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 application filed 13 November 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that claim 4 is dependent from claim 3 (system claims), and the same or similar claims 14 (same as claim 4) which is not currently dependent from claim 13 (same as claim 3) (method claims), it may not impact the application, but it is noted in case the Applicant meant to have claim 14 dependent from claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 335 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. When considering claim(s) 1-20 as a whole and all claim elements both individually and in combination, these claim(s) 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of managing a fleet of machines operating in a construction or civil engineering project without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the January 2019 §101 Examination Guidelines), claim(s) (1-11) is/are directed to a system, and claims(s) (12-20) is/are directed to a system and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention recites a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea. The claim(s) 1-20 recite(s) mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1 and 11 recite a mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of managing a fleet of machines operating in a construction or civil engineering project which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the processing unit language, the claim encompasses the user manually collecting information and managing a fleet of machines.
analyze a first set of telematics data received from the first machine, and a second set of telematics data received from the second machine;
determine whether the first machine and the second machine meet a threshold positional and temporal proximity based on the analysis of the telematics data;
determine whether the second machine is collaborating with the first machine to receive a material from the first machine, by:
receiving work cycle data from the first machine and work cycle data from the second machine;
assessing whether the work cycle data from the first machine indicates that it is loading within the same work cycle as the work cycle data from the second machine indicates that it is being loaded;
track materials movement by the collaborating first machine and second machines by:
receiving payload data from the first machine and payload data from the second machine;
correlating the mass of the material loaded by the first machine with the mass of the material received by the second machine;
deriving a type of material received by the second machine from the type of material loaded by the first machine;
tracking the materials movement based on the correlation of the mass of material and the derivation of the type of material, wherein tracking the materials movement comprises;
determining a quantity of material of a certain material type moved from a source to a destination by the collaborating first and second machines;
The assessing whether the work cycle, track materials, correlating the mass of the material, and deriving a type of material would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to determine the tracking and status of equipment. With respect to the broadest reasonable interpretation, the specification supports the conclusion that the assessing whether the work cycle, track materials, correlating the mass of the material, and deriving a type of material is reasonably viewed as mental activity necessary to managing a fleet of machines.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and additionally that data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s): that a control unit as well as a processing unit is used to perform the analysis, assessing, determining, correlating, and deriving. The processing unit in the step is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (the managing a fleet of machines). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): telematics machine data received from a first and second machine, work cycled data received from a first machine, and receiving payload data from the first and second machine which performs the assessing, determining, correlating, and deriving steps. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving work cycle data, track materials, receiving payload data, and tracking the materials movement performs the assessing, determining, correlating, and deriving for use in the analyzing, assessing, determining, correlating, and deriving steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor unit performs the analyzing, assessing, determining, correlating, and deriving steps are also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determining step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processing unit).
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1-20 recite(s) analyzing a first set of telematics data, determine collaboration, receiving work cycle data, assessing whether the work cycle data from the first machine… receiving payload data, correlating the mass of the material loaded, deriving a type of material, and track materials which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for receiving, and determining which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (managing a fleet of machines operating in a construction or civil engineering project) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to calculate the marketing for a user based on consumer interactions). Using a computer to receive and determine the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it”.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, and 17 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 2, and 12 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19, and 20 further limit the recited abstract idea discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the location and movement of fleet information. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of resource management and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the current claims telematics machine data received from a first and second machine, work cycled data received from a first machine, and receiving payload data from the first and second machine, that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication such as the currently cited prior art “Schleicher et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0166157 A1)” could include a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHLEICHER et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0166157 A1) (hereafter Schleicher) in view of Meier et al. (WO 2020/082182 A1) (hereafter Meier).
Referring to Claim 1, Schleicher teaches a system for management of a fleet of machines operating in a construction or civil engineering project, par. [0015] a controller of vehicles, Abstract performing agricultural (i.e. civil projects)).
the fleet of machines comprising a first machine and a second machine, the system comprising a control and processing unit configured to: (see; par. [0004] and par. [0019] of Schleicher teaches receiving telematics data of a first vehicle).
analyze a first set of telematics data received from the first machine, and a second set of telematics data received from the second machine, and determine whether the first machine and the second machine meet a threshold positional and temporal proximity based on the analysis of the telematics data (see; par. [0004] of Schleicher teaches determining the position of vehicles in par. [0066] real time in order to maintain proximity of secondary vehicles in order to minimize downtime, and par. [0047] using predetermined proximity zones).
if the first machine and the second machine are determined to meet the threshold positional and temporary proximity, determine whether the second machine is collaborating with the first machine to receive a material from the first machine, by (see; par. [0004] of Schleicher teaches determining the position of vehicles in par. [0066] real time in order to maintain proximity of secondary vehicles in order to minimize downtime, and par. [0047] using predetermined proximity zones).
receiving work cycle data from the first machine and work cycle data from the second machine (see; par. [0019] of Schleicher teaches receiving data from the vehicles that provide a track where the vehicles are assigned to drive including a variance).
if the second machine is determined to be collaborating with the first machine, track materials movement by the collaborating first machine and second machines by (see; par. [0004] and par. [0015] of Schleicher teaches using a control unit to manage the location of the vehicles, using telematics data to manage the vehicles, par. [0066] using a real time connection to manage the fleet, and par. [0017] that are used to haul a mass or volume that is measured in by the vehicle of agricultural product by the multiple vehicles).
receiving payload data from the first machine and payload data from the second machine (see; par. [0017] of Schleicher teaches the determining the weight of material being hauled by the vehicle in both lead and follow vehicles (i.e. 1st and 2nd machine)).
wherein the payload data from the first machine comprises a mass and type of material loaded, and the payload data from the second machine comprises a mass of material received (see; par. [0015] using a controlling device to control, par. [0047] and identify the position over time in order to keep the vehicles in a specific distance from each vehicle to another vehicle at a maximum distance as well as ensure, par. [0066] ensure minimum downtime during transfer of material (i.e. type of material)).
correlating the mass of the material loaded by the first machine with the mass of the material received by the second machine (see; par. [0093] and par. [0096] of Meier teaches correlating machines that are working in coordination with a second machine and the payload is determined by weight).
tracking the materials movement based on the correlation of the mass of material and the derivation of the type of material, wherein tracking the materials movement comprises determining a quantity of material of a certain material type moved from a source to a destination by the collaborating first and second machines (see; par. [0019] of Schleicher teaches the tracking of the movement of the vehicle, par. [0066] for a first and second vehicle, par. [0017] that are used to haul a mass or volume that is measured in by the vehicle of agricultural product by the multiple vehicles).
Schleicher does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Meier teaches assessing whether the work cycle data from the first machine indicates that it is loading within the same work cycle as the work cycle data from the second machine indicates that it is being loaded (see; par. [0093] and par. [0096] of Meier teaches correlating machines that are working in coordination with a second machine and the payload is determined by weight, multiple machines detect the load of two machines by weight), and
deriving a type of material received by the second machine from the type of material loaded by the first machine (see; par. [0096] of Meier teaches determine a time correlated payload with a second machine in order to ensure, par. [0097] position coordination of the second machine, par. [0060] based on weight of material, par. [0106] where it is identified for grain).
The Examiner notes that Schleicher teaches similar to the instant application teaches transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices. Specifically, Schleicher discloses the use of a controller and gps device to determine the location of each vehicle in contact with other vehicles used to collect and haul agricultural material by the vehicle fleet and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Meier teaches machine operational state and material movement tracking of multiple machines used in grain collection and as it is comparable in certain respects to Schleicher which transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Schleicher discloses the use of a controller and gps device to determine the location of each vehicle in contact with other vehicles used to collect and haul agricultural material. However, Schleicher fails to disclose assessing whether the work cycle data from the first machine indicates that it is loading within the same work cycle as the work cycle data from the second machine indicates that it is being loaded and deriving a type of material received by the second machine from the type of material loaded by the first machine.
Meier discloses assessing whether the work cycle data from the first machine indicates that it is loading within the same work cycle as the work cycle data from the second machine indicates that it is being loaded and deriving a type of material received by the second machine from the type of material loaded by the first machine.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Schleicher assessing whether the work cycle data from the first machine indicates that it is loading within the same work cycle as the work cycle data from the second machine indicates that it is being loaded and deriving a type of material received by the second machine from the type of material loaded by the first machine as taught by Meier since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Schleicher and Meier teach the collecting and analysis of data with respect the hauling of agricultural materials and utilizing a fleet of vehicles and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the system above, Schleicher further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the control and processing unit is configured to receive the first and second sets of telematics data by receiving the telematics data at regular intervals from each of the first and second machines (see; par. [0004] and par. [0015] of Schleicher teaches using a control unit to manage the location of the vehicles, using telematics data to manage the vehicles, par. [0066] using a real time connection to manage the fleet (i.e. regular intervals)).
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the system above, Schleicher further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the control and processing unit is configured to determine if the first machine and the second machine meet the threshold positional and temporal proximity when the first machine is within a predetermined maximum distance of the second machine for at least a predetermined minimum duration (see; par. [0015] using a controlling device to control, par. [0047] and identify the position over time in order to keep the vehicles in a specific distance from each vehicle to another vehicle at a maximum distance to, par. [0066] ensure minimum downtime during transfer of material (i.e. minimum duration)).
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 3 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the system above, Schleicher further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the maximum distance is a configurable distance between 2 and 20 meters and the minimum duration is a configurable duration between 30 seconds and 120 seconds (see; par. [0047] identify the position over time in order to keep the vehicles in a specific predetermined distance, approximately 50 meters or less (i.e. from each vehicle to another vehicle at a maximum distance) and notes that it is application dependent, par. [0028], [0041], and [0064]-[0066] ensure minimum downtime during transfer of material (i.e. minimum duration and implies ), additionally Figure 6 indicates an predefined radius and based on the well-established size of a combine this would put the depicted radius at ~14 feet which is in between the 2 and 20 meter distance and par. [0028] indicates a follow vehicle). Additionally, the addition of a 30-120 second minimum duration threshold represents the obvious application of a known temporal filtering technique to distinguish intentional collaboration from coincidental proximity, a straightforward modification requiring only common sense to prevent false positive detections when vehicles temporarily pass near each other, which constitutes a routine parameter optimization within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success, and yield entirely predictable results based on the distance requirements and the therefore the time is viewed to therefore be implied to match the distance requirements.
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the system above, Schleicher in view of Meier further discloses a system having the limitations of,
the control and processing unit is configured to conduct a productivity analysis based on the tracking of materials movement, and generate a project plan comprising directions on deployment of the collaborating first and second machines to optimize the productivity of the fleet of machines (see; par. [0028] of Schleicher teaches lead vehicle is always tracked and initiates the unloading by a follow or second vehicle, and when a follower is full transmit a new follower will track and pair with the lead vehicle, par. [0004] where an offset which is viewed as a plan to keep fleet in control, par. [0066] which minimizes downtime (i.e. productivity)).
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 6 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the system above, Schleicher in view of Meier further discloses a system having the limitations of,
the control and processing unit is configured to generate commands based on the project plan and transmit the commands to the collaborating first and second machines (see; par. [0028] of Schleicher teaches the monitoring need for follower vehicles (i.e. first and second machine), par. [0023] based on commands that control the vehicles, par. [0019] and track location data to be used together (i.e. collaborating)).
Referring to Claim 11, Schleicher in view of Meier teaches a method for management of a fleet of machines operating in a construction or civil engineering project. Claim 11 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1.
Referring to Claim 12, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the method above Claim 12 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2, Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 2.
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the method above Claim 13 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3.
Referring to Claim 14, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the method above Claim 14 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4, Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 4.
Referring to Claim 16, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the method above Claim 16 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6, Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 6.
Referring to Claim 17, see discussion of claim 16 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the method above Claim 17 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7, Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 7.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHLEICHER et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0166157 A1) (hereafter Schleicher) in view of Meier et al. (WO 2020/082182 A1) (hereafter Meier) in further view of Friend et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0073925 A1) (hereafter Friend).
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the system above, Schleicher in view of Meier does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Friend teaches the control and processing unit is configured to assess deviation from a materials movement plan based on the tracking of materials movement (see; par. [0062] and par. [0065]-[0066] of Friend teaches an example of making changes in planning payloads using control systems).
The Examiner notes that Schleicher teaches similar to the instant application teaches transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices. Specifically, Schleicher discloses the use of a controller and gps device to determine the location of each vehicle in contact with other vehicles used to collect and haul agricultural material by the vehicle fleet and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Meier teaches machine operational state and material movement tracking of multiple machines used in grain collection and as it is comparable in certain respects to Schleicher which transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Friend teaches control system for controlling the movement of work implements of a machine between locations and as it is comparable in certain respects to Schleicher and Meier which transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Schleicher and Meier discloses the use of a controller and gps device to determine the location of each vehicle in contact with other vehicles used to collect and haul agricultural material. However, Schleicher fails to disclose the control and processing unit is configured to assess deviation from a materials movement plan based on the tracking of materials movement.
Friend discloses assessing whether the work cycle data from the first machine indicates that it is loading within the same work cycle as the work cycle data from the second machine indicates that it is being loaded and deriving a type of material received by the second machine from the type of material loaded by the first machine.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Schleicher and Meier the control and processing unit is configured to assess deviation from a materials movement plan based on the tracking of materials movement as taught by Friend since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Schleicher, Meier, and Friend teach the collecting and analysis of data with respect the hauling of agricultural materials and utilizing a fleet of vehicles and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the system above, Schleicher in view of Meier further discloses a system having the limitations of,
Friend teaches the fleet of machines comprises a plurality of earthmoving machines and the type of material is a type of earthwork material (e.g. top soil, bog mud, oil contaminated material). (see; par. [0024] of Friend teaches an example of movement of materials from a mine, landfill and construction site regarding roadwork (i.e. soil)).
The Examiner notes that Schleicher teaches similar to the instant application teaches transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices. Specifically, Schleicher discloses the use of a controller and gps device to determine the location of each vehicle in contact with other vehicles used to collect and haul agricultural material by the vehicle fleet and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Meier teaches machine operational state and material movement tracking of multiple machines used in grain collection and as it is comparable in certain respects to Schleicher which transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Friend teaches control system for controlling the movement of work implements of a machine between locations and as it is comparable in certain respects to Schleicher and Meier which transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Schleicher and Meier discloses the use of a controller and gps device to determine the location of each vehicle in contact with other vehicles used to collect and haul agricultural material. However, Schleicher fails to disclose the control and processing unit is configured to assess deviation from a materials movement plan based on the tracking of materials movement.
Friend discloses assessing whether the work cycle data from the first machine indicates that it is loading within the same work cycle as the work cycle data from the second machine indicates that it is being loaded and deriving a type of material received by the second machine from the type of material loaded by the first machine.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Schleicher and Meier the control and processing unit is configured to assess deviation from a materials movement plan based on the tracking of materials movement as taught by Friend since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Schleicher, Meier, and Friend teach the collecting and analysis of data with respect the hauling of agricultural materials and utilizing a fleet of vehicles and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 15, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the method above Claim 15 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5, Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 5.
Referring to Claim 20, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the method above Claim 20 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim10, Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 10.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHLEICHER et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0166157 A1) (hereafter Schleicher) in view of Meier et al. (WO 2020/082182 A1) (hereafter Meier) in further view of Sprock et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0292933 A1) (hereafter Sprock).
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the system above, Schleicher further discloses a system having the limitations of,
A location of the firs machine (see; par. [0004] of Schleicher teaches determining the position of vehicles in par. [0066] real time in order to maintain proximity of secondary vehicles in order to minimize downtime, and par. [0047] using predetermined proximity zones).
An action being carried out by the first machine, such as (a) loading material into a hauler, or (b) rearranging material in location (e.g. scraping, piling, cleaning-up) (see; par. [0037] of Schleicher teaches the action taken by the lead vehicle and follow vehicle are utilized to the hauling of agricultural material).
A weight of a load being lifted by the first machine (see; par. [0017] of Schleicher teaches the monitoring of the weight that is being hauled in the container of the lead vehicle (i.e. bucket)).
Schleicher in view of Meier does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Sprock teaches the material type being handled (see; par. [0026] of Sprock teaches determining the type of payload being hauled or shoveled), and
time stamps associated with each of the above (see; par. [0028] and par. [0032]-[0033] of Sprock teaches the time being recorded for each event related to capture data).
The Examiner notes that Schleicher teaches similar to the instant application teaches transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices. Specifically, Schleicher discloses the use of a controller and gps device to determine the location of each vehicle in contact with other vehicles used to collect and haul agricultural material by the vehicle fleet and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Meier teaches machine operational state and material movement tracking of multiple machines used in grain collection and as it is comparable in certain respects to Schleicher which transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Sprock teaches managing mixed fleet worksites using sensor analytics and as it is comparable in certain respects to Schleicher and Meier which transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Schleicher and Meier discloses the use of a controller and gps device to determine the location of each vehicle in contact with other vehicles used to collect and haul agricultural material. However, Schleicher fails to disclose the material type being handled, and time stamps associated with each of the above.
Sprock and Meier discloses the material type being handled, and time stamps associated with each of the above.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Schleicher and Meier the material type being handled, and time stamps associated with each of the above as taught by Sprock since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Schleicher, Meier and Sprock teach the collecting and analysis of data with respect the hauling of agricultural materials and utilizing a fleet of vehicles and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 9, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the system above, Schleicher in view of Meier further discloses a system having the limitations of,
A location of the second machine ((see; par. [0004] of Schleicher teaches determining the position of vehicles in par. [0066] real time in order to maintain proximity of secondary vehicles in order to minimize downtime, and par. [0047] using predetermined proximity zones).
An action being carried out by the second machine, such as (a) hauler is being loaded into, or (b) hauler is traveling loaded, waiting to dump, dumping, travelling empty, waiting to load and not-in operation (see; par. [0037] of Schleicher teaches the action taken by the lead follow vehicle are utilized to the hauling of agricultural material, par. [0047] an amount of follow vehicles waiting to be called to take material from the lead vehicle (i.e. loaded into)).
A weight of a load being carried by the second machine (see; par. [0017] of Schleicher teaches the monitoring of the weight that is being hauled in the container of the follow vehicle (i.e. bucket)).
Schleicher does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Sprock teaches the time stamps associated with each of the above (see; par. [0028] and par. [0032]-[0033] of Sprock teaches the time being recorded for each event related to capture data).
The Examiner notes that Schleicher teaches similar to the instant application teaches transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices. Specifically, Schleicher discloses the use of a controller and gps device to determine the location of each vehicle in contact with other vehicles used to collect and haul agricultural material by the vehicle fleet and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Meier teaches machine operational state and material movement tracking of multiple machines used in grain collection and as it is comparable in certain respects to Schleicher which transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Sprock teaches managing mixed fleet worksites using sensor analytics and as it is comparable in certain respects to Schleicher and Meier which transferring material between vehicles being collected and hauled using sensors and communication devices as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Schleicher and Meier discloses the use of a controller and gps device to determine the location of each vehicle in contact with other vehicles used to collect and haul agricultural material. However, Schleicher fails to disclose the time stamps associated with each of the above.
Sprock and Meier discloses the time stamps associated with each of the above.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Schleicher and Meier the time stamps associated with each of the above as taught by Sprock since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Schleicher, Meier and Sprock teach the collecting and analysis of data with respect the hauling of agricultural materials and utilizing a fleet of vehicles and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 18, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the method above Claim 18 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8, Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 8.
Referring to Claim 19, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Schleicher in view of Meier teaches the method above Claim 19 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 9, Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ha et al. (U.S. Patent 10,853,748 B2) discloses managing material handling productivity.
Sarkaria et al. (WO 2020/087171 A1) discloses project management systems and methods incorporating proximity based associated.
Chi et al. (U.S. Patent 10,364,548 B2) discloses a method of optimizing performance of machines at a worksite.
Betancourt (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0088661 A1) discloses a vehicle technology and telematics passengers control enabler.
Jensen (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0284072 A1) discloses a project management system for worksite including machines performing operations and methods thereof.
Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0247795 A1) discloses an apparatus and method for transmitting and receiving persistent scheduling changes information in wireless communication system.
CHO et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0077579 A1) discloses a method for allocating resources in broadband wireless access system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SSS/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625