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 references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 8/13/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1-11 and 12-16 are directed towards a construction machine, i.e., machine. Claims 17-20 is directed towards a system, i.e., machine.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The machine in claims 1-11 (also, the machine and system in claims 12-16 and 17-20, respectively) comprises a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. With regard to independent claims 1, 12 and 17, the machine/system (or computer implemented functionality) recites the steps of: (a) perform operations for determining a period during which the implement is interacting with a ground surface (b) extract one or more features from the vibration signal and (c) predict an IOG start time based on a transition between a first cluster of the set of IIA candidates and a cluster of the set of IOG candidates and an IOG end time based on a transition between the cluster of the set of IOG candidates and a second cluster of the set of IIA candidates, the IOG start time and the IOG end time forming the period during which the implement is interacting with the ground surface. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). For example, a person that has been provided vibration signal data can mentally process sensor data (e.g., perform operations), extract, e.g., determine, one or more features about the vibration signal and predict an implement-on-ground (IOG) start time based on a transition between a first cluster of the set of IIA candidates and a cluster of the set of IOG candidates and an IOG end time based on a transition between the cluster of the set of IOG candidates and a second cluster of the set of IIA candidates based on a model output, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the processing operations are being performed by one or more processors (i.e., computer) does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “a vehicle body; an engine for enabling movement of the construction machine, the engine coupled to the vehicle body; an implement coupled to the vehicle body; a vibration sensor mounted to the implement, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement; one or more processors configured to perform operations”. The “a vehicle body; an engine for enabling movement of the construction machine, the engine coupled to the vehicle body; an implement coupled to the vehicle body; a vibration sensor mounted to the implement, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement” does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The “one or more processors configured to perform operations” is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement and receive the vibration signal from the vibration sensor, is mere data gathering. Therefore, capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement and receive the vibration signal from the vibration sensor is insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface, as claimed, is outputting data. Therefore, generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface is insignificant extra-solution activity. The recitation “an engine for enabling movement of the construction machine” is an intended use of the engine and not an actual use of the engine. As an intended use of the engine, the claim does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In other words, the claim does not positively recite that the engine is moving the construction machine in the environment or does not use the engine in accordance with the abstract idea for controlling the machine. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites the additional limitations of “a vehicle body; an implement coupled to the vehicle body; and a machine control system comprising: a vibration sensor mounted to the implement, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement; a control unit configured to perform operations”. The “a vehicle body; an implement coupled to the vehicle body; and a machine control system comprising: a vibration sensor mounted to the implement, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement” does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The “a control unit configured to perform operations” is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement and receive the vibration signal from the vibration sensor, is mere data gathering. Therefore, capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement and receive the vibration signal from the vibration sensor is insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG)candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface, as claimed, is outputting data. Therefore, generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG)candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 17 recites the additional limitations of “the machine control system comprising: a vibration sensor mounted to an implement of the construction machine, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement; a control unit configured to perform operations”. The “machine control system comprising: a vibration sensor mounted to an implement of the construction machine, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement” does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The “control unit configured to perform operations” is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement and receive the vibration signal from the vibration sensor, is mere data gathering. Therefore, capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement and receive the vibration signal from the vibration sensor is insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface, as claimed, is outputting data. Therefore, generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model is transmitting/outputting data over a network (i.e., from one computing device networked to another computing device). Therefore, the limitation “generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 12, and 17 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 12, and 17 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Further, dependent claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 6-9 and 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-14, 17-18 and 20-24 of US Patent No. 12332270 B2 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Application: 19/210,868
US Patent No. 12332270 B2
Claim 1:
A construction machine comprising: a vehicle body; an engine for enabling movement of the construction machine, the engine coupled to the vehicle body; an implement coupled to the vehicle body; a vibration sensor mounted to the implement, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement; one or more processors configured to perform operations for determining a period during which the implement is interacting with a ground surface, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive the vibration signal from the vibration sensor; extract one or more features from the vibration signal; generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface; and predict an IOG start time based on a transition between a first cluster of the set of IIA candidates and a cluster of the set of IOG candidates and an IOG end time based on a transition between the cluster of the set of IOG candidates and a second cluster of the set of IIA candidates, the IOG start time and the IOG end time forming the period during which the implement is interacting with the ground surface.
Claim 1:
A method of determining a period during which an implement of a construction machine is interacting with a ground surface, the method comprising: capturing a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement; extracting one or more features from the vibration signal; providing the one or more features to a machine-learning model to generate a model output, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface; predicting an IOG start time based on a transition between a first cluster of the set of IIA candidates and a cluster of the set of IOG candidates and an IOG end time based on a transition between the cluster of the set of IOG candidates and a second cluster of the set of IIA candidates, the IOG start time and the IOG end time forming the period during which the implement is interacting with the ground surface; adjusting a ground surface map based on the period during which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a path of the implement; and generating control signals based on the ground surface map and sending the control signals to actuators of the construction machine to cause movement of the construction machine.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the vibration signal is captured using a vibration sensor mounted to the construction machine.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 2, wherein the vibration sensor is mounted to the implement.
Claim 6:
The construction machine of claim 1, wherein the vibration sensor includes an accelerometer and the vibration signal includes an acceleration signal.
Claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein the vibration sensor includes an accelerometer and the vibration signal includes an acceleration signal.
Claim 7:
The construction machine of claim 1, wherein the vibration sensor includes a gyroscope and the vibration signal includes a rotation signal.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 2, wherein the vibration sensor includes a gyroscope and the vibration signal includes a rotation signal.
Claim 8:
The construction machine of claim 1, wherein the one or more features include at least one of signal amplitude features or signal frequency features.
Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more features include at least one of signal amplitude features or signal frequency features.
Claim 9:
The construction machine of claim 1, wherein the machine-learning model is a pre-trained support-vector machine.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein the machine-learning model is a pre-trained support-vector machine.
Claim 12:
A construction machine comprising: a vehicle body; an implement coupled to the vehicle body; and a machine control system comprising: a vibration sensor mounted to the implement, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement; a control unit configured to perform operations for determining a period during which the implement is interacting with a ground surface, wherein the control unit is configured to: receive the vibration signal from the vibration sensor; extract one or more features from the vibration signal; generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG)candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface; and predict an IOG start time based on a transition between a first cluster of the set of IIA candidates and a cluster of the set of IOG candidates and an IOG end time based on a transition between the cluster of the set of IOG candidates and a second cluster of the set of IIA candidates, the IOG start time and the IOG end time forming the period during which the implement is interacting with the ground surface.
Claim 8:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of an implement of a construction machine; extract one or more features from the vibration signal; provide the one or more features to a machine-learning model to generate a model output, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with a ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface; predict an IOG start time based on a transition between a first cluster of the set of IIA candidates and a cluster of the set of IOG candidates and an IOG end time based on a transition between the cluster of the set of IOG candidates and a second cluster of the set of IIA candidates, the IOG start time and the IOG end time forming a period during which the implement is interacting with the ground surface; adjust a ground surface map based on the period during which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a path of the implement; and generate control signals based on the ground surface map and send the control signals to actuators of the construction machine to cause movement of the construction machine.
Claim 9:
The system of claim 8, wherein the vibration signal is captured using a vibration sensor mounted to the construction machine.
Claim 11:
The system of claim 9, wherein the vibration sensor is mounted to the implement.
Claim 13:
The construction machine of claim 12, wherein the vibration sensor includes an accelerometer and the vibration signal includes an acceleration signal.
Claim 10:
The system of claim 9, wherein the vibration sensor includes an accelerometer and the vibration signal includes an acceleration signal.
Claim 14:
The construction machine of claim 12, wherein the vibration sensor includes a gyroscope and the vibration signal includes a rotation signal.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 2, wherein the vibration sensor includes a gyroscope and the vibration signal includes a rotation signal.
Claim 15:
The construction machine of claim 12, wherein the one or more features include at least one of signal amplitude features or signal frequency features.
Claim 12:
The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more features include at least one of signal amplitude features or signal frequency features.
Claim 16:
The construction machine of claim 12, wherein the machine-learning model is a pre-trained support-vector machine.
Claim 13:
The system of claim 8, wherein the machine-learning model is a pre-trained support-vector machine.
Claim 17:
A machine control system integrated with a construction machine, the machine control system comprising: a vibration sensor mounted to an implement of the construction machine, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to capture a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement; a control unit configured to perform operations for determining a period during which the implement is interacting with a ground surface, wherein the control unit is configured to: receive the vibration signal from the vibration sensor; extract one or more features from the vibration signal; generate a model output based on the one or more features using a machine-learning model, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG)candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface; and predict an IOG start time based on a transition between a first cluster of the set of IIA candidates and a cluster of the set of IOG candidates and an IOG end time based on a transition between the cluster of the set of IOG candidates and a second cluster of the set of IIA candidates, the IOG start time and the IOG end time forming the period during which the implement is interacting with the ground surface.
Claim 15:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for determining a period during which an implement of a construction machine interacts with a ground surface, the operations comprising: capturing a vibration signal that is indicative of a movement of the implement; extracting one or more features from the vibration signal; providing the one or more features to a machine-learning model to generate a model output, the model output including a set of implement-on-ground (IOG) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a set of implement-in-air (IIA) candidates corresponding to times at which the implement is not interacting with the ground surface; and predicting an IOG start time based on a transition between a first cluster of the set of IIA candidates and a cluster of the set of IOG candidates and an IOG end time based on a transition between the cluster of the set of IOG candidates and a second cluster of the set of IIA candidates, the IOG start time and the IOG end time forming the period during which the implement is interacting with the ground surface; adjusting a ground surface map based on the period during which the implement is interacting with the ground surface and a path of the implement; and generating control signals based on the ground surface map and sending the control signals to actuators of the construction machine to cause movement of the construction machine.
Claim 16:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the vibration signal is captured using a vibration sensor mounted to the construction machine.
Claim 19:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the vibration sensor is mounted to the implement.
Claim 18:
The machine control system of claim 17, wherein the vibration sensor includes an accelerometer and the vibration signal includes an acceleration signal.
Claim 16:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the vibration signal is captured using a vibration sensor mounted to the construction machine.
Claim 19:
The machine control system of claim 17, wherein the vibration sensor includes a gyroscope and the vibration signal includes a rotation signal.
Claim 18:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the vibration sensor includes a gyroscope and the vibration signal includes a rotation signal.
Claim 20:
The machine control system of claim 17, wherein the one or more features include at least one of signal amplitude features or signal frequency features.
Claim 12:
The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more features include at least one of signal amplitude features or signal frequency features.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
White (US 20230279647 A1) is pertinent because it relates to a vibration monitoring system for a mining machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights