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 .
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, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1. Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites a computer implemented method and therefore falls within the statutory of a process.
Step 2A. Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)?
Claim 1 recites the following limitations;
detecting that a hopper coupled to a truck is under a truck loading point of a concrete plant based on one or more signals provided by one or more sensors;
obtaining an identifier associated with the truck;
determining that the identifier is associated with a ticket that indicates that the truck is scheduled to be loaded at the truck loading point of the concrete plant; and
determining that the tuck is ready to be loaded based on
detecting that the hopper of the truck is under the truck loading point of the concrete plant
determining that a mixer drum of the truck is rotating at a predetermined speed and a predetermined direction and
determining that the identifier is associated with a truck number on the ticket.
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. A plant operator could potentially perform the underlying evaluation by;
Observing the truck hopper is properly positioned,
Reading a truck identifier
Comparing the identifier with a truck number on a loading ticket
Observing whether the drum is operating at the required speed and direction, and
Concluding that the truck is ready to be loaded. Accordingly claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
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 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 ideas are;
A concrete plant
A truck loading point
A truck, hopper and mixer drum,
One or more sensors
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract readiness evaluation into a practical application. The sensors collect information concerning the physical position of the truck hopper. This information is then used as an input to the abstract readiness evaluation. More data gathering that supplies information for an abstract idea ordinarily constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, the truck, hopper, mixer drum, loading point, and concrete plat limit the readiness evaluation to a concrete production environment. These physical components are the objects whose conditions are observed, and are not positively controlled or modifies by claim 1. Limiting the abstract evaluation to a particular industrial environment does not, without more, integrate the exception into a practical application See MPEP 2105.05(h). 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.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements are recited at a heigh level of generality:
Computer-implemented processing;
One or more unspecified sensors,
These components perform ordinary data collection, data receipt, comparison, and evaluation functions.
Considered as an ordered combination, claim 1 performs the following sequence:
Obtain physical-condition information,
Obtain truck-identification information
Access scheduling or ticket information
Compare the collected information with predetermined requirements
Produce a readiness determination.
The combination automates an evaluation that could otherwise be performed by the plant
operator. The claim does not recite an unconventional arrangement of sensors and computing components or a physical control operation resulting from the evaluation. The additional elements, individually or as an order combination, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites substantially the same information gathering, comparison, and readiness-determination operations as claim 1, but casts the operation as functions performed by “at least one processor” coupled to memory. Merely changing the statutory category from a method to processor and memory system does not change the substance of the eligibility analysis. The claimed processor performs the same abstract process of collecting the truck information, comparing the truck identifier with the ticket information, and determining whether the truck is ready for loading. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible for the same rationale provided in claim 1.
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable device containing instructions that cause a computing device to perform substantially the same operations as claim 1. Encoding an otherwise abstract process as instructions on a computer-readable storage device do not make the process eligible. The stored instructions continue to implement same abstract process of collecting the truck information, comparing the truck identifier with the ticket information, and determining whether the truck is ready for loading. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible for the same rationale provided in claim 1.
Dependent claims 6-7, 13, and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 6-7, 13, and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims they depend on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al. (KR 2023/0009814 A) hereinafter “Hyun”, in view of Beaupre (US 2020/0225258 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hyun discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: detecting that a hopper coupled to a truck is under a truck loading point of a concrete plant based on one or more signals provided by one or more sensors (para. [0062]; Position sensor for determining the correct position of the vehicle loading hopper at the loading point of the batcher);
obtaining an identifier associated with the truck (para. [0041],[0056]-0058]; QR code on vehicle is used to identify the vehicle at an entrance and at a loading position);
determining that the identifier is associated with a ticket that indicates that the truck is scheduled to be loaded at the truck loading point of the concrete plant (para. [0053]; Shipping determination unit scans QR code on vehicle and makes matching determination information between the vehicle identification information and the batcher plant allocation information); and
determining that the truck is ready to be loaded based on
(i) detecting that the hopper of the truck is under the truck loading point of the concrete plant (para. [0063]; the mixer gate (10) is opened only when the ready-mix concrete vehicle correctly enters the assigned target batching plant and the input hopper 20 on the top of the ready-mix concrete vehicle is accurately positioned at the bottom of the mixer gate 10) and
(iii) determining that the identifier is associated with a truck number on the ticket (para. [0053]; Shipping determination unit scans QR code on vehicle and makes matching determination information between the vehicle identification information and the batcher plant allocation information).
Hyun does not explicitly teach (ii) determining that a mixer drum of the truck is rotating at a predetermined speed and a predetermined direction to determine that the track is ready to be loaded.
Beaupre discloses a drum rotatably mounted to a mixer truck, and determining that a mixer drum of the truck is rotating at a predetermined speed and a predetermined direction to determine that the track is ready to be loaded (para. [0100], the rotational speed and direction of rotation of the drum 10 is determined and the control unit makes a decision relating to whether to open the gate of the hopper 27 holding the material to be loaded into the drum 10 of the mixer truck 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyun’s method of determining that the truck is ready to be loaded by incorporating the teachings in Beaupre of determining that a mixer drum of the truck is rotating at a predetermined speed and a predetermined direction to improve the efficient transfer of material from the concrete plant to the mixing truck by avoiding spillage and waste (Beaupre: para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Hyun further discloses sending a control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to one or more material batchers located at the truck loading point, wherein the control signal causes one or more gates of the one or more material batchers to open, thereby causing cement and aggregate to dispense into a hopper of the truck (para. [0063]; control unit generates an open signal of the batching plant mixer gate).
Regarding claim 6, Hyun further discloses where obtaining the identifier associated with the truck comprises at least one of: obtaining the identifier based on a code associated with the truck; obtaining the identifier from a tag associated with the truck; or obtaining the identifier based on a wireless signal associated with the truck (para. [0041],[0056]-0058]; QR code on vehicle is used to identify the vehicle at an entrance and at a loading position).
Regarding claim 7, Hyun further discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise: one or more photoelectric sensors; one or more photodetector sensors; one or more inductive sensors; one or more ultrasonic sensors; or one or more cameras (para. [0058], [0077]; Fig. 7, camera, distance sensor 30).
Regarding claim 8, Hyun discloses a system, comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (para. [0046], computer device), and configured to:
detect that a hopper coupled to a truck is under a truck loading point of a concrete plant based on one or more signals provided by one or more sensors (para. [0062]; Position sensor for determining the correct position of the vehicle loading hopper at the loading point of the batcher);
obtain an identifier associated with the truck (para. [0041],[0056]-0058]; QR code on vehicle is used to identify the vehicle at an entrance and at a loading position);
determine that the identifier is associated with a ticket that indicates that the truck is scheduled to be loaded at the truck loading point of the concrete plant (para. [0053]; Shipping determination unit scans QR code on vehicle and makes matching determination information between the vehicle identification information and the batcher plant allocation information); and
determine that the truck is ready to be loaded based on (i) detecting that the hopper of the truck is under the truck loading point of the concrete plant (para. [0063]; the mixer gate (10) is opened only when the ready-mix concrete vehicle correctly enters the assigned target batching plant and the input hopper 20 on the top of the ready-mix concrete vehicle is accurately positioned at the bottom of the mixer gate 10) and
(iii) determining that the identifier is associated with a truck number on the ticket (para. [0053]; Shipping determination unit scans QR code on vehicle and makes matching determination information between the vehicle identification information and the batcher plant allocation information).
Hyun does not explicitly teach (ii) determining that a mixer drum of the truck is rotating at a predetermined speed and a predetermined direction to determine that the track is ready to be loaded.
Beaupre discloses a drum rotatably mounted to a mixer truck, and determining that a mixer drum of the truck is rotating at a predetermined speed and a predetermined direction to determine that the track is ready to be loaded (para. [0100], the rotational speed and direction of rotation of the drum 10 is determined and the control unit makes a decision relating to whether to open the gate of the hopper 27 holding the material to be loaded into the drum 10 of the mixer truck 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyun’s system of determining that the truck is ready to be loaded by incorporating the teachings in Beaupre of determining that a mixer drum of the truck is rotating at a predetermined speed and a predetermined direction to improve the efficient transfer of material from the concrete plant to the mixing truck by avoiding spillage and waste (Beaupre: para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 9, Hyun further discloses sending a control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to one or more material batchers located at the truck loading point, wherein the control signal causes one or more gates of the one or more material batchers to open, thereby causing cement and aggregate to dispense into a hopper of the truck (para. [0063]; control unit generates an open signal of the batching plant mixer gate).
Regarding claim 13, Hyun further discloses where to obtain the identifier associated with the truck at least one processor configured to: obtain the identifier based on a code associated with the truck; obtain the identifier from a tag associated with the truck; or obtain the identifier based on a wireless signal associated with the truck (para. [0041],[0056]-0058]; QR code on vehicle is used to identify the vehicle at an entrance and at a loading position).
Regarding claim 14, Hyun further discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise: one or more photoelectric sensors; one or more photodetector sensors; one or more inductive sensors; one or more ultrasonic sensors; or one or more cameras (para. [0058], [0077]; Fig. 7, camera, distance sensor 30).
Regarding claim 15, Hyun discloses a non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
detecting that a hopper coupled to a truck is under a truck loading point of a concrete plant based on one or more signals provided by one or more sensors (para. [0062]; Position sensor for determining the correct position of the vehicle loading hopper at the loading point of the batcher);
obtaining an identifier associated with the truck (para. [0041],[0056]-0058]; QR code on vehicle is used to identify the vehicle at an entrance and at a loading position);
determining that the identifier is associated with a ticket that indicates that the truck is scheduled to be loaded at the truck loading point of the concrete plant (para. [0053]; Shipping determination unit scans QR code on vehicle and makes matching determination information between the vehicle identification information and the batcher plant allocation information); and
determining that the truck is ready to be loaded based on
(i) detecting that the hopper of the truck is under the truck loading point of the concrete plant (para. [0063]; the mixer gate (10) is opened only when the ready-mix concrete vehicle correctly enters the assigned target batching plant and the input hopper 20 on the top of the ready-mix concrete vehicle is accurately positioned at the bottom of the mixer gate 10) and
(iii) determining that the identifier is associated with a truck number on the ticket (para. [0053]; Shipping determination unit scans QR code on vehicle and makes matching determination information between the vehicle identification information and the batcher plant allocation information).
Hyun does not explicitly teach (ii) determining that a mixer drum of the truck is rotating at a predetermined speed and a predetermined direction to determine that the track is ready to be loaded.
Beaupre discloses a drum rotatably mounted to a mixer truck, and determining that a mixer drum of the truck is rotating at a predetermined speed and a predetermined direction to determine that the track is ready to be loaded (para. [0100], the rotational speed and direction of rotation of the drum 10 is determined and the control unit makes a decision relating to whether to open the gate of the hopper 27 holding the material to be loaded into the drum 10 of the mixer truck 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyun’s operation of determining that the truck is ready to be loaded by incorporating the teachings in Beaupre of determining that a mixer drum of the truck is rotating at a predetermined speed and a predetermined direction to improve the efficient transfer of material from the concrete plant to the mixing truck by avoiding spillage and waste (Beaupre: para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 16, Hyun further discloses sending a control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to one or more material batchers located at the truck loading point, wherein the control signal causes one or more gates of the one or more material batchers to open, thereby causing cement and aggregate to dispense into a hopper of the truck (para. [0063]; control unit generates an open signal of the batching plant mixer gate).
Regarding claim 20, Hyun further discloses where to obtain the identifier associated with the truck at least one processor configured to: obtain the identifier based on a code associated with the truck; obtain the identifier from a tag associated with the truck; or obtain the identifier based on a wireless signal associated with the truck (para. [0041],[0056]-0058]; QR code on vehicle is used to identify the vehicle at an entrance and at a loading position).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR 2023/0009814 A), in view of Beaupre (US 2020/0225258 A1), and in further view of Koga et al. (US 2021/0345062 A1), hereinafter “Koga”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hyun and Beaupre discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Hyun and Beaupre does not teach sending a control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to the mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction.
Koga sending a control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to the mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction (para. [0101], [0148]-[0149]; the mode controller 1204 operates the drum assembly controller 752 to rotate the drum at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction based on the different modes of operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hyun in view of Beaupre and incorporate the teaching of Koga of sending a control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to the mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction to facilitate automated mixing of materials within the mixing drum when filling is completed (para. [0072], [0148]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hyun and Beaupre discloses all the limitations of claim 8. The combination of Hyun and Beaupre does not teach sending a control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to the mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction.
Koga sending a control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to the mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction (para. [0101], [0148]-[0149]; the mode controller 1204 operates the drum assembly controller 752 to rotate the drum at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction based on the different modes of operation).
See rationale for claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hyun and Beaupre discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Hyun and Beaupre does not teach sending a control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to the mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction.
Koga sending a control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to the mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction (para. [0101], [0148]-[0149]; the mode controller 1204 operates the drum assembly controller 752 to rotate the drum at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction based on the different modes of operation).
See rationale for claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR 2023/0009814 A), in view of Beaupre (US 2020/0225258 A1), and in further view of Crocker et al. (US 2014/0310041 A1), hereinafter “Crocker”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hyun and Beaupre discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Hyun and Beaupre does not teach determining that the truck is proximate to a slump rack; determining an amount of time that the truck is to be proximate to the slump rack; and causing a timer to be displayed via a display in accordance with the amount of time.
Crocker discloses determining that the truck is proximate to a slump rack (para. [0102]; determination of truck is proximate to slump rack or rinsing location is made from the vehicle driving away from the filling point); determining an amount of time that the truck is to be proximate to the slump rack (para. [0102]; affixed time is allotted for rinsing operation); and causing a timer to be displayed via a display in accordance with the amount of time (para. [0102]; a timer is shown on a display 60 indicating remaining time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hyun in view of Beaupre and incorporate the teaching of Crocker of determining that a truck is at a slump rack, determining an amount of time that the truck is to be proximate to the slump rack; and causing a timer to be displayed via a display in accordance with the amount of time to improve scheduling and delivery of concrete material by reducing unnecessary delay at the slump rack station by providing the drivers with actual time spent on the station.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hyun and Beaupre discloses all the limitations of claim 8. The combination of Hyun and Beaupre does not teach determining that the truck is proximate to a slump rack; determining an amount of time that the truck is to be proximate to the slump rack; and causing a timer to be displayed via a display in accordance with the amount of time.
Crocker discloses determining that the truck is proximate to a slump rack (para. [0102]; determination of truck is proximate to slump rack or rinsing location is made from the vehicle driving away from the filling point); determining an amount of time that the truck is to be proximate to the slump rack (para. [0102]; affixed time is allotted for rinsing operation); and causing a timer to be displayed via a display in accordance with the amount of time (para. [0102]; a timer is shown on a display 60 indicating remaining time).
See rationale for claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hyun and Beaupre discloses all the limitations of claim 15. The combination of Hyun and Beaupre does not teach determining that the truck is proximate to a slump rack; determining an amount of time that the truck is to be proximate to the slump rack; and causing a timer to be displayed via a display in accordance with the amount of time.
Crocker discloses determining that the truck is proximate to a slump rack (para. [0102]; determination of truck is proximate to slump rack or rinsing location is made from the vehicle driving away from the filling point); determining an amount of time that the truck is to be proximate to the slump rack (para. [0102]; affixed time is allotted for rinsing operation); and causing a timer to be displayed via a display in accordance with the amount of time (para. [0102]; a timer is shown on a display 60 indicating remaining time).
See rationale for claim 4.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR 2023/0009814 A), in view of Beaupre (US 2020/0225258 A1), in view of Crocker (US 2014/0310041 A1), and in further view of Davies (US 2025/0229456 A1), hereinafter “Davies”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hyun, Beaupre, and Crocker discloses all the limitations of claim 4. The combination of Hyun, Beaupre, and Crocker does not disclose prior to the truck being proximate to the slump rack, sending a first control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to a mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction; and
after determining that the truck is proximate to the slump rack, sending a second control signal to the processor that causes the mixer drum to rotate in accordance with a charging mode.
Davies discloses a method of controlling the drum rotation of a concrete mixer that prior to the truck being proximate to the slump rack, sending a first control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to a mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction (para. [0059]-[0060], [0063]; at the charging station the drum is rotated at a correct first speed); and
after determining that the truck is proximate to the slump rack, sending a second control signal to the processor that causes the mixer drum to rotate in accordance with a charging mode (para. [0060], [0064]; at a post-charging location the drum is rotated at predefined rotation cycle e.g. 12 rpm; GPS location vs charging/delivery/wash-down locations are used to determine the location of the truck).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hyun, Beaupre, and Crocker and incorporate the teaching of Davies of sending a first control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to a mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction, and after determining that the truck is proximate to the slump rack, sending a second control signal to the processor that causes the mixer drum to rotate in accordance with a charging mode to improve stability and energy efficiency of the mixing truck by automatically adjusting the rotation speed of the drum to a correct speed depending on the location and current operation of the truck (Davies: para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hyun, Beaupre, and Crocker discloses all the limitations of claim 11. The combination of Hyun, Beaupre, and Crocker does not disclose prior to the truck being proximate to the slump rack, sending a first control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to a mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction; and
after determining that the truck is proximate to the slump rack, sending a second control signal to the processor that causes the mixer drum to rotate in accordance with a charging mode.
Davies discloses a method of controlling the drum rotation of a concrete mixer that prior to the truck being proximate to the slump rack, sending a first control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to a mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction (para. [0059]-[0060], [0063]; at the charging station the drum is rotated at a correct first speed) ; and
after determining that the truck is proximate to the slump rack, sending a second control signal to the processor that causes the mixer drum to rotate in accordance with a charging mode (para. [0060], [0064]; at a post-charging location the drum is rotated at predefined rotation cycle e.g. 12 rpm; GPS location vs charging/delivery/wash-down locations are used to determine the location of the truck).
See rationale for claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hyun, Beaupre, and Crocker discloses all the limitations of claim 18. The combination of Hyun, Beaupre, and Crocker does not disclose prior to the truck being proximate to the slump rack, sending a first control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to a mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction; and
after determining that the truck is proximate to the slump rack, sending a second control signal to the processor that causes the mixer drum to rotate in accordance with a charging mode.
Davies discloses a method of controlling the drum rotation of a concrete mixer that prior to the truck being proximate to the slump rack, sending a first control signal to a processor communicatively coupled to a mixer drum of the truck that causes the mixer drum to rotate at another predetermined speed and another predetermined direction (para. [0059]-[0060], [0063]; at the charging station the drum is rotated at a correct first speed) ; and
after determining that the truck is proximate to the slump rack, sending a second control signal to the processor that causes the mixer drum to rotate in accordance with a charging mode (para. [0060], [0064]; at a post-charging location the drum is rotated at predefined rotation cycle e.g. 12 rpm; GPS location vs charging/delivery/wash-down locations are used to determine the location of the truck).
See rationale for claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pommerening et al. (US 20170076250 A1) discloses a system for verifying a load prior to any batch constituents being discharged into trucks that includes a loading area, one or more trucks, a discharge point, an output ID reader included in each of the one or more trucks, an output identifier, one or more output ID readers, a server system having one or more databases, a material load verification the compares the truck id to a load matrix.
Datema (US 20230278257 A1) discloses a system for charging concrete to a mixing vehicle that determines if a mixing drum is correctly located below a discharge opening of the plant.
AIZAWA (JP 2003341413 A) discloses an automated concrete plant that detects a truck positioned at a concrete-material output port, a scanner reads the truck’s identification, recognizes the truck is at a standby and transmits the signal to a plant controller that automatically weighs ingredients and loads them in to the mixer truck according to a scheduled shipment.
Dickerman et al. (US 20170080600) discloses a truck-mounted RFID sensor configured to communicate with another RFID sensor positioned at a batch plant, to detect that the truck is at a position at the batch plant and communicate with controller to change the rotational speed of the rotating drum (e.g., turning off the rotational drum to save fuel).
WO 2023097953 A1 discloses a cooperative operation system of the mixer truck and the mixing station that receives vehicle code information from the vehicle and searches for an order at the mixing station that matches the received vehicle code. The system also assists in aligning the feed hopper of the mixer truck with the discharge port of the mixing station, by transmitting and displaying a video guidance information to the vehicle driver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMESGEN M. MARU whose telephone number is (571)272-0039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
/TEMESGEN M. MARU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights