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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 04/08/2026, in which claims 1-16 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims to prevent interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Accordingly, the claims are no longer subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections:
Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks that the amended limitations reciting “capture an image data of the first predetermined image affixed to the excavator and an image data of a second predetermined image affixed to a part for the excavator, the second predetermined image including part identification information that identifies the part” and “digitally read the machine identification information from the captured image data of the first predetermined image and digitally read the part identification information from the captured image data of the second predetermined image” cannot practically be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus, applicant concludes on page 9 of the remarks that the claims are patent eligible and overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. The amended independent claims recite the limitation “associate the digitally read machine identification information and the digitally read part identification information with each other,” which is an abstract idea under Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG. For example, “associate the digitally read machine identification information and the digitally read part identification information with each other” includes a human observing machine identification information and part identification information and mentally determining whether the part corresponds to the machine. While the “capture an image data…” and “digitally read…” steps do not recite a mental process, the amended limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity under Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG. For example, “capture an image data of the first predetermined image affixed to the excavator and an image data of a second predetermined image affixed to a part for the excavator, the second predetermined image including part identification information that identifies the part” includes mere data gathering that is insignificant extra solution activity. The “digitally read the machine identification information from the captured image data of the first predetermined image and digitally read the part identification information from the captured image data of the second predetermined image” step includes necessary data output that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the amended claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for the reasons given above and further outlined in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, these claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a system, method, and medium for managing excavator information. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An excavator management system comprising:
an excavator on which a first predetermined image is affixed, the first predetermined image including machine identification information that identifies the excavator;
an assisting device; and
a management device,
wherein the assisting device includes
an imaging sensor configured to capture an image data of the first predetermined image affixed to the excavator and an image data of a second predetermined image affixed to a part for the excavator, the second predetermined image including part identification information that identifies the part; and
a first hardware processor configured to
digitally read the machine identification information from the captured image data of the first predetermined image and digitally read the part identification information from the captured image data of the second predetermined image,
associate the digitally read machine identification information and the digitally read part identification information with each other, and
transmit the associated machine identification information and part identification information to the management device, and
wherein the management device includes
a second hardware processor configured to store the associated machine identification information and part identification information transmitted from the assisting device.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, “associate the digitally read machine identification information and the digitally read part identification information with each other” includes a human observing machine identification information and part identification information and mentally determining whether the part corresponds to the machine. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions
continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An excavator management system comprising:
an excavator on which a first predetermined image is affixed, the first predetermined image including machine identification information that identifies the excavator;
an assisting device; and
a management device,
wherein the assisting device includes
an imaging sensor configured to capture an image data of the first predetermined image affixed to the excavator and an image data of a second predetermined image affixed to a part for the excavator, the second predetermined image including part identification information that identifies the part; and
a first hardware processor configured to
digitally read the machine identification information from the captured image data of the first predetermined image and digitally read the part identification information from the captured image data of the second predetermined image,
associate the digitally read machine identification information and the digitally read part identification information with each other, and
transmit the associated machine identification information and part identification information to the management device, and
wherein the management device includes
a second hardware processor configured to store the associated machine identification information and part identification information transmitted from the assisting device.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “an imaging sensor configured to capture an image data of the first predetermined image affixed to the excavator and an image data of a second predetermined image affixed to a part for the excavator, the second predetermined image including part identification information that identifies the part,” this limitation recites mere data gathering that is insignificant extra solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation of “digitally read the machine identification information from the captured image data of the first predetermined image and digitally read the part identification information from the captured image data of the second predetermined image,” this limitation recites necessary data output that is insignificant extra solution activity. Regarding the limitation “transmit the associated machine identification information and part identification information to the management device,” this limitation recites mere data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding the “wherein the management device includes a second hardware processor configured to store the associated machine identification information and part identification information transmitted from the assisting device” limitation, this limitation recites data storage that is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The independent claims also recite the additional elements of an excavator, an assisting device, a management device, an imaging sensor, and processors which are machinery and generic computing components merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Therefore, the additional limitations are not a “practical application.” Additionally, it is not “something more” because the limitations include a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), and Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1 and Finley et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352199 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6-7, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite displaying information and displaying an input screen that is merely insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1, Finley et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352199 A1, and Koga, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0326726 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4-5, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite mere data transmission and display that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1 and Finley et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352199 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 8-9, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims further define the abstract idea by defining the locations and format of the first and second predetermined images. The first and second images are used in the abstract idea of observing information and in the data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1 and Finley et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352199 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 12-14, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite the additional limitations of updating maintenance information through data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1 and Finley et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352199 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 15-16, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite data transmission and data display that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1 and Finley et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352199 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0040174 A1, in view of Finley et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352199 A1 (hereinafter Finley).
Regarding claim 1, Koshi discloses an excavator management system (see at least Koshi Fig. 6) comprising:
an excavator on which a first predetermined image is affixed (see at least Koshi [0126]: “The monitor 213 has a display function of displaying a remaining amount of the fuel, failure information of the hydraulic excavator 1 and the like”; [0176]: “In the exemplary embodiment, the notification unit 1120 is configured to display the information on the display 112 connected with the management server 111 to notify the administrator and the like of the information.”),
an assisting device (see at least Koshi [0127]: “Further, the communication controller 200 serves as a transmitter for transmitting the information acquired from the readers 15 to the management server 111 of the management center 110 through the communication network 120.”; [0050]: “Among these, the communication network 120 is used for data communication in a form of wireless communication. A mobile phone network and a satellite communication network are usable.”);
and a management device (see at least Koshi [0138]: “As shown in FIG. 6, the management center 110 includes the management server 111 that integrally manages various information including parts information acquired by each of the working vehicles.”),
associate the digitally read machine identification information and the digitally read part identification information with each other (see at least Koshi [0189]: “On the other hand, when it is judged in the judgment process in Step S4 that the pieces of parts information of the same type are present (Step S4, YES), the acquisition information judgment unit 1114 judges whether or not the number of the pieces of parts information of the same type is the same as the number of parts (the number of the target part installed in the working vehicle acquired from the storage unit 1111 based on the vehicle identification information of the working vehicle and the type information included in the pieces of parts information of the same type) stored in the storage unit 1111 (Step S5).”),
and transmit the associated machine identification information and part identification information to the management device (see at least Koshi [0135]: “When the communication controller 200 transmits the data read by the identification devices 30 to the management server 111 of the management center 110 via the communication network 120, the communication controller 200 simultaneously transmits date-time data, vehicle type information indicating the type of the working vehicle on which the communication controller 200 is provided, and vehicle unique information (e.g. ID) unique to the working vehicle.”; [0139]: “The management server 111 manages and stores, for instance, the above parts information received from the hydraulic excavator 1, the information about the accumulated operational duration, and the like via the communication network 120.”),
and wherein the management device includes a second hardware processor configured to store the associated machine identification information and part identification information transmitted from the assisting device (see at least Koshi [0139]: “The management server 111 manages and stores, for instance, the above parts information received from the hydraulic excavator 1, the information about the accumulated operational duration, and the like via the communication network 120.”).
Koshi fails to expressly disclose the machine identification information being read from the first predetermined image and the part identification information being read from a second predetermined image affixed to the part. However, Finley teaches
the first predetermined image including machine identification information that identifies the excavator (see at least Finley [0048]: “Ultimately, the user may take capture a number of images including multiple angles/close-up shots of the ground engaging tool and, optionally, of an identification number associated with the excavating equipment (e.g., a machine identification number, etc.).”);
wherein the assisting device includes an imaging sensor configured to capture an image data of the first predetermined image affixed to the excavator and an image data of a second predetermined image affixed to a part for the excavator, the second predetermined image including part identification information that identifies the part (see at least Finley [0054]: “This information may be inputted by the user, received from sensor(s) in the ground engaging tool and/or machine, and/or from scanning a code provided on the equipment or in the cab of the machine, and/or speaking to the mobile device using speech recognition software or recording for later use or input. The information may include such data as, for example, identification of the ground engaging tool, the machine on which the ground engaging tool is attached, when the ground engaging tool was attached, the number of hours in operation, the locations with the mine site where the ground engaging tool was worked, and the like.”; [0048]: “Ultimately, the user may take capture a number of images including multiple angles/close-up shots of the ground engaging tool and, optionally, of an identification number associated with the excavating equipment (e.g., a machine identification number, etc.).”);
and a first hardware processor configured to digitally read the machine identification information from the captured image data of the first predetermined image and digitally read the part identification information from the captured image data of the second predetermined image (see at least Finley [0054]: “This information may be inputted by the user, received from sensor(s) in the ground engaging tool and/or machine, and/or from scanning a code provided on the equipment or in the cab of the machine, and/or speaking to the mobile device using speech recognition software or recording for later use or input. The information may include such data as, for example, identification of the ground engaging tool, the machine on which the ground engaging tool is attached, when the ground engaging tool was attached, the number of hours in operation, the locations with the mine site where the ground engaging tool was worked, and the like. In addition, the mobile device 201 may receive, for example, information identifying the various excavating equipment or machines at the site, information identifying the ground engaging tools associated with each machine and/or current and/or previous wear levels of such ground engaging tools, specific targets or limit lengths set by the user to indicate the end-of-life of the ground engaging tool (which can vary by part, position, machine, and location), contacts or key stakeholders at the mine site to be notified when an alarm is triggered, and/or information identifying one or more alarms and/or alarm triggers that the user would like mobile device 201 to generate and/or use.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation digitally reading identification information from the captured image data includes scanning a code to obtain information identifying the machine and tool),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Koshi with Finley with reasonable expectation of success. Finley is directed towards the related field of monitoring wear of tools used on work machines and scheduling a replacement for worn parts. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Koshi with Finley to prevent further degradation or a decrease in production by replacing worn parts in a timely manner (see at least Finley [0002]-[0004]: “The present disclosure relates to systems, processes and devices for monitoring ground engaging tools secured to earth working equipment to assist earth working operations by, for example, determining wear, estimating fully worn conditions, scheduling replacement of ground engaging tools, sending alerts, and the like…During use, ground engaging tools can encounter heavy loading and highly abrasive conditions. These conditions cause the tools to wear and eventually become fully worn, i.e., where they need to be replaced. Tools that are not timely replaced, can be lost, cause a decrease in production, and/or lead to unnecessary wear of other components (e.g., the base).”).
Regarding claim 2, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Finley further teaches
wherein the first hardware processor is further configured to display a screen for reading the part identification information on a display after the machine identification information is read (see at least Finley [0048]-[0049]: “Ultimately, the user may take capture a number of images including multiple angles/close-up shots of the ground engaging tool and, optionally, of an identification number associated with the excavating equipment (e.g., a machine identification number, etc.). The images can also optionally be used to study wear patterns, damage, etc. on the ground engaging tools. In one embodiment, once the user has captured an image, the application may display the image (e.g., of the ground engaging tool and calibration device) and may overlay edge markers over the image.”; [0066]: “The system may display any of the information to the user on the user interface of the mobile device 201 including, for example, the calculated dimension of the ground engaging tool, the percentage of wear, the percentage of wear remaining, the estimated end-of-life date, etc.”).
Regarding claim 3, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Koshi further teaches
wherein the first hardware processor is further configured to hold the part identification information temporarily when the part identification information is read before the machine identification information is read (see at least Koshi [0198]: “When it is judged in the judgment process in Step S9 that the pieces of the parts information are not the same (Step S9, NO), the update unit 1117 updates the stored parts information for the corresponding part with the parts information judged to be not the same (Step S10).”; [0167]: “At this time, the update unit 1117 also updates the received strength stored in association with each of the pieces of the parts information. Thus, the latest parts information is held (stored) in the management server 111 in association with the received strength.”; Koshi discloses temporarily holding part identification information because the stored part information can be updated when it is determined that the stored information does not match new information),
and display a list of temporarily-saved part identification information when the machine identification information is read (see at least Koshi [0097]: “The received strength measured by the measurement unit 153 is held in association with the parts information included in the measured electric waves by the later-described information holder 156. The information in which the received strength measured by the measurement unit 153 is associated with the parts information included in the electric waves is included in the information transmitted by the later-described information transmitter 159 (see FIG. 10).”; [0139]: “The management server 111 can mutually communicate with a display 112 including monitor and the like, a communication device 113 capable of wireless communication or wired communication, and the like. The management server 111 manages and stores, for instance, the above parts information received from the hydraulic excavator 1, the information about the accumulated operational duration, and the like via the communication network 120.”; Koshi Fig. 10 shows a list of part information).
Regarding claim 4, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 3 as explained above. Koshi further teaches
wherein the first hardware processor is further configured to, in response to receiving a selection of part identification information from the list of the temporarily-saved part identification information (see at least Koshi [0228]: “Specifically, it is only necessary for the notification unit 1120 to output the first malfunction information, and it is not necessary to output the parts information (identified parts information) of the target part not provided at the installation position.”; [0167]: “When the information comparing unit 1116 judges that the pieces of the parts information are not the same, the update unit 1117 updates the parts information stored in the storage unit 1111 with the newly acquired parts information.”),
associate the selected part identification information and the machine identification information with each other and transmit the associated selected part identification information and machine identification information to the management device (see at least Koshi [0189]: “On the other hand, when it is judged in the judgment process in Step S4 that the pieces of parts information of the same type are present (Step S4, YES), the acquisition information judgment unit 1114 judges whether or not the number of the pieces of parts information of the same type is the same as the number of parts (the number of the target part installed in the working vehicle acquired from the storage unit 1111 based on the vehicle identification information of the working vehicle and the type information included in the pieces of parts information of the same type) stored in the storage unit 1111 (Step S5).”; [0135]: “When the communication controller 200 transmits the data read by the identification devices 30 to the management server 111 of the management center 110 via the communication network 120, the communication controller 200 simultaneously transmits date-time data, vehicle type information indicating the type of the working vehicle on which the communication controller 200 is provided, and vehicle unique information (e.g. ID) unique to the working vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 5, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Finley further teaches
wherein the second hardware processor is further configured to extract maintenance information associated with the machine identification information transmitted from the assisting device (see at least Finley [0035]: “The application program 119 may include instructions that, when executed, cause mobile device 141, computing device 151, and/or ground engaging tool management server 101 to document part change or analyze wear of one or more ground engaging tools based on images captured by one or more mobile devices and/or inputted data, calculate expected end-of-life dates and/or times for such ground engaging tools, and/or generate and/or send notifications to one or more other computing devices based on such calculations, where such notifications may direct and/or otherwise cause such devices to present information related to the end-of-life dates and/or times for such ground engaging tools and/or prompt the users of such devices to replace the ground engaging tools and/or take other responsive actions.”; [0054]: “In addition, the mobile device 201 may receive, for example, information identifying the various excavating equipment or machines at the site, information identifying the ground engaging tools associated with each machine and/or current and/or previous wear levels of such ground engaging tools, specific targets or limit lengths set by the user to indicate the end-of-life of the ground engaging tool (which can vary by part, position, machine, and location), contacts or key stakeholders at the mine site to be notified when an alarm is triggered, and/or information identifying one or more alarms and/or alarm triggers that the user would like mobile device 201 to generate and/or use.”),
and cause the maintenance information to be displayed on the assisting device (see at least Finley [0067]: “Once mobile device 201 has made end-of-life determinations for one or more ground engaging tools, the mobile device 201 may set-up one or more alerts to alert the user of the mobile device 201 or a computing system at the plant site 214 to warn of potential needs to replace the ground engaging tools.”).
Regarding claim 6, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Koshi further teaches
wherein the first hardware processor is further configured to display, when one of the machine identification information or the part identification information is read, a message indicating that the other one of the machine identification information or the part identification information has not been read yet on a display (see at least Koshi [0177]: “The notification unit 1120 outputs the error information when, for instance, the error judgment unit 1113 judges that the error information is present. Thus, the administrator and the like can be notified of the contents of the error (e.g. malfunction of the reader 15 and failure in acquiring the parts information by the reader 15).”).
Regarding claim 8, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Finley further teaches
wherein the first predetermined image is an image affixed to a body of the excavator or an image formed on a surface of the body of the excavator, and wherein the second predetermined image is an image affixed to the part or a packaging material of the part, or an image formed on a surface of the part (see at least Finley [0048]: “Ultimately, the user may take capture a number of images including multiple angles/close-up shots of the ground engaging tool and, optionally, of an identification number associated with the excavating equipment (e.g., a machine identification number, etc.).”; [0054]: “This information may be inputted by the user, received from sensor(s) in the ground engaging tool and/or machine, and/or from scanning a code provided on the equipment or in the cab of the machine, and/or speaking to the mobile device using speech recognition software or recording for later use or input. The information may include such data as, for example, identification of the ground engaging tool, the machine on which the ground engaging tool is attached, when the ground engaging tool was attached, the number of hours in operation, the locations with the mine site where the ground engaging tool was worked, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 9, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Finley further teaches
wherein the first predetermined image and the second predetermined image are two-dimensional codes (see at least Finley [0054]: “This information may be…from scanning a code provided on the equipment or in the cab of the machine, and/or speaking to the mobile device using speech recognition software or recording for later use or input. The information may include such data as, for example, identification of the ground engaging tool, the machine on which the ground engaging tool is attached, when the ground engaging tool was attached, the number of hours in operation, the locations with the mine site where the ground engaging tool was worked, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites a method performed by the system of claim 1. The combination of Koshi and Finley also teaches the method performed by the excavator management system of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the method according to claim 10 as explained above. Finley further teaches
a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method of claim 10 (see at least Finley [0080]: “Various aspects described herein may be embodied as a method, an apparatus, or as one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions”).
Regarding claim 12, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Finley further teaches
wherein the second hardware processor is further configured to update maintenance information of the excavator stored in a storage by reflecting the associated machine identification information and part identification information received from the assisting device in the maintenance information (see at least Finley [0046]: “The ground engaging tool management server 204 may store wear data it receives in database or memory 320 and update the wear profiles (step 325) of the various wear devices being monitored. Optionally, the ground engaging tool management server 204 will issue reports (step 330) of the wear profile information to the supplier so that the supplier and/or the ground engaging tool management server may actively monitor use and/or wear of specific parts and predict, forecast, and/or otherwise determine replacement parts needs at the mine site.”).
Regarding claim 13, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 12 as explained above. Finley further teaches
wherein the maintenance information includes a maintenance history of the excavator (see at least Finley [0077]: “In another embodiment, the end-of-life of a ground engaging tool may be determined by date that the ground engaging tool was installed or replaced. The system may capture the date/time of each tooth change by each position on a machine.”).
Regarding claim 14, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 12 as explained above. Finley further teaches
wherein the second hardware processor is further configured to update the maintenance information by calculating a planned date for a next replacement of the part and including the calculated planned date in the maintenance information (see at least Finley [0072]: “For any wear member, the system may provide a history of the inspection details including, for example, for each inspection, the date of the inspection, the calculated length of the ground engaging tool, the remaining life, and a (popup) picture of the ground engaging tool at the time of inspection. An end-of-life prediction may be included based on the start date, current date, current measurement, scheduled downtime for the machine, location within the mine site and/or other factors. In an embodiment, the system may refine the predicted end-of-life based on the prior inspections and the rate of wear that is determined for that wear member.”; [0046]: “Optionally, the ground engaging tool management server 204 will issue reports (step 330) of the wear profile information to the supplier so that the supplier and/or the ground engaging tool management server may actively monitor use and/or wear of specific parts and predict, forecast, and/or otherwise determine replacement parts needs at the mine site.”).
Regarding claim 15, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 12 as explained above. Finley further teaches
wherein the second hardware processor is further configured to extract the updated maintenance information from the storage and transmit, to the assisting device, the extracted updated maintenance information (see at least Finley [0046]: “The ground engaging tool management server 204 may store wear data it receives in database or memory 320 and update the wear profiles (step 325) of the various wear devices being monitored. Optionally, the ground engaging tool management server 204 will issue reports (step 330) of the wear profile information to the supplier so that the supplier and/or the ground engaging tool management server may actively monitor use and/or wear of specific parts and predict, forecast, and/or otherwise determine replacement parts needs at the mine site.”)
and a command to display information about upcoming maintenance of the excavator on a display (see at least Finley [0066]: “The system may display any of the information to the user on the user interface of the mobile device 201 including, for example, the calculated dimension of the ground engaging tool, the percentage of wear, the percentage of wear remaining, the estimated end-of-life date, etc.”; [0035]: “calculate expected end-of-life dates and/or times for such ground engaging tools, and/or generate and/or send notifications to one or more other computing devices based on such calculations, where such notifications may direct and/or otherwise cause such devices to present information related to the end-of-life dates and/or times for such ground engaging tools and/or prompt the users of such devices to replace the ground engaging tools and/or take other responsive actions.”).
Regarding claim 16, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Koshi further teaches
wherein the first hardware processor is further configured to transmit information to the management device, the information including the associated machine identification information and part identification information (see at least Koshi [0135]: “When the communication controller 200 transmits the data read by the identification devices 30 to the management server 111 of the management center 110 via the communication network 120, the communication controller 200 simultaneously transmits date-time data, vehicle type information indicating the type of the working vehicle on which the communication controller 200 is provided, and vehicle unique information (e.g. ID) unique to the working vehicle.”; [0139]: “The management server 111 manages and stores, for instance, the above parts information received from the hydraulic excavator 1, the information about the accumulated operational duration, and the like via the communication network 120.”)
and information on a reading date of the machine identification information and a reading date of the part identification information (see at least Koshi [0135]-[0136]: “When the communication controller 200 transmits the data read by the identification devices 30 to the management server 111 of the management center 110 via the communication network 120, the communication controller 200 simultaneously transmits date-time data…The date-time data may be exemplified by date and time when the readers 15 are activated (date and time when electric waves are transmitted), date and time when the readers 15 read the data of the identification devices 30, and date and time when the data of the identification devices 30 is transmitted to the management server 111.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshi in view of Finley, and further in view of Koga, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0326726 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Koshi in view of Finley teach all elements of the excavator management system according to claim 1 as explained above. Koshi in view of Finley fail to expressly disclose an input screen for allowing input of the machine identification information or the part identification information that the assisting device failed to read. However, Koga teaches
wherein the first hardware processor is further configured to display, when failing to read at least one of the machine identification information or the part identification information, a screen for inputting the at least one of the machine identification information or the part identification information on a display (see at least Koga [0078]: “Next, the post-step S4 of FIG. 7 will be described. If the failure search and repair are completed, the serviceman operates the support device 50 to display a failure classification input screen (FIG. 11E) on the display device 55. On the failure classification input screen, a failure classification input area 575, a failure countermeasure input area 576, other countermeasures button 577, and a replaced or repaired component name input area 578 are displayed. The serviceman inputs a failure classification found as a result of an actual failure search and an actual failure countermeasure to the support device 50. A typical failure classification or failure countermeasure prepared in advance can be selected and input from a pull-down menu. In a case where the corresponding failure classification or failure countermeasure is not displayed in the pull-down menu, the serviceman can input an arbitrary sentence by tapping the other countermeasures button 577.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system disclosed by Koshi in view of Finley with the input taught by Koga with reasonable expectation of success. Koga is directed towards the related field of an excavator managing device and maintenance support of an excavator. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Koshi in view of Finley with Koga to improve excavator repair operations (see at least Koga [0032]: “It is desirable to provide an excavator managing device capable of easily applying past repair experience to future repair operations. Further, it is desirable to provide a support device which communicates with the excavator managing device.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights