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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 7/9/2025. Currently claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1, 11, 20 are independent. This application is a continuation of 18/101,400 which ultimately claims priority to provisional application 62/789,890 filed on 1/8/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/9/2025 appears to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-20, following the guidance for 101 rejections contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-10) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 11 and its dependent claims (claims 12-19) are directed to a statutory category, namely a method. Claim 20 is directed to a statutory category, namely an article of manufacture.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1, 11, and 20, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental processes”, or more particularly, “Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to observe, evaluate, and record data related to position and operations of industrial field work. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that a foreman might perform at a drilling rig or construction site. The abstract elements of claims 1, 11, and 20, recite in part “Receive data…Parse data…Analyze data…Determine condition…Determine new site…Determine tool usage…Identify location…Retrieve location information…Update database……”. Dependent claims 2-8 and 12-17 add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Analyze data…Receive image data…Analyze image data…Identify objects…Data comprises…Determine an activity…Determine a total time…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Dependent claims 9, 10, 18, 19 do not include any limitations that are directed toward the abstract idea and will be addresses in either the Step 2A (Prong 2) or Step 2B analysis below.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1, 11, and 20, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Computer apparatus…Processor…Memory…Database…Analysis module…Network communication interface…Sensors…Computer program product…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These claims also include the additional element which recites in part “equipment…” however this again fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is merely an attempt to generally link the abstract idea to any sort of industrial field (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Dependent claims 2, 12 and add the additional element which recites in part “ML algorithm…” which again limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is again insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is again merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 9, 10, 18, 19 add the additional element which recites in part “equipment” however this again fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is again an attempt to generally link the abstract idea to any sort of industrial field (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Additionally, dependent claims 3-8, 13-17 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 11, and 20, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Computer apparatus…Processor…Memory…Database…Analysis module…Network communication interface…Sensors…Computer program product…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (observe, evaluate, and record data related to position and operations of industrial field work) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0084] – “These computer- executable program code portions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer.”
These claims also include the additional element which recites in part “equipment” however this again is not significantly more than the abstract idea because it is merely an attempt to generally link the abstract idea to any sort of industrial field (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Dependent claims 2, 12, 9, 10, 18, 19 include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination and in view of their respective independent claims, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, dependent claims 2, 12 include the additional element which recites in part “ML algorithm…” These are the same additional elements that are addressed above in claims 1, 11, and 20, and are not significantly more because these are again merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (observe, evaluate, and record data related to position and operations of industrial field work) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 9, 10, 18, 19 include the additional element which recites in part “equipment.” This element also is not significantly more than the abstract idea because it is merely an attempt to generally link the abstract idea to any sort of industrial field (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Additionally, dependent claims 3-8, 13-17 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne (USPGPUB 2013/0096799) in view of O’Donnell et al. (USPGPUB 2020/0103906) further in view of Bernier et al. (US 20170349058 A1)
Regarding claims 1, 11, 20, Horne discloses a system for collecting and analyzing equipment telematic data (Horne ¶2 - This application relates generally to asset information reporting and, more specifically, to processing, analysis, and presentation of data associated with construction or agricultural asset operations {i.e. telematics data}), comprising: a computer apparatus including one or more processors, a memory, and a network communication interface; and an analysis module stored in the memory, executable by the one or more processors (Horne Fig. 2, Fig. 3) and configured for: receiving, via the network communication interface, telematic data from a piece of equipment, the piece of equipment comprising one or more sensors configured to collect the telematic data from an integrated component of the piece of equipment (Horne Fig. 2 – Horne ¶46 - The monitoring system 200 can send position coordinates, such as GPS data coordinates and sensor events, and messages from the asset 120 to a monitoring system service provider 150 running software specifically designed to process this type of information. The monitoring system 200 can process information and make decisions on intelligent reporting of data that is to be collected and reported); parsing the telematic data to identify (i) location information and (ii) usage information for the integrated component (Horne ¶46 - The monitoring system 200 can collects, stores, receives, (and possibly processes) and transmits various information related to the positional and operational data of the asset 120); analyzing the telematic data to determine whether a job site condition has been satisfied for a first location (Horne ¶101 - In some example embodiments, the asset (e.g., truck) can utilize an electronic sensor to measure when the dump box or bucket is retracted. This can signify the completion of a cycle or unloading phase {i.e. satisfied condition}); determining that the job site condition has been satisfied for the first location, wherein determining that the job site condition has been satisfied comprises determining that the piece of equipment has stopped at the first location for least a defined period of time and that the integrated component of the piece of equipment has been used (Horne ¶101 - In some example embodiments, the asset (e.g., truck) can utilize an electronic sensor to measure when the dump box or bucket is retracted. This can signify the completion of a cycle or unloading phase {i.e. satisfied condition}); determining that the first location is a new job site in response to (1) determining that the job site condition has been satisfied, wherein determining that the job site condition has been satisfied comprises determining that the piece of equipment has stopped at the first location for least the defined period of time and that the integrated component of the piece of equipment has been used (Horne ¶101 - In some example embodiments, the asset (e.g., truck) can utilize an electronic sensor to measure when the dump box or bucket is retracted. This can signify the completion of a cycle or unloading phase).
Horne lacks identifying the first location based on the location information of the telematic data, (3) retrieving location information for existing job sites from a job site database, and in response to determining that the first location is a new job site, updating the job site database to include the first location.
O’Donnell, from the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying the first location based on the location information of the telematic data, (3) retrieving location information for existing job sites from a job site database, and in response to determining that the first location is a new job site, updating the job site database to include the first location (O’Donnell ¶61 - Optionally, at block 428, after the site plan 100, 200 has been completed, such that the autonomous construction vehicle 300 has reached the stop point of the path 130, 230, the controller 350 may optionally provide a subsequent site plan. For example, in the case of a road worksite, the construction vehicle may move on to the subsequent area to resume working. In at least one example, the controller 350 may use an edge of the previous boundary 102, 202 and the current position of the autonomous construction vehicle 300 to automatically define a new outer boundary of a new portion of a worksite, as well as the new work area. This can help reduce the amount of boundary definition time required by the operator and may allow for more efficient work).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the asset monitoring methodology/system of Horne by including the site planning techniques of O’Donnell because O’Donnell discloses it “allows for more efficient work (O’Donnell ¶61)”. Additionally, Horne further details that “This application relates generally to asset information reporting and, more specifically, to processing, analysis, and presentation of data associated with construction or agricultural asset operations (Horne ¶2)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional site planning techniques that O’Donnell discloses because it would enable more efficient asset operations.
Horne further lacks determining that the first location is not within one of the existing job sites.
Bernier, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining that the first location is not within one of the existing job sites (Bernier ¶126 - Furthermore, the system 132 may be configured to compare potential new sites to existing sites to determine how the new site may fit in with routes for the existing sites. For example, a potential jobsite located far away from existing jobsites should be bid at a higher price (due to additional travel time) than a similar potential new jobsite located near existing sites (where travel time between jobsites is reduced).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to modify the asset monitoring methodology/system of Horne by including the equipment fleet management techniques of Bernier because Bernier discloses it "providing real-time or near real-time operational updates, preemptive alerts, and various other data of outdoor power equipment may improve efficiency of overall management, scheduling, and maintenance of a fleet of such outdoor power equipment (Bernier ¶32). Additionally, Horne further details that "This application relates generally to asset information reporting and, more specifically, to processing, analysis, and presentation of data associated with construction or agricultural asset operations (Horne ¶2)" so it would be obvious to consider including the additional equipment fleet management techniques that Bernier discloses because it would improve the efficiency of the management of asset operations.
Regarding claims 3, 13, Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier discloses the analysis module is configured for: receiving, via the network communication interface, image data from the piece of equipment; and analyzing the image data, wherein determining that the job site condition has been satisfied is based at least in part on analyzing the image data (Horne ¶96 - The electronic device can send feedback data from the mobile device back into the monitoring system. This data can be feedback into the receiving, interpreting, analyzing, reporting loop (414, 416, 418, 420) to produce a report with further information. In an example, the mobile device of a user receives a report and queries the user for additional information, e.g., image of current location, image of job site, location of asset, etc. This request can be an electronic form or template or other visual indicator for the displayed on the mobile device).
Regarding claims 4, 14, Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier discloses identifying, from the image data, one or more objects associated with the job site condition (Horne ¶96 - The electronic device can send feedback data from the mobile device back into the monitoring system. This data can be feedback into the receiving, interpreting, analyzing, reporting loop (414, 416, 418, 420) to produce a report with further information. In an example, the mobile device of a user receives a report and queries the user for additional information, e.g., image of current location, image of job site, location of asset, etc. This request can be an electronic form or template or other visual indicator for the displayed on the mobile device).
Regarding claims 5, 15, Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier discloses the telematic data comprises a plurality of telematic datasets (Horne ¶64 - The monitoring device 212 can automatically report arrival or departure of the asset 120 from a job or home site location. The monitoring device 212 can also record and transmit various machine utilization parameters, such as a time and distance traveled {i.e. plurality of datasets}).
Regarding claims 6, 16, Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier discloses he analysis module is configured for determining an activity and/or location associated with each telematic dataset of the plurality of telematic datasets (Horne ¶76 - The data received by the communication module 302 can include the positional and operational data associated with the asset 120. The positional data can be obtained using the position navigation system, e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS), or a cellular triangulation system by the monitoring system 200 installed on the asset 120 and transmitted to the monitoring system provider 150).
Regarding claims 7, 17, Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier discloses the analysis module is configured for determining a total time the piece of equipment is associated with each of a plurality of activities and/or locations (Horne ¶127 - FIG. 10 is a block diagram showing a management report 1000, in accordance with an example embodiment. In some example embodiments, the management report 1000 can include customer identification information 1002, date of the analysis 1004, a site name 1006, a number of assets that are analyzed in the production report 1008, a number of the assets that are analyzed in the utilization report 1010, a site efficiency field 1012, a total utilization field 1014, a total yards moved field 1016, a fuel efficiency field 1018, a path maintenance field 1020, a maintenance close field 1022, a major alarms field 1024. The color associated with certain fields corresponds to predetermined criteria set by the clients).
Regarding claim 8, Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier discloses the analysis module is configured for determining a total time the piece of equipment spent at the first location (Horne ¶127 - FIG. 10 is a block diagram showing a management report 1000, in accordance with an example embodiment. In some example embodiments, the management report 1000 can include customer identification information 1002, date of the analysis 1004, a site name 1006, a number of assets that are analyzed in the production report 1008, a number of the assets that are analyzed in the utilization report 1010, a site efficiency field 1012, a total utilization field 1014, a total yards moved field 1016, a fuel efficiency field 1018, a path maintenance field 1020, a maintenance close field 1022, a major alarms field 1024. The color associated with certain fields corresponds to predetermined criteria set by the clients).
Regarding claims 9, 18, Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier discloses the piece of equipment is a piece of construction equipment (Horne ¶29 – A monitoring system is installed on an asset, for example, construction equipment, agricultural equipment, on-highway equipment, rail equipment, or off-highway equipment to enable monitoring the location and performance of the asset. The monitoring system can include, among other components, one or more monitoring device and sensors).
Claims 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne (USPGPUB 2013/0096799) in view of O’Donnell et al. (USPGPUB 2020/0103906) further in view of Bernier et al. (US 20170349058 A1) further in view of Cella et al. (US 20190041835 A1)
Regarding claims 2, 12, Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier discloses a system for collecting and analyzing equipment telematic data (Horne ¶2 - This application relates generally to asset information reporting and, more specifically, to processing, analysis, and presentation of data associated with construction or agricultural asset operations {i.e. telematics data}).
Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier lacks analyzing the telematic data to determine whether the job site condition has been satisfied further comprises using a machine learning algorithm to determine whether the job site condition has been satisfied.
Cella, from the same field of endeavor, teaches analyzing the telematic data to determine whether the job site condition has been satisfied further comprises using a machine learning algorithm to determine whether the job site condition has been satisfied (Cella ¶293 - In embodiments, the platform 100 may include the local data collection system 102 deployed in the environment 104 to monitor signals from machines, elements of the machines and the environment of the machines including heavy duty machines deployed at a local job site or at distributed job sites under common control…Cella ¶199 - Intelligent systems may include machine learning systems 122, such as for learning on one or more data sets. The one or more data sets may include information collected using local data collection systems 102 or other information from input sources 116, such as to recognize states, objects, events, patterns, conditions, or the like that may, in turn, be used for processing by the host system 112 as inputs to components of the platform 100 and portions of the industrial IoT data collection, monitoring and control system 10, or the like).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the asset monitoring methodology/system of Horne by including the industrial data analysis techniques of Cella because Cella discloses “Methods and systems are provided herein for data collection in industrial environments, as well as for improved methods and systems for using collected data to provide improved monitoring, control, and intelligent diagnosis of problems and intelligent optimization of operations in various heavy industrial environments (Cella ¶33)”. Additionally, Horne further details that “This application relates generally to asset information reporting and, more specifically, to processing, analysis, and presentation of data associated with construction or agricultural asset operations (Horne ¶2)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional industrial data analysis techniques that Cella discloses because it would improve the asset information monitoring of the system disclosed within Horne.
Claims 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne (USPGPUB 2013/0096799) in view of O’Donnell et al. (USPGPUB 2020/0103906) further in view of Bernier et al. (US 20170349058 A1) further in view of Kahle et al. (USPGPUB 2013/0138466)
Regarding claims 10, 19, Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier discloses a system for collecting and analyzing equipment telematic data (Horne ¶2 - This application relates generally to asset information reporting and, more specifically, to processing, analysis, and presentation of data associated with construction or agricultural asset operations {i.e. telematics data}).
Horne in view of O’Donnell further in view of Bernier lacks the piece of equipment is a handheld tool.
Kahle, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the piece of equipment is a handheld tool (Kahle ¶41 - In operation 410 of FIG. 4, task data is received from a handheld tool at construction site. As described above, handheld tool 120 is configured to generate task data which is sent via reporting source 110 to information management system 101).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the asset monitoring methodology/system of Horne by including the task verification techniques of Kahle because Kahle discloses it “can ensure that the proper tools, personnel, and other assets are at the correct location at the correct time to perform a particular task. (Kahle ¶31)”. Additionally, Horne further details that “This application relates generally to asset information reporting and, more specifically, to processing, analysis, and presentation of data associated with construction or agricultural asset operations (Horne ¶2)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional task verification techniques that Kahle discloses because it would enable more robust asset operations by ensuring proper position of assets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kaneko et al. (JP 2005326965 A)
Spalenka et al. (US 20190102622 A1)
and
A. Hammad, et al. “Towards the smart construction site: Improving productivity and safety of construction projects using multi-agent systems, real-time simulation and automated machine control,” Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 2012, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1109/WSC.2012.6465160. [online], [retrieved on 2022 09-23]. Retrieved from the Internet https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6465160?source=IQplus
All of these pieces are cited because they disclose similar methods to the claimed invention in that they all deal with data collection for industrial equipment and analysis for industrial management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights