DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the request for continued examination filed 10/30/2025.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-24 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on pages 16-18 of the remarks that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the October 2019 Updated Guidance and under the analysis of claims under step 2A of the Alice framework, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the present claims are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. Under the 2019 PEG, the “mental processes” grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Per the October 2019 Updated Guidance examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Applicant submits on pages 19-22 of the remarks that the additional elements recited in the claims integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims provide an inventive concept. Examiner notes that because the specification describes the additional elements in general terms without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of Applicant’s’ specification, as cited in the instant office action. See Berkheimer Memo. The claim does not provide an inventive concept because the claim, in essence, merely recites various computer-based elements along with no more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea using the computer-based elements.
Lastly, the Examiner notes that another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. The present claims merely apply the use of autonomous machines to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-16, 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-24, the independent claims (claims 1, 10 and 16) are directed, in part, to a method and a system to provide a fleet dispatch scheme for a job at a worksite. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-9, 21-24 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 10-11, 14-15 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine and claims 16, 19-20 are directed to a computer-readable media, which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to determining… a time-cost goal for a job at a worksite, wherein performance of the job comprises one or more autonomous machines delivering material to a plurality of drop points at the worksite; determining…job parameters associated with the job, wherein the job parameters indicate: worksite parameters indicating terrain of the worksite location and locations of the plurality of drop points at the worksite, a plurality of candidate fleet sizes respectively indicating different numbers of autonomous machines, and a plurality of candidate dispatch schemes for deploying the one or more autonomous machines to deliver the material to the plurality of drop points; determining… different sets of simulated machine operations of the one or more autonomous machines that respectively correspond to the different combinations of candidate fleet sizes; and candidate dispatch schemes by: determining, based on the different combinations of the candidate fleet sizes and the candidate dispatch schemes, routes for individual autonomous machines between a staging area and individual drop points of the plurality of drop points; and simulating, based on the terrain of the worksite: traversal of the routes by the individual autonomous machines, and machine operations that the individual autonomous machines perform during the traversal of the routes, wherein the simulating comprises generating different sets of machine instructions, respectively corresponding to the different combinations of the candidate fleet sizes and the candidate dispatch schemes, that are configured to cause the individual autonomous machines to autonomously traverse the routes and to autonomously perform the machine operations; projecting… and based on the different sets of simulated machine operations, different job performance times that respectively correspond to the different combinations of the candidate fleet sizeslimitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “a processor”; “autonomous machines”; “a control system”; “a memory”; “a non-transitory computer-readable media”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figure 1 and related text and [0100-0102] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “The processor(s) 902 can operate to perform a variety of functions as set forth herein. The processor(s) 902 can include one or more chips, microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) and/or other programmable circuits, central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs), digital signal processors (DSPs), and/or other processing units or components known in the art. In some examples, the processor(s) 902 can have one or more arithmetic logic units (ALUs) that perform arithmetic and logical operations, and/or one or more control units (CUs) that extract instructions and stored content from processor cache memory, and executes such instructions by calling on the ALUs during program execution. The processor(s) 902 can also access content and computer-executable instructions stored in the memory 904, and execute such computer-executable instructions. The memory 904 can be volatile and/or non-volatile computer-readable media including integrated or removable memory devices including random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), flash memory, a hard drive or other disk drives, a memory card, optical storage, magnetic storage, and/or any other computer-readable media. The computer-readable media can be non-transitory computer-readable media. The computer-readable media can be configured to store computer-executable instructions that can be executed by the processor(s) 902 to perform the operations described herein. For example, the memory 904 can include a drive unit and/or other elements that include machine-readable media. A machine-readable medium can store one or more sets of instructions, such as software or firmware, that embodies any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The instructions can also reside, completely or at least partially, within the processor(s) 902 and/or communication interface(s) 906 during execution thereof by the computing system 102. For example, the processor(s) 902 can possess local memory, which also can store program modules, program data, and/or one or more operating systems.”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-24 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625