DETAILED ACTION
America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 USC §119(a)-(d) and 35 USC §371, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
This application, filed 15-February-2025, is a continuation of application 18/551,362, filed on 19-September-2023, and subsequently abandoned.
Application 18/551,362 (Parent), filed 19-September-2023, is a national stage entry of WIPO/PCT application PCT/CL2022/050019, filed 1-March-2022.
WIPO/PCT application PCT/CL2022/050019 claims priority from Republic of Chile application CL688-2021 filed 19-March-2021. A certified copy of a priority application is contained in the Parent application file.
Applications 19/054,801, 19/054,802 and 19/054,803, filed on 15-February-2025, are co-pending applications.
This application is, therefore, accorded a prima facie effective filing dated of 19-March-2021.
Claim Objections
The claims are replete with informalities, including at least: inconsistent format, misspellings, grammatical errors, including the following, but which is not necessarily complete.
Consider claim 1: The claim is replete with errors, inconsistent language and misspellings, examples of which include:
Claim 1 preamble [line 1-20] introduces an acronym (GET) (understood to be a Ground Engagement Tool) without defining or explaining the acronym [line 3].
The clauses and functional descriptions within the preamble [line1-10] are not clearly defined or separated, rendering it difficult to distinguish one from the other.
Description of the four main operating states are described as: “….”Standby” or simply “Standby” state….” [line10] the phrasing of which is duplicative, and for which the distinction between standby and simply standby is unclear. Descriptions for the other operating states use similar phrasing.
The comma [line 20] should be a semicolon.
Claim 1, first limitation [a), line 21-30] includes a reference designation (11) assumed to be included in error.
A “Gateway” is recited in the first claim limitation [line25], but where this element has not been defined, and is introduced later, in the second limitation [b) line 31-32]. The reason for incorporating quotation marks is also unclear.
A comma appears to be omitted after the word “device” [line 26, 28].
Claim 1, second limitation [b). line 31-34] “coordination mode” appears to be a typographical error, “coordination node” intended.
Claim 1, third limitation [c). line 36-38] “at least one server corresponding to a computer equipment…” [lime 35] is assumed to mean “….server communicating with computer equipment….”.
The claim recites “….the media…” [line 36-37] without prior antecedent, but which is presumed to include one or more of the following recited elements.
Consider claim 4: This claim teaches a plurality of alternative communication protocols, understood to include WiFi, Lora, and cellular, but does not clearly delineate or punctuated the boundaries between them, and where it is unclear whether the last limitations of the claim (“….allow access to the internet…..connect to the cloud.” [line 6-7]) refers to all or one of the protocols.
Consider claim 8: The claim recites: “….said portable equipment….establishes communication with the “Lora….protocol”, which is more clearly expressed as “establishes communication using the Lora protocol”.
Consider claim 9: The claim recites: “….are selected from visual or auditory signal emitting means selected from sirens, horns, speakers, loudspeakers, computer screens or wireless devices with digital display, with access to a telephone or satellite network and the Internet”, where it is unclear whether access is intended for all devices, visual devices or only wireless devices. This limitation is interpreted to apply only to wireless devices for the purpose of prior art examination.
Consider claim 10: The claim recites in part: “….said visual alarms, audible alarms, or both, are generated or sent, autonomously, either to an operator of the earthmoving machine or at a central monitoring station….” where the phrasing “generated or sent,” is confusing because the message must be sent in order to be delivered to the listed recipients. The phrasing “…generated and sent autonomously….” is suggested. The claim also recites: “….visual alarms, audible alarms, or both, are generated or sent….. either to an operator of the earthmoving machine or at a central monitoring station…” where the use of “at” is appropriate for message generation, but not for message delivery.
Consider claim 11: The claim recites in part: “….wherein said audible signal, message with a text notification or both are displayed on a screen of a computer, cell phone or Tablet.”, where “tablet” should not be capitalized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 USC §112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 USC §112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 USC §112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 USC §112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 USC §112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. These claim limitations are: (a) means for activating or enabling the generation of visual signals, auditory signals or both, and b) visual or auditory signal emitting means as recited in claim 9. The claim equates the two means limitation (the first means is selected from the second means) and provides a list of devices (structural elements) from which the means is selected. This list is identical to that disclosed in the Specification.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, but will be interpreted according to a plain meaning of the elements listed in the claim.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 USC §112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Consider claim 1:
Claim 1 preamble recites: “…its useful life cycle…” [line 6] for which the antecedent of “its” is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite;
“…the battery …” [line 8] is without antecedent, rendering the claim indefinite;
The preamble cites 4 main operating states [line 10-19], but describes seven states, three of which are labelled “GET installed” and where the second iteration of the three is an exact duplicate of the first. The number, and functions of the operating states is unclear.
The preamble recites: “a clamping element” [line 4], ”a machine fastener element” [line 14, 15] and “a fastening element of an earthmoving machine” [line 17, 19] where it is unclear whether these are the same or different elements.
Claim 1, first limitation [a), line 21-30] describes “at least one electronic monitoring device”, “at least one sensor node” and “at least one GET” [line 21-22] and subsequently refers to “said GET” and “said electronic monitoring device” [line 22, 26, 28, 30], and refers to “its fastening element” and “where it is not exposed” [line 22-23], and where it is unclear to which element or elements, reference is made.
The first limitation refers to “its fastening element” [line 22-23] where it is unclear to which of the elements recited in the preamble (clamping element, machine fastener element or fastening element of an earthmoving machine) this refers.
The first limitation recites: “…sending…..to a “Gateway” according to wireless communication protocols according to one of the 4 aforementioned states, programmed into said monitoring device….” [line 24-24] (electronic monitoring device for proper antecedent) where it unclear whether a protocol is selected according to the particular state or programming.
The meaning of “….managing the power consumption of the power source…” [line 26-27] is unclear, where a power source provides power rather than consuming it.
The antecedents for installation/reinstallation and detachment/removal [line 28-28] where the states described in the preamble include those for a GET and alternatively for an electronic monitoring device.
Claim 1, third limitation [c), line 35-38] recites “….the network…” [line 37-38] without proper antecedent, and where both a local network and internet have been previously introduced.
The third limitation recites: “at least one server…..which stores, organizes and consults data/information” [line 35, 36] where the meaning of “consults” in this context is unclear.
Consider claim 2:
Claim 2 recites: “…said “Gateway” is located at each location/location associated with said 4 lifecycle operating states.” [line 1-2] where the meaning of “location/location” is unclear. In addition, the monitoring system may comprise at least three elements, including an electronic monitoring device, a gateway and a server, each of which may be in a different location. The association of a particular element location with a state of the system as whole is unclear.
Consider claims 2-6:
Claims 2-6 reference “said “Gateway”” [claims 2, 3, 4], “”Gateways”” [claim 4], “”said “Gateways”” [claim 5], “said plurality of “Gateways”” [claim 5], and “a “Gateway”” [claim 6], and where base claim 1 introduces “at least one….”Gateway”…” wherein these references are inconsistent, and render it unclear to which particular gateway or gateways a particular claim refers.
Consider claim 5:
Claim 5 recites that “said gateways” comprise “a GPS system” establishing “the global position” of “gateways”. It is unclear whether one or a plurality of GPS systems are recited, or whether one or more positions are determined for one or plurality of gateways.
Consider claim 6:
Claim 6 recites: “….at least one module …which may have the same attributions of a “Gateway”….” for which the difference between a module and a gateway is unclear, where a gateway may broadly be considered to be a “module”. The listed gateway attributions [line 3-5] are presented as examples only such that the metes and bounds or the attributions is indefinite. The listed attributions also include “…the network of electronic monitoring devices….”, for which there is no proper antecedent.
Consider claim 7:
Claim 7 recites: “said detached GET” for which there is no clear antecedent. The claim also recites “….communication….according to the corresponding communication protocol…” where there is no clear antecedent for a corresponding protocol, nor is it clear to what it corresponds.
Consider claim 10:
Claim 10 recites in part: “…..at a central monitoring station with a server connected to the network and which is located at the place of operation of the earthmoving machine or both.” , and where it is unclear whether “a server” refers to the server introduced in the base claim, or a different server, and where the antecedent of “the network” is unclear, a plurality of networks having been introduced. In addition is unclear how a central monitoring station is located at the earthmoving machine, as claimed.
Consider claim 11:
Claim 11 recites in part: “…..wherein said audible signal, message with a text notification or both are displayed on a screen of a computer, cell phone or Tablet.”, where it is unclear how an audible signal is displayed on a computer screen, as claimed.
Consider claim 14:
Claim 14 recites in part: “…..said lip and bucket….”, for which there is no proper antecedent in the claim, or in the base claim.
Consider claim 15:
Claim 15 recites in part: “…..an adapter that clamps the tooth, and further protects the lip from wear ….”, for which there is no proper antecedent in the claim or in the base claim for “the tooth”, or for “the lip”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC §102 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Hamilton (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2022/0275607 A1), in view of Burch et al (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0240125 A1), hereinafter Burch.
Consider claim 1: A highly metallic environment monitoring system, which allows autonomously tracking, detecting and reporting the installation/re-installation or detachment/removal of an electronic monitoring device in a GET and the installation/re-installation or detachment/removal of a GET with electronic monitoring device with respect to a clamping element in an earthmoving machine, throughout its useful life cycle, and also allows to recognize that the removal of the GET is temporary either by maintenance, repair or replacement, or definitive either by discarding, because it was not recovered, or because the battery ran out or wireless communication was lost, allowing power management, wireless communication and detection based on 4 main operating states:
"Standby" or simply "Standby" state where the electronic monitoring device, with power source installed, is not installed in a GET;
"Device Installed" or simply "Device Installed" state where the electronic monitoring device is installed/re-installed in a GET;
"GET Installed" or simply "GET Installed" state where a GET with electronic monitoring device is installed/re-installed in a machine fastener element;
"GET Installed" or simply "GET Installed" state where a GET with electronic monitoring device is installed/re-installed in a machine fastener element;
"GET Installed" or simply "GET Installed" state where a GET with electronic monitoring device is installed/re-installed on a fastening element of an earthmoving machine; or
"GET Detached" or simply "GET Detached" status where a GET with electronic monitoring device is installed/re- installed on a fastening element of an earthmoving machine, in operation, the battery is dead or communication is lost, Hamilton discloses an apparatus, methods and systems for monitoring the condition of a wear component, specifically a GET, associated with an earthmoving machine [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1, 7; Para. 0001, 0002, 0096, 0097] and particularly detects information regarding the wear condition of one or more associated GETs, and/or an attachment/detachment state of the GET [Para. 0035, 0048]; comprising:
a) at least one electronic monitoring device including at least one sensor node which is installed in at least one GET, and is located in a cavity (11) of said GET, in front of its fastening element, where it is not exposed to abrasion from the environment, and monitors said GET autonomously, sending data/information of the operation status of the life cycle to a "Gateway" according to wireless communication protocols according to one of the 4 aforementioned states, programmed into said electronic monitoring device managing the power consumption of the power source according to one of the 4 aforementioned states programmed into said electronic monitoring device and detecting installation/re- installation or detachment/removal according to one of the 4 aforementioned states programmed into said electronic monitoring device; a battery powered sensor assembly (31) (monitoring device) powered by a battery (50) and wirelessly communicating various parameters indicative of attachment/detachment and level of wear, the sensor assembly mounted within a cavity (76) of a GET (70). A sensor assembly may be placed in active state or inactive (dormant) state as required to save battery power [Fig. 1-7; Para. 0013-0018, 0148];
b) at least one central wireless communication coordination equipment or "Gateway" operating in star-type or mesh-type topology, or both, as a coordination mode of such wireless communication according to the wireless communication protocols programmed in the electronic monitoring device; a reading station (97) (gateway) wirelessly communicating with one or more sensor assemblies, comprising a reader (90), computer (160) for analyzing sensor data and providing information to a machine operator, and an ethernet switch (96) and transceiver (93) for communicating with a server (131); [Fig 1, 10; Para. 0130-0132, 0143]; and
c) at least one server corresponding to a computer equipment connected to a local network or the Internet, which stores, organizes and consults data/information from each of the media comprising an electronic monitoring device, and equipment operating in the network, including gateways, routers, cloud, servers with Internet connection; a server (133), for storing and analyzing data, and communicating over a Wi-Fi or ethernet network (95) with one or more reading stations in a facility, communicating [Fig. 1, 7-8, 10; Para. 0131, 0139-0141, 0143-0144].
Hamilton does not explicitly disclose use of a star or mesh network for communication, but this is well known in prior art, and for example:
Burch discloses systems and methods for wireless tracking of power tools and related devices [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0002, 0004-0007] and particularly the use of an ISM network configured as a mesh [Fig. 10-11, Paral 0091-0097].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to use a mesh network for wireless communication at a work site as taught by Burch and applied to methods and systems for monitoring the condition of a wear component as taught by Hamilton, where such network allows communication even between devices that not within direct communication range.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1: The monitoring system of claim 1 wherein said "Gateway" is located at each location/location associated with said 4 lifecycle operating states. Hamilton discloses the reading station (97) (gateway) receiver (90) may be mounted on the top of a machine cab (92) [Fig. 1, 7; Para. 0128, 0129].
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 2: The monitoring system of claim 2 wherein said "Gateway" is located on the cab roof or mast/arm of said earthmoving machine. This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 2, previously.
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 1: The monitoring system of claim 1 wherein said "Gateway" can establish wireless communication using complementary protocols selected from one or more of: "WIFI" to create local wireless communication networks between the "Gateways" and establish wireless communication with user interfaces; or Lora at 915 MHz, 868 MHz or 433 MHz, to communicate with different "Gateways" as well as cellular communication modules either 3G, 4G, 5G or 6G that allow access to the Internet, and with it, a direct connection to the cloud or to physical servers with Internet access that can in turn connect to the cloud. Hamilton discloses the reading station (97) (gateway) may use a Wi-Fi protocol to communicate [Fig. 1, 7; Para. 0129].
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 1: The monitoring system of claim 1 wherein said "Gateways" further comprise a radionavigation or positioning (GPS) system that allows establishing the global position of said plurality of "Gateways" and, consequently, of the electronic monitoring devices connected to said plurality of "Gateways". Burch discloses the use of GPS receives to track location of tools [Fig. 2; Para. 0044, 0049].
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 1: The monitoring system of claim 1 further comprising at least one module or portable equipment for scanning an electronic monitoring device in "GET Detached" state which may have the same attributions of a "Gateway", i.e. wireless communication, Internet connection, connection to the network of electronic monitoring devices, a computing or processing unit capable of receiving, processing and sending data/information from one network to another. Hamilton discloses a portable unit (120) comprising both a reader (121) and transceiver (1220 for network (95) communication to other devices and network resources, and specifically may be used to identify and locate a lost (disconnected) component (32) (GET) [Fig. 1; Para. 0137-0138].
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 6: The monitoring system of claim 6 wherein said at least one module or portable scanning equipment establishes wireless communication with said detached GET according to the corresponding wireless communication protocol. Hamilton discloses that a portable unit comprises a reader (121) for communication with a sensor assembly (31) mounted in a wear component (32) (GET) in the same fashion a reader (90) in a machine mounted reading station (97) (gateway) [Fig. 1; Para. 0133, 0137-0138]. See analysis for claim 6, presented previously.
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 1: The monitoring system of claim 1 further comprising means for activating or enabling the generation of visual signals, auditory signals or both, wherein said means for activating or enabling the generation of visual signals, auditory signals or both are selected from visual or auditory signal emitting means selected from sirens, horns, speakers, loudspeakers, computer screens or wireless devices with digital display, with access to a telephone or satellite network and the Internet, wherein said visual signals are selected from text notes, images or both. Hamilton discloses that the machine mounted reading station (97) may comprise a computer (160,) wherein “the computer is able to alert/issue an alert to the operator of the machine (33) via local alarms/buzzers should the reader detect the loss of a wear component (GET) from the machine or the wearing of a wear component beyond certain predetermined safe wear limits” [Fig. 1, 10; Para. 0035, 0071, 0141, 0143, 0158, 0162]
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 9: The monitoring system of claim 9 wherein said visual alarms, audible alarms, or both, are generated or sent, autonomously, either to an operator of the earthmoving machine or at a central monitoring station with a server connected to the network and which is located at the place of operation of the earthmoving machine or both. This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 9 previously.
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 10: The monitoring system of claim 10 wherein said audible signal, message with a text notification or both are displayed on a screen of a computer, cell phone or Tablet. This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 9 previously.
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 1: The monitoring system of claim 1 wherein said GET is selected from one or more teeth, adapters or protectors, shrouds, sidebar protectors or teeth holders. Hamilton discloses a wear component (32) as a tooth (70) into which a sensor assembly (31) is embedded [Fig. 1, 4-8, 10; Para. 0152-0154].
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 1: The monitoring system of claim 1 wherein said fastening element is selected from an adapter, bucket lip or bucket. Hamilton discloses that a wearable element (32) (GET)/ tooth (70) is attached using an adapter (82) mounted on a lower lip (83) of a bucket (81) [Fig. 7-8; Para. 0125].
Consider claim 14 and as applied to claim 1: The monitoring system of claim 1 wherein said clamping element and said GET may be the same when said clamping element protects said lip and bucket of said earthmoving machine. This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 13 previously.
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 1: The monitoring system of claim 1 wherein said clamping element is an adapter that clamps the tooth, and further protects the lip from wear, impact and shock. This claim is rejected based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 13 previously.
Consider claim 16 and as applied to claim 1: The monitoring system of claim 1 wherein said earthmoving machine is selected from a mining shovel or mining loading equipment. Hamilton discloses particular use on shovels and mining equipment [Fig. 7, 9; Para. 0001-0013, 0096, 0101, 0125, 0131, 0141, 0142].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Hamilton (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2022/0275607 A1) and Burch et al (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0240125 A1), hereinafter Burch, further in view of Nolan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0284902 A1), hereinafter Nolan.
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 7: The monitoring system of claim 7 wherein said portable equipment for scanning establishes communication with the "Lora Ranging Engine Packet" protocol.
Hamilton discloses wireless communication using a variety of network protocols, including Wi-Fi and Ethernet, but neither Hamilton or Nolan discloses specific use of a Lora protocol. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Nolan discloses a method and apparatus for monitoring the motion of moving device using Internet-Of-Things devices [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0014-0015], and particularly the use of a variety of protocols for sensor to monitor communication, and monitor to backend communication, as follows: “This can be achieved using accelerometers connected to wireless transceivers where the sensor to transceiver interconnection can be either serial, TIA/RS-485, Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Power, WiFi, IEEE 802.15.4, LoRa, SigFox, I2C, or SPI. Similarly, the pumpjack IoT devices 704 may communicate with a data processing backend system 706 via wired or wireless means. Examples include Ethernet, TIA/RS-485, optical fibre, LoRa, SigFox, WiFi, IEEE 802.15.4, EC-GSM, LTE, LTE-M and its variants” [Para. 0034, 0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to use one of a variety of protocols, including a LoRa protocol for sensor to monitor communication, and monitor to backend communication, as taught by Nolan, and applied to methods and systems for monitoring the condition of a wear component as taught by Hamilton, and as modified by Burch, such protocol is available and used in similar applications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Reyes-Rodriguez et al. (U.S. Patent # US 10,008,095 B2) disclosing systems and methods for presence monitoring of a ground-engaging tool relative to a machine.
Leslie et al. (U.S. Patent # US 11,634,893 B2) disclosing a wear member monitoring system.
Carpenter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2016/0237657 A1) disclosing the monitoring of ground-engaging products for earth working equipment.
Darlington et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2019/0284784 A1) disclosing attachment status monitoring of ground engaging tools (GET) for heavy machinery.
Reardon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2022/0262227 A1) disclosing a notification system for detecting tool use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. 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.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights