DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Status of Claims
The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 04/28/2026. Claims 1-19 have been canceled. Claims 20-21, 23, 26-27, 32-33, and 35-38 have been amended. Claims 20-39 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The applicant’s claim for benefit of Provisional Patent Application Serial Nos. 63137950, 63138024, 63137955, 63137978, 63137893, 63138016, 63137867, 63138015, 63137996, and 63138003, all filed 01/15/2021 have been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 02/19/2026, 04/01/2026, and 05/05/2026 have been reviewed and considered.
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 20-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 20-39 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 20-39 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 20, claim 20 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
positioned to monitor a weather-related condition of a worksite of the work during operation of the work; and
generate information related to the work machine;
collect operation data, the operation data including at least data captured indicative of the weather-related condition of the worksite;
determine, based on the operation data, that work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning;
generate a recommendation based on determining that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning, the weather-related condition of the worksite of the work, and a location of the work;
provide the recommendation to a user;
receive a user input interacting with the recommendation; and
initiate a transaction implementing the recommendation.
Taking claim 32, claim 32 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
positioned to monitor a weather-related condition of a worksite of the work during operation of the work; and
generate information related to the work;
communicably couple the work;
collect first operation data, the first operation data comprising at least data captured indicative of the weather-related condition of the worksite;
determine, based on the first operation data, that the weather-related condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work;
receive second operation data from the at least one second work communicably coupled;
determine, based on the first operation data and the second operation data, that the work machine and the at least one second work machine have ceased functioning;
generate a recommendation based determining that the work machine and the second work machine have ceased functioning, the weather-related condition of the worksite of the work, determining that the weather-related condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work machine, and a location of the work machine;
provide the recommendation to a user;
receive a user input interacting with the recommendation; and
initiate a transaction implementing the recommendation.
Taking claim 37, claim 37 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
positioned to monitor a weather-related condition of a worksite of the work during operation of the work; and
generate information related to the work;
communicably couple the work;
collect first operation data, the first operation data comprising at least one data captured including the weather-related condition of the worksite;
determine, based on the first operation data, that the weather-related condition of the worksite is related to a component of the work;
receive a plurality of operation data from the plurality of second work;
determine, based on the first operation data and the plurality of operation data, that the work machine and the second work machine have ceased functioning;
generate a recommendation based on determining that the work machine and the plurality of second work machines have ceased functioning, the weather-condition of the worksite of the work, determining that the weather-related condition of the worksite is related to the component of the work, and a location of the work;
provide the recommendation to a user;
receive a user input interacting with the recommendation; and
initiate a transaction implementing the recommendation.
The above limitations of these claims recite the concept of providing a recommendation for a transaction based on information. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the item recommendations are for the purpose of a transaction. Furthermore, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, determining the claims recite concepts similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 20, 32, and 37 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 20, 32, and 37 recite additional elements, such as a work machine; a chassis, an implement coupled to the chassis; a prime mover configured to power the implement; a sensor coupled to the chassis; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of the controller cause the processor to; establish a mesh network connection with at least one second work machine, the mesh network connection enabling the work machine and the at least one second work machine to collaboratively perform tasks requiring more than one work machine; generate a graphical user interface on a display; providing information via the graphical user interface; a wireless network; a second work machine; communicably couple the work machine to a wireless mesh network, the wireless mesh network having at least one second work machine communicably coupled thereto; communicably couple the work machine to a wireless mesh network, the wireless mesh network having a plurality of second work machines communicably coupled thereto and enabling the work machine and the plurality of second work machines to collaboratively perform tasks requiring more than one work machine; and a plurality of work machines. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 20, 32, and 37 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 20, 32, and 37 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., providing a recommendation for a transaction based on information) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 20, 32, and 37 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 20, 32, and 37 specifying that the abstract idea of providing a recommendation for a transaction based on information is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 20, 32, and 37 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 20, 32, and 37 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 20, 32, and 37 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 20, 32, and 37, these claims recite additional elements, such as a work machine; a chassis, an implement coupled to the chassis; a prime mover configured to power the implement; a sensor coupled to the chassis; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of the controller cause the processor to; establish a mesh network connection with at least one second work machine, the mesh network connection enabling the work machine and the at least one second work machine to collaboratively perform tasks requiring more than one work machine; generate a graphical user interface on a display; providing information via the graphical user interface; a wireless network; a second work machine; communicably couple the work machine to a wireless mesh network, the wireless mesh network having at least one second work machine communicably coupled thereto; communicably couple the work machine to a wireless mesh network, the wireless mesh network having a plurality of second work machines communicably coupled thereto and enabling the work machine and the plurality of second work machines to collaboratively perform tasks requiring more than one work machine; and a plurality of work machines. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 20, 32, and 37 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 20, 32, and 37 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 20, 32, and 37 specifying that the abstract idea of providing recommendations for a transaction based on information is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 20, 32, and 37 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 20, 32, and 37 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 21-31, 33-36, and 38-39, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 21-31, 33-36, and 38-39 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Furthermore, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 23-25, 27-29, 31, 35, and 38-39 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 21-22, 26, 30, 33-34, 36 further identify additional elements, such as a local mesh network hosted by the work machine and a second work machine; a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh network; a remote server; a wireless network; a user device communicably coupled to the work machine; a second work machine, and a plurality of work machines. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 21-31, 33-36, and 38-39 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 20, 32, and 37, dependent claims 21-31, 33-36, and 38-39 analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 20-39 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Sells (US 2009/0005928 A1) (“Sells”), previously cited Larson et al. (US 20160034329 A1) (“Larson”), previously cited Wunderlich (US 20200014759 A1) (“Wunderlich”), previously cited de Graff et al. (US 20100271191 A1) (“de Graff”), and newly cited NPL reference U.
Although individually the references teach concepts such as monitoring weather conditions, a mesh network, and generating recommendations, none of the references teach nor render obvious that a sensor coupled to a work machine monitors weather conditions, and is enabled to collaborate over a mesh network with other work machines, where it is determined that a work machine and a second work machine have ceased functioning and a recommendation is provided based on this determination, the weather condition, and a location of the work machine.
Previously cited Sells teaches a method of work machines (Sells: [0026] and Fig. 1). Sells discloses subscribing machines that are tracked in an asset library for a visual diagnostic service to be provided (Sells: [0024-0025]). Sells further discloses machines have been provided with onboard controllers to detect abnormal operating conditions and warn the machine operator or owner of the conditions (Sells: [0002]). Sells additionally discloses users may be warned of failing components and prompted to order a replacement (Sells: [0036]; [0044]). Yet Sells does not explicitly disclose determining the machines have ceased functioning, the weather conditions, or the mesh network.
Previously cited Larson teaches a method of operating machines (Larson: [0179]). Larson further teaches monitoring patterns with respect to work machines using sensors (Larson: [0179]). Additionally, Larson teaches determining a failure of a machine and providing an alert based on the failure (Larson: [0179-0180]). Yet Larson does not teach the limitations pertaining to the transaction, the weather conditions, or the mesh network.
Previously cited Wunderlich teaches a method of work machines (Wunderlich: [0052]). Wunderlich teaches that a mesh network including automated connected vehicles is established and machines may communicate over this shared mesh network (Wunderlich: [0052]; [0058]). Yet Wunderlich does not teach the limitations pertaining to the transaction, the conditions, or the ceasing of operations.
Previously cited de Graff teaches a work machine method (de Graff: [0057]). de Graff further teaches conditions may be monitored to determine tire condition of a vehicle, where the monitored conditions include temperature and climate (de Graff: [0057]; [0059]). Yet de Graff does not teach the limitations pertaining to the transaction, the ceasing of operations, and the mesh network.
Newly cited NPL Reference U teaches predictive maintenance sensors. The sensors can predict, detect, and diagnose potential faults in machinery. Yet U does not explicitly teach all of the limitations pertaining to the transaction, the weather, and the network.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, claims 20, 32, and 37, taken as a whole, are indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims allowable over the prior art/additional art. Claims 21-31, 33-36, and 38-39 depend from claims 20, 32, and 37, and therefore the dependent claims are also indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/28/2026, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible in light of the amendments (Remarks pages 9-10). The examiner disagrees. Initially, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the item recommendations are for the purpose of a transaction. Furthermore, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, determining the claims recite concepts similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Further, the MPEP sets forth, in Step 2A Prong Two, that a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole “integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.” The evaluation of Prong Two requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole ‘integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.’ In the instant case, the claims include additional elements such as a work machine; a chassis, an implement coupled to the chassis; a prime mover configured to power the implement; a sensor coupled to the chassis; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of the controller cause the processor to; establish a mesh network connection with at least one second work machine, the mesh network connection enabling the work machine and the at least one second work machine to collaboratively perform tasks requiring more than one work machine; generate a graphical user interface on a display; providing information via the graphical user interface; a wireless network; a second work machine; communicably couple the work machine to a wireless mesh network, the wireless mesh network having at least one second work machine communicably coupled thereto; communicably couple the work machine to a wireless mesh network, the wireless mesh network having a plurality of second work machines communicably coupled thereto and enabling the work machine and the plurality of second work machines to collaboratively perform tasks requiring more than one work machine; and a plurality of work machines. While these elements are recited, they are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of providing recommendations in a technological environment based on operation data without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality nor does the disclosure articulate how the elements provide a technical improvement. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more because they merely amount to using the additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights