 26 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 14 above; and therefore claim 26 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 14.
As per claim 15, Wei discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein the collected information comprises at least one of a load signal, representative of a mass of a load lifted by the lifting machine, a position signal in the space of a hook of the lifting machine, a speed signal representative of a variation of the frequency variators and a signal representative of an electrical state of the lifting machine (¶¶ 0008-0009 [position signals], 0025 [load], 0037 [position sensing system…speed…speed sensor], 0045-0049 [machine…load…load measurement…direction…location…speed…maximum load; see also 0035-0040]).
As per claim 16, Wei discloses the method according to claim 15 and discloses load signal coming from the collection step (see citations above for claims 14-15). However, Wei does not explicitly state signal coming from the collection step is compared to a set of model signals determined by a learning phase of the artificial intelligence algorithm.
Bhardwaj discloses wherein a signal coming from the collection step is compared to a set of model signals determined by a learning phase of the artificial intelligence algorithm (¶¶ 0084-0085 [time-series data…utilizes raw time-series HF pumping data…historical data (actual collected data)… fed into the model for training…predictions…utilizes raw time-series HF pumping data…raw data; see with 0045-0048 [wherein a load signal coming from the collection step is compared to a set of model signals determined by a learning phase of the artificial intelligence algorithm…machine learning…validation portion…validate the training model – with 0070-0071 [validation data (collected data)…used to evaluate model performance and select modeling algorithm]], 0090 [data portions can then be used to develop models to predict well production or KPI output using…machine learning techniques], and 0096 [optimized predictive model can be built… using a predictive data set including one or more elements of the first data set and one or more elements of the time-series data set…plan can be revised]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Wei wherein a signal coming from the collection step is compared to a set of model signals determined by a learning phase of the artificial intelligence algorithm as taught by analogous art Bhardwaj in order to enhance the process for efficiency and optimized outcomes and ensure model robustness and predictive power with the model resulting in highest accuracy since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts (comparing collected real-time/actual results with results from models to see how the model performed for accuracy purposes is an old and well-known technique in ML/AI) of Bhardwaj would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 17, Wei discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein the at least one category of carried out work during the at least one period of time comprises at least one of a concrete casting, a transfer of a type of load, a positioning of a type of load, a no-load movement, an unloading of a truck of materials (¶¶ 0008 [moving material…path….position signals…position…moved along the path to move a volume of material], 0025 [a haul or load truck that automatically follows a path from one location to another and dumps (unloads) a load at an end point (a position of a load pick-up point and a position of a load drop-off point; with delivery location/point)…operating autonomously…dump a bucket of an excavator in a load truck and a controller may automatically return the bucket to a position to perform another digging operation], 0045-0049 [machine…load…load measurement…direction…location…speed…maximum load; see also 0035-0040]).
As per claim 18, Wei discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein the type of load comprises at least one of a concrete bucket, a rubble bucket, one or more construction materials, one or more formwork elements, one or more concrete reinforcement elements, a prefabricated element (¶¶ 0002 [materials…mining, earthmoving], 0024-0025 [quarry…construction site…movement of material…load…bucket (carry material)], 0107).
As per claim 19, Wei discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein the at least one parameter associated with the at least one category of carried out work comprises at least one among a duration of carried out work falling within said at least one category of work, a mass of a load lifted during carried out work falling within the at least one category of work, a movement of a load lifted during carried out work falling within at least one category of work, an average duration of the carried out work, during different periods of time, falling within said category of work, a maximum duration of the carried out work, during different periods of time, falling within said category of work, a minimum duration of the carried out work, during different periods of time, falling within said category of work, a minimum mass lifted during the carried out work, during different periods of time, falling within said category of work, a maximum mass lifted during carried out work, during different periods of time, falling within said category of work (¶¶ 0008-0009 [determining from the position signals an actual profile indicative of the work surface after the work implement is moved along the path to move a volume of material], 0045-0046 [load…measure the load…load…mass or volume], 0049 [maximum load], 0026-0027 [movement of the machine; see with 0038-0041 [movement plans…during each material moving pass, the controller 36 may guide the blade 16 generally along a desired path or target profile depicted by dashed line 120 in FIG. 4 from the cut location 115 to the dump location]]).
As per claim 20, Wei discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein the processing step produces a description of the work carried out by the lifting machine, the description taking at least one form from a graph representing the at least one carried out work, according to the category of the carried out work, as a function of a time represented along a time axis, a pie chart type diagram representative of a relative importance of the at least one parameter associated with the at least one category of work, a summary table of values of the at least one parameter associated with the at least one category of work, a three-dimensional representation of a start and end point of at least one carried out work falling within at least one category of work (see citations above for claim 14-16 and also see ¶¶ 0031 [form of tables…graphs], 0038 [material movement plans from an initial location to a spread or dump location ], 0046-0052 [discusses movement and locations with movement path and cut and dump (end) locations with “data representing the illustration may be in three dimensions”]).
As per claim 21, Wei discloses the method according to claim 14, further comprising a step of comparing the at least one carried out work falling within the at least one category of carried out work with at least one planned work, in order to determine a difference between the at least one carried out work and the at least one planned work (¶¶ 0002 [perform these tasks in response to commands generated as part of a work plan for the machines…the machines…receive instructions in accordance with the work plan to perform operations…at the work site], 0009 [a machine includes a prime mover, a ground engaging work implement for engaging a work surface and moving a volume of material along a path, and a position sensor for generating position signals indicative of a position of the work surface…controller is configured to utilize a planning system to determine the target profile, receive position signals from the position sensor, and determine from the position signals an actual profile indicative of the work surface after the work implement is moved along the path to move a volume of material…compare the target profile to the actual profile, determine at least two performance factor scores based upon a difference between the target profile and the actual profile, and generate a quantitative evaluation of the target profile], 0038 [machine…configured to move material at work site according to…material movement plans from an initial location to a spread or dump location; with 0049 [planning various aspects] and 0053 [planning system…include a performance evaluation and feedback system configured to evaluate and provide feedback with respect to the difference between an expected or target profile and the actual profile or topography that results from a material moving cycle]]).
As per claim 22, Wei discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein the processing step of the collected information is carried out locally on the lifting machine (Fig. 2 with ¶¶ 0026 [controller – with 0029-0032 [control system 35 may include an electronic control module or controller 36 and a plurality of sensors. The controller 36 may receive input signals…controller may be an electronic controller that operates in a logical fashion to perform operations, execute control algorithms, store and retrieve data and other desired operations…control system 35 and the controller…located on the machine]]).
As per claim 23, Wei discloses the method according to claim 14, further comprising a step of transmitting the collected information to a remote processing unit located on a remote server configured to implement the processing step of the collected information (see citations above for claims 14-16 and 22 and see with ¶ 0032 [include components located remotely from the machine such as at a command center…the control system 35 may include a communications system such as wireless communications system 130 for transmitting signals between the machine 10 and a system located remote from the machine]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al., (US 2016/0343095) in view of Bhardwaj et al., (US 2021/0406792), further in view of Flir et al., (US 2017/0293290).
As per claim 24, Wei discloses the method according to claim 22, further comprising a step of transmitting the collected information to a remote processing unit located on a remote server configured to implement the processing step of the collected information (see citations above for claims 14-16 and 22 and see with ¶ 0032 [include components located remotely from the machine such as at a command center…the control system 35 may include a communications system such as wireless communications system 130 for transmitting signals between the machine 10 and a system located remote from the machine]). However, neither Wei nor Bhardwaj explicitly state a transmission step to a display unit arranged locally on the lifting machine or remotely, of the description of the at least one carried out work produced during the processing step, to allow local display and monitoring of the carried out work.
Analogous art Flir discloses a transmission step to a display unit arranged locally on the lifting machine or remotely, of the description of the at least one carried out work produced during the processing step, to allow local display and monitoring of the carried out work (¶¶ 0067 [displaying the steps of the work plan via a display device (e.g., display screen) of the machine; see with 0023 [display…planning information…processing of a work step of the work plan…weight of a load to be lifted and/or the sheaving of the hook ideal for this purpose to lift the load is/are displayed (using crane – a type lifting machine)] and 0057 [e.g. updates the mass of the load object to 42 t and checks the dependencies of this adaptation…transmits the updated project to the machine…machine displays…the DESIRED 42 t and the ACTUAL 42 t to the operator…ensured that the further lifting takes place without problem]]; see also 0031, 0063 [crane…control system…includes a control unit 22, sensors 24, and actuators 26…sensors…include devices (e.g., display devices, joysticks, etc.)…control system 20 may further include a display screen 23 which may display the work steps of the work plan]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Wei in view of Bhardwaj a transmission step to a display unit arranged locally on the lifting machine or remotely, of the description of the at least one carried out work produced during the processing step, to allow local display and monitoring of the carried out work as taught by analogous art Flir in order to for better planning of work and more accurate and efficient execution of the work plan since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts (it is old and well-known that lifting equipment/vehicles/machine can have Interfaces/screens that can display work elements and communicate remote with systems) of Flir would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is as follows:
Talmaki et al., (US 2016/0300175): Provides for allocating resources includes a plurality of first machines at a work area and a plurality of second machines at a remote location. A controller stores a material movement goal for a production time period, and determine a total capacity at the work area based upon a capacity of the first machines and the production time period. The total capacity at the work area is compared to the desired material movement goal and upon the total capacity at the work area exceeding the desired material movement goal, operational instructions are generated for and communicated to selected ones of the first machines. Upon the total capacity at the work area being less than the desired material movement goal an alert command is generated and some of the second machines may be moved to the work area.
O'Donnell (US 2020/0332479): Includes receiving information indicative of a first worksite plan, determining a travel path extending along a work surface, causing a mobile machine to traverse the travel path, and receiving first sensor information associated with the work surface from a sensor of the mobile machine. The method also includes generating a second worksite plan based at least partly on the first sensor information, and providing instructions to a slave machine which, when executed by a controller of the slave machine, cause the controller of the slave machine to control the slave machine to perform at least part of the second worksite plan. The method further includes receiving second sensor information determined by the sensor of the mobile machine, and generating at least one of a safety metric and an accuracy metric based at least partly on the second sensor information.
Saiki et al., (US 11,423,341): Discusses generating work plan information that is information regarding a work plan by at least one work machine, set for each operator who remotely operates the at least one work machine, and includes a work item by the work machine that is remotely operated by the operator and work time for the work item based on contents input by a construction manager, and inputs the work plan information into a server. The server generates progress information indicating work progress of the operator for the at least one work machine based on the work plan information input from the manager terminal and work information input from at least one work information acquisition unit, inputs the progress information into the manager terminal, and presents the progress information to the construction manager.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625