Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the amendment received 09/04/2025.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 5 are independent claims. Claim 2 is canceled.
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis —Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a process for determining positioning that uses a satellite positioning system. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis —Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below). Claim1 recites:
an antenna disposed on or in a work machine;
a receiver that performs positioning calculation by realtime positioning;
a cylinder stroke sensor that detects information representing a posture of working equipment of the work machine; and
A processor, the processor being configured to:
calculate a position of the antenna based on the posture of the working equipment detected by the cylinder stroke sensor and a position of working equipment of the work machine aligned with a known reference point positioned at a work site, wherein the position of the antenna of the satellite positioning system is calculated based on a position of the known reference point and an angle representing the posture of the working equipment;
output a control command that causes the receiver to execute initialization processing of the positioning calculation in which an integer value bias of each satellite and the position of the antenna of the satellite positioning system are unknown, by using the position of the antenna of the satellite positioning system calculated by the processor based on a position of the working equipment of the work machine aligned with a known reference point positioned at a work site.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a ‘Mathematical Concepts’ because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitations through mathematical calculations. More specifically, the limitation which states ‘calculates a position of an antenna wherein it is calculated based on a position of the known reference point and an angle representing a posture of the working equipment, is recited at a high level and fails to preclude a person from performing the calculation based on known variables such as a reference point, position of the working equipment that relates to an angle representing a posture of the working equipment. When the limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and thus will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas. As presently claimed, a person could view the machine, the antenna, and a reference point as static data and perform a calculation to determine a position of the antenna.
101 Analysis —Step 2A, Prong Il
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have identified that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application’.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the noted abstract idea into a practical application. In reference to the following additional limitations:
an antenna disposed on or in a work machine;
a receiver that performs positioning calculation by realtime positioning; and
a cylinder stroke sensor that detects information representing a posture of working equipment of the work machine; and
a processor.
The examiner submits that the limitation includes adding the words ‘apply it’ or equivalent with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The limitation includes ‘a processor’ for carrying out the calculation of the antenna’s position. The processor is recited at a high level and thus acts as a generic computer device to carry out the calculation.
In addition, the limitations that include the receiver, antenna, and cylinder stroke sensor, are merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitation does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. The antenna is interpreted as a static component used in obtaining position data and thus includes insignificant extra - solution activity to the judicial exception. The receiver, using kinematic positioning to obtain a positioning calculation is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The cylinder stroke sensor is a generic sensor that performs a conventional data gathering function and thus includes insignificant extra - solution activity to the judicial exception. Furthermore, they are all recited at a high level and acts as mere data gathering to be used in conjunction to well-known satellite positioning processing.
In regards to the additional limitation:
output a control command that causes the receiver to execute initialization processing of the positioning calculation in which an integer value bias of each satellite and the position of the antenna of the satellite positioning system are unknown, by using the position of the antenna of the satellite positioning system calculated by the processor based on a position of the working equipment of the work machine aligned with a known reference point positioned at a work site.
The examiner is interpreting the ‘output a control command’ as insignificant extra-solution activity. The command causes the receiver to act as a computer device to collect data (i.e. calculated position of the antenna) and thus performs mere data gathering which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The limitation “based on a position of working equipment of the work machine aligned with a known reference point positioned at a work site” merely provides additional details to the calculations that the processor performs, thus is seen as a processor performing the generic computer function of processing data to implement the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above -noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis —Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The antenna, receiver, cylinder stroke sensor, processor, are all generic components that perform conventional, well-known, and routine functionality.
The additional limitation reciting “output a control command…” is an extra solution activity comprised of data gathering, and is conventional and well-known. See Kenji paragraph 0016, 0020-0021.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
In reference to dependent claims 3, 4, and 5, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims 3, 4, and 5, recite further mathematical calculation steps which fall under the mathematical concepts category of abstract ideas. More specifically, calculating the position of the antenna based on posture angles of the working equipment and calculating a position of the antenna based on a position of a blade edge of the working equipment aligned with a reference point are considered mathematical calculations that can be carried out by a person viewing a machine, antennas on the machines, reference points, positions of blade edges, and angles of objects on the machine. The limitation of claim 5 seems to describe the machine as being able to travel however the limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by performing mathematical calculations or describing additional parts of the machine and their capabilities.
In reference to independent claim 6, the claim recites similar limitations to those found in independent claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale. Regarding the first limitation of aligning, which is a different limitation from independent claim. The step encompasses a mental step of viewing a portion of working equipment and a measured reference point to align to calculate either an angle or measurement. Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
In reference to dependent claims 7 and 8, the claims recite additional elements beyond the judicial exception however the limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the exception. The output of a command, as presently claimed, is interpreted as insignificant extra solution activity. The ‘output command for’ and the ‘output a working equipment command’ do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is nominally or tangentially related to the invention and does amounts to output of a generic result from the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. The limitations do not perform any specific control movements of equipment but instead generate a result command based on known or calculated information.
In reference to dependent claims 9-11, the claims recite further details on the calculation of the position of the antenna, thus these claim limitations can be seen as a part of the abstract idea itself. Thus, these limitations are not limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the exception
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5 of the remarks that the claim 1 and 6 limitations are not abstract ideas because they cannot be performed as mathematical calculations by the human mind. Applicant has amended the claims to recite a cylinder stroke sensor for performing calculations on the posture of the working equipment. Examiner disagrees because the amendment merely adds an additional generic computer that performs a conventional, routine, and well-known function. Thus, no additional limitations were added that integrates the claim into a practical application nor are significantly more than the identified abstract ideas. Thus, not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to DAVID V LUU at telephone number (571)270-0703.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday from 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Ell, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAVID V LUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171