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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 03/12/2025, 04/21/2025, 05/06/2025, 08/13/2025, 03/09/2026. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
No claims are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 02/14/2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
PNG
media_image1.png
860
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12,252,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations are identical with the exception of “receiving a plurality of images of a bucket,” and “one or more stored images,” of application 19/053,862 which are broader limitations than the similar, but different. limitations “receiving from a camera associated with a work machine, a video stream including a plurality of images of a bucket,” and “a template library of the work machine,” of patent 12,252,870. The “receiving a plurality of images of a bucket,” limitation is a broader limitation of the “video stream,” and the “stored images” is a broader limitation of the “template library,” (see also Table above).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations are found within the independent and dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870, (see also Table above).
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations are found within the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870, (see also Table above).
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations are found within the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870, (see also Table above).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations are found within the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870, (see also Table above).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations are found within the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870, (see also Table above).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations are found within the independent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870, (see also Table above).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations are found within the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870, (see also Table above).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations are found within the independent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,870, (see also Table above).
Regarding claims 10-20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claims 1-9. The apparatus/systems taught/disclosed in claims 10-20 can clearly perform the methods of claims 1-9. Therefore, claims 10-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1-9 above.
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) 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, 14, and 16-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAFAZOLI BILANDI et al., US 20180130222, herein further known as Tafazoli, in view of WADA et al., US 20170037594, herein further known as Wada, further in view of LIM et al., US 20170287124, herein further known as Lim.
Regarding claim 1, Tafazoli discloses receiving a plurality of images (¶¶ [0086], images (i.e. plurality) of the wear part, [0107], a plurality of images) of a bucket of a work machine(¶¶ [0002-0004], heavy equipment, loaders, see also FIGS. 2-5), the bucket having at least one ground engaging tool (GET) (¶¶ [0002-0004], sacrificial Ground Engaging Tool (GET), see also FIGS. 2-5, [0062], plurality of wearable teeth 256); based on the bucket (¶ [0004], see also FIGS. 2-5, [0062], bucket operating implement 252), and a matching bucket-tool template corresponding to the bucket (¶¶ [0006], [0013], [0016], [0024], [0029], [0037], [0100], labeled set of training images, see also claims 1 and 7); identifying a plurality of tool images that matches one or more stored images from the matching bucket-tool (¶¶ [0104], [0115], image frames of the wear part, matching criterion); determining a plurality of tool pixel counts (¶¶ [0075-0076], plurality of pixels, [0081-0083], pixels 602, integer value between 0 and 256, see also FIGS. 8, and 9) from the plurality of tool images (¶¶ [0104], [0115], image frames of the wear part, matching criterion) based at least in part on a shape and style of the at least one GET (¶¶ [0006], [0013], [0016], [0024], [0029], [0037], [0100], labeled set of training images, see also claims 1 and 7); and determining a wear level (¶ [0014], wear part condition satisfactory/not satisfactory) or loss (¶ [0108], un-detected or missing teeth) for the at least one GET (¶¶ [0002-0004], sacrificial Ground Engaging Tool (GET), see also FIGS. 2-5, [0062], plurality of wearable teeth 256) based on the plurality of tool pixel counts (¶¶ [0075-0076], plurality of pixels, [0081-0083], pixels 602, integer value between 0 and 256, see also FIGS. 8, and 9).
However, Tafazoli does not explicitly state bucket having a model number and selecting a matching bucket-tool template corresponding to the bucket from a plurality of bucket-tool templates.
Wada teaches bucket having a model number (¶ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Tafazoli the bucket having a model number as taught by Wada.
One would be motivated to modify Tafazoli in view of Wada for the reasons stated in Wada paragraph [0008], more robust method and system for improvement in an operating efficiency during an automatic excavation control.
Lim teaches selecting a matching bucket-tool template corresponding to the bucket from a plurality of bucket-tool templates (¶¶ [0015-0024], plurality of template images to generate a shovel template set, see also FIGS. 1-5, [0027-0028], tooth template matching technique, [0037-0038], bucket template image among a plurality of bucket template images, see also claims 1, 3, 6, 12, and 14).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tafazoli by including selecting a matching bucket-tool template corresponding to the bucket from a plurality of bucket-tool templates as taught by Lim. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Tafazoli, and Lim.
One would be motivated to modify Tafazoli in view of Lim for the reasons stated in Lim paragraph [0004], a more robust system and method to detect the fall of teeth of a mechanical shovel with greater degree of efficacy because of the environmental contamination by dust.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tafazoli, Wada, and Lim disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Tafazoli discloses further identifying the plurality of tool images includes identifying the plurality of tool images over a period of time (¶¶ [0036], [0114], prediction of a time of failure, wear of part over time, see also claim 31), and determining the wear level (¶ [0014], wear part condition satisfactory/not satisfactory) or loss (¶ [0108], un-detected or missing teeth) for the at least one GET (¶¶ [0002-0004], sacrificial Ground Engaging Tool (GET), see also FIGS. 2-5, [0062], plurality of wearable teeth 256) based on the plurality of tool pixel counts (¶¶ [0075-0076], plurality of pixels, [0081-0083], pixels 602, integer value between 0 and 256, see also FIGS. 8, and 9) comprises mapping (¶ [0114], store the dimensional attribute of the wear part) a plurality of time instances of the plurality of tool images over the period of time (¶¶ [0036], [0114], prediction of a time of failure, wear of part over time, see also claim 31) to the plurality of tool pixel counts (¶¶ [0075-0076], plurality of pixels, [0081-0083], pixels 602, integer value between 0 and 256, see also FIGS. 8, and 9).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tafazoli, Wada, and Lim disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Tafazoli discloses further generating an alert based on the wear level or loss including the wear level reaching a wear threshold value (¶ [0114], wear part has been reduced below a replacement threshold, an alert is generated); and displaying the alert on a display of an operator control panel of the work machine (¶¶ [0066], [0071], [0111]), the alert including at least one of: the at least one GET being lost (¶ [0108], un-detected or missing teeth), the at least one GET requiring a replacement, or a replacement time (¶ [0014], replacement threshold criterion) for the at least one GET (¶¶ [0002-0004], sacrificial Ground Engaging Tool (GET), see also FIGS. 2-5, [0062], plurality of wearable teeth 256).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tafazoli, Wada, and Lim disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Tafazoli discloses further the plurality of tool pixel counts indicates at least one of: an area of the at least one GET, a height of the at least one GET (¶¶ [00113-0114], length and/or size of the wear part, dimensional attribute), a width of the at least one GET , or a sum of the height and the width (¶¶ [0035], determining a dimensional attribute of the wear part) of the at least one GET (¶¶ [0002-0004], sacrificial Ground Engaging Tool (GET), see also FIGS. 2-5, [0062], plurality of wearable teeth 256).
Regarding claim 10, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The apparatus/systems taught/disclosed in claim 10 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 2. The apparatus/systems taught/disclosed in claim 11 can clearly perform the methods of claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 7. The apparatus/systems taught/disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform the methods of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tafazoli, and Lim, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Tafazoli does not explicitly state identifying the plurality of tool images includes: calculating a similarity score for the plurality of tool images and the one or more stored image templates, wherein the similarity score reflects a measure of the plurality of tool images matching the one or more stored image templates.
Lim teaches identifying the plurality of tool images includes: calculating a similarity score for the plurality of tool images and the one or more stored image templates, wherein the similarity score reflects a measure of the plurality of tool images matching the one or more stored image templates (¶¶ [0023-0025]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tafazoli by including identifying the plurality of tool images includes: calculating a similarity score for the plurality of tool images and the one or more stored image templates, wherein the similarity score reflects a measure of the plurality of tool images matching the one or more stored image template as taught by Lim. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Tafazoli, and Lim.
One would be motivated to modify Tafazoli in view of Lim for the reasons stated in Lim paragraph [0004], a more robust system and method which includes illumination equipment which will operate with low illumination levels.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tafazoli, and Lim, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Tafazoli does not explicitly state calculating a similarity score for the plurality of tool images, wherein the similarity score indicates the wear level of the plurality of tool images.
Lim teaches calculating a similarity score for the plurality of tool images, wherein the similarity score indicates the wear level of the plurality of tool images (¶¶ [0029-0030] missing (tooth) score value, compared with a missing measurement threshold value, wherein missing teeth are wear level).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tafazoli by including calculating a similarity score for the plurality of tool images, wherein the similarity score indicates the wear level of the plurality of tool images as taught by Lim. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Tafazoli, and Lim.
One would be motivated to modify Tafazoli in view of Lim for the reasons stated in Lim paragraph [0004], a more robust system and method which includes illumination equipment which will operate with low illumination levels.
Regarding claim 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 6. The apparatus/systems taught/disclosed in claim 18 can clearly perform the methods of claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The apparatus/systems taught/disclosed in claim 19 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 3-4, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tafazoli, Wada, and Lim, further in view of REYES-RODRIGUEZ et al., US 20180038083, herein further known as Reyes.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tafazoli, Wada, and Lim disclose all elements of claim 2 above.
Tafazoli discloses plurality of time instances of the plurality of tool images mapped over the period of time to the plurality of tool pixel counts (¶¶ [0036], [0114], ¶¶ [0075-0076], plurality of pixels, [0081-0083], pixels 602, integer value between 0 and 256, see also FIGS. 8, and 9).
However, Tafazoli does not explicitly state determining a wear-level trend.
Reyes teaches determining a wear-level trend (¶[0048-0050]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tafazoli by including determining a wear-level trend as taught by Reyes. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Tafazoli, and Reyes.
One would be motivated to modify Tafazoli in view of Reyes for the reasons stated in Reyes paragraph [0004], and [0006], a more robust method to easily observe wear conditions associated with ground-engaging tools, so that a machine operator may know how worn various ground-engaging tools are. Furthermore, the more robust systems are used for monitoring wear of a ground-engaging tool of a machine, in relation to productivity of the machine.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tafazoli, Wada, and Lim disclose all elements of claim 3 above.
Tafazoli discloses further predicting a replacement time for the at least one GET (¶ [0014], replacement threshold criterion).
However, Tafazoli does not explicitly state predicting a replacement time for the at least one GET based on the wear-level trend.
Reyes teaches predicting a replacement time for the at least one GET based on the wear-level trend (¶[0041], and [0047-0048]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tafazoli by including predicting a replacement time for the at least one GET based on the wear-level trend as taught by Reyes. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Tafazoli, and Reyes.
One would be motivated to modify Tafazoli in view of Reyes for the reasons stated in Reyes paragraph [0004], and [0006], a more robust method to easily observe wear conditions associated with ground-engaging tools, so that a machine operator may know how worn various ground-engaging tools are. Furthermore, the more robust systems are used for monitoring wear of a ground-engaging tool of a machine, in relation to productivity of the machine.
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 3. The apparatus/systems taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform the methods of claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 4. The apparatus/systems taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the methods of claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claims 1, 3-4. The apparatus/systems taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the methods of claims 1, 3-4. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 3-4 above.
Claims 5, 8, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tafazoli, Wada, and Lim, further in view of CHOWHAN, US 20210174486, herein further known as Chowhan.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tafazoli, Wada, and Lim disclose all elements of claim 3 above.
Tafazoli discloses identifying the plurality of tool images over the period of time (¶¶ [0036], [0114], prediction of a time of failure, wear of part over time, see also claim 31) includes: finding one or more images from the plurality of tool images that match (¶¶ [0104], [0115], image frames of the wear part, matching criterion) the one or more stored images (¶¶ [0069-0070], [0074], [0086], teeth within images of the bucket 204 or 252 may be stored in the memory 302 or the mass storage unit 308).
However, Tafazoli does not explicitly state performing a segmentation analysis on the plurality of tool images.
Chowhan teaches performing a segmentation analysis on the plurality of tool images (¶[0091]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Tafazoli the performing a segmentation analysis on the plurality of tool images as taught by Chowhan.
One would be motivated to modify Tafazoli in view of Chowhan for the reasons stated in Chowhan paragraph [0005], more robust methods and systems to become efficient, fault safe and cost effective, and have an automated assessment system that can help in making decisions on further usage of a worn or degraded mechanical component.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tafazoli, Wada, and Lim disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Tafazoli discloses identifying the plurality of tool images (¶¶ [0036], [0114], prediction of a time of failure, wear of part over time, see also claim 31), (¶¶ [0104], [0115], image frames of the wear part, matching criterion) (¶¶ [0069-0070], [0074], [0086]), and plurality of video frames, video stream (¶¶ [0012], [0023], capturing a sequence of images)
However, Tafazoli does not explicitly state selection based on segmentation analysis.
Chowhan teaches selection based on segmentation analysis (¶[0091]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Tafazoli the election based on segmentation analysis as taught by Chowhan.
One would be motivated to modify Tafazoli in view of Chowhan for the reasons stated in Chowhan paragraph [0005], more robust methods and systems to become efficient, fault safe and cost effective, and have an automated assessment system that can help in making decisions on further usage of a worn or degraded mechanical component.
Regarding claim 15, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 5. The apparatus/systems taught/disclosed in claim 15 can clearly perform the methods of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The best prior art available is believed to be Tafazoli, Wada, Lim, and Chowhan, as cited above. However the cited art does not fully disclose or suggest each and every feature of claim 9. Accordingly, claim 9 appears to contain allowable subject matter in view of the available prior art, selecting the bucket-tool template stored in a template library, bucket image at a predetermined moment in the dig-dump cycle of the work machine and predetermined position of the bucket during the predetermined moment in the dig-dump cycle. It should be noted that this is in view of the prior art only. The claim rejections under nonstatutory double patenting, which are detailed above, must be overcome before a notice of allowance can be considered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record attached PTO 892 form, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as described below.
Prior art RESTUM et al., US 10504072, discloses a controller which converts data collected by the wear detection device into one or more parameters of a tooth, such as a size (at least one dimension) of the tooth 152 (for, example, length, width, volume, (i.e. area) and the like).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights