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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Pre-Appeal Brief Request, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in regards to the limitation “estimating, via the controller, pressures in the hydraulic cylinder by estimating a hydraulic pressure drop across the hydraulic valve based on the comparison of the speed to the instantaneous command” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of 7/14/2025 has been withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. In particular, the independent claims contain limitations that are directed towards abstract ideas, laws of nature, or mathematical calculations, without claiming significantly more. This analysis will proceed through the Alice/Mayo test to show that the independent claims, as drafted, are not eligible subject matter for a patent under 35 U.S.C. 101.
101 ANALYSIS – STEP 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter)?
Yes, the claims are directed to either an apparatus, method, or device.
STEP 2A – Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)?
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite a series of steps describing a method for estimating a weight of a load, which is a mathematical concept. Claims 1, 9, and 17 describe a system, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium. The components claimed in claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to generic computer components that are applied to abstract limitations. This contrasts with the Diamond v. Diehr case where the steps of a process were integrated by a computer. However, unlike the independent claims, the Diamond v. Diehr case eventually commanded a mold to open as a result of the series of steps, such that there was a practical application of an abstract idea, law of nature, or mathematical formula to a known structure or process. In present, if, for example, the method of the independent claims were implemented in order to actuate the hydraulic cylinders of a lift based on the estimated load weight or controlled to provide feedback on the weight of the load to “the operator of the work vehicle” on “a display or indicator” (see specification para. 0027, 0040), then the independent claims 1, 9, and 17 may be integrated into practical application. (Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea.)
STEP 2A – Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception?
The independent claims 1, 9 and 17 only recite a system, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are recited at a high level of generality within the claims. These additional elements do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application of the exception.)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to step 2B, in which any additional element or combination of elements is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, prong 2 is re-evaluated, to see if re- evaluation finds that the recited elements are unconventional or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art. The examiner finds that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-16, 18, and 20 further define the abstract ideas presented in independent claims 1, 9, and 17 and are further grouped as mental processes and are abstract for the same reasons as presented above.
The conclusion from going through the Alice/Mayo test is that claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 are not integrated into a practical application and are therefore not patent eligible. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to neither disclose or sufficiently suggest the combination of features as claimed and arranged by applicant when read in light of the specification. Prior to notice of allowance, the claims must be amended to overcome the non-art rejection above.
Regarding similar claims 1, 9, and 17, Zimmerman, et al., hereinafter Zimmerman (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0340213) teaches: A method for estimating a weight of a load in a bucket of a work vehicle (Zimmerman, Para. 0006 and 0023 – “a method for estimating load weights for an implement of a work vehicle”; where the load weight is carried by “a bucket”), comprising:
obtaining, via a controller (Zimmerman, Para. 0007 – “a controller”), a speed of a hydraulic cylinder of a lift coupled to the bucket (Zimmerman, Para. 0017 and 0055 – where the controller is “configured to monitor the boom velocity”; where the controller controls a hydraulic system, or actuator, to move the boom);
comparing, via the controller, the speed to an instantaneous command provided to a hydraulic valve coupled to the hydraulic cylinder (Zimmerman, Para. 0034 and 0052 – where the controller receives an input to “perform or initiate an automated boom movement operation” and the controller may control the operation of the control valves to adjust the speed of the boom, or actuator, such that the speed of the command and the actuator are compared until the boom speed is the “desired boom speed”);
determining, via the controller, a hydraulic force of the hydraulic cylinder (Zimmerman, Para. 0025 and 0048 – collecting “monitored pressure values received from the pressure sensors” to obtain “boom cylinder force”; where the boom is the actuator and uses hydraulic cylinders);
estimating, via the controller, the weight of the load in the bucket of the work vehicle based on the estimated pressures in the hydraulic cylinder and the hydraulic force (Zimmerman, Para. 0048 – “a relationship may be defined that correlates the load weight to the boom cylinder force (i.e., the monitored pressure values received from the pressure sensors 44, 46)”),
Zimmerman does not teach estimating, via the controller, pressures in the hydraulic cylinder by estimating a hydraulic pressure drop across the hydraulic valve based on the comparison of the speed to the instantaneous command. Additionally, while Zimmerman teaches estimating the weight of the load in the bucket, Zimmerman does not teach estimating both the weight of the load and the hydraulic pressure drop occurs in the absence of pressure measurements from one or more pressure sensors.
Dvorák, et al., hereinafter Dvorak (German Patent Application Pub. No. DE 10 2021 200 407) teaches estimating, via the controller, pressures in the hydraulic cylinder by estimating a hydraulic pressure drop across the hydraulic valve (Dvorak, Para. 0020-0021, 0034 – estimating a “pressure difference” “according to the formula Q2, p2 = Q1, p1 *function (t, p, T, Q, η)” using sensors including “a flow sensor for detecting the volume flow Q and/or a speed sensor for detecting the speed η”; where in one embodiment, the pressure p of the model function “function (t, p, T, Q, η)” is obtained by “the current state of the hydraulic system”, i.e. a “predefined hydraulic state… assigned a corresponding predefined model function” selected from a “lookup table for selecting the model functions”), and estimating both the weight of the load and the hydraulic pressure drop occurs in the absence of pressure measurements from one or more pressure sensors (Dvorak, Para. 0034 – “the hydraulic device 100 shown here enables a sensorless determination of the load 115 and the pressure and volume flow at a consumer 110, or the determination of the oil pressure and the flow after the hydraulic pump 125”). Dvorak does not teach estimating, via the controller, pressures in the hydraulic cylinder by estimating a hydraulic pressure drop across the hydraulic valve based on the comparison of the speed to the instantaneous command. Specifically, when determining the “pressure difference” according to the formula “Q2, p2 = Q1, p1 *function (t, p, T, Q, η)”, Dvorak teaches obtaining the flow rate using a “rotational speed” of an electric motor (Dvorak, Para. 0034), such that the method of obtaining the hydraulic pressure drop does not include a comparison of the speed to the instantaneous command as taught by the pending claims.
Zimmerman in view of Dvorak does not teach estimating, via the controller, pressures in the hydraulic cylinder by estimating a hydraulic pressure drop across the hydraulic valve based on the comparison of the speed to the instantaneous command.
Kuphaldt ("Lessons In Industrial Instrumentation", 4 January 2019, Version 2.32, Pages 2179-2207) teaches the following flow rate equation:
Q
=
C
v
P
1
-
P
2
G
f
where Q is the flow rate and Cv and Gf are a valve flow coefficient and a specific gravity respectively, where it is possible to solve for the pressure drop based on the other variables of the equation (Kuphaldt, Page 2193). Furthermore, Kuphaldt teaches the equation Q = Av wherein A is a pipe cross-section area and v is a hydraulic fluid velocity, which is proportional to a hydraulic cylinder velocity (Kuphaldt, Page 2181). Therefore, by equating the two equations, it is possible to solve for the pressure drop based on a known velocity. While Kuphaldt teaches the mathematical equations including the pressure drop variable, Kuphaldt does not specifically teach estimating, via the controller, pressures in the hydraulic cylinder by estimating a hydraulic pressure drop across the hydraulic valve based on the comparison of the speed to the instantaneous command. Furthermore, Kuphaldt teaches a valve flow coefficient CV, indicative of a valve opening, where as the flow coefficient increases, the flow rate increases, as shown on the graph below, as a method of obtaining an ideal flow rate, which correlates to cylinder velocity (Kuphaldt, Pages 2194-2197). The example of Kuphaldt teaches a known pressure drop and adjusting the valve opening percentage % to obtain a specific flow rate Q (where Q = Av), such that Kuphaldt teaches an opposite process of the pending limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kuphaldt, Page 2196
Zimmerman, et al., hereinafter Zimmerman ‘727 (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0011727) teaches a method for estimating “a load weight carried by an implement of a work vehicle” by calculating “a region load weight (e.g., an average implement load weight) for each measurement region”, where measurement regions are divided regions of a boom’s “travel range”, and averaging “all or portion of the region load weights” to obtain a “final load weight for the implement” (Zimmerman ‘727, Para. 0006-0007 and 0042). Zimmerman teaches obtaining the “region load weight” data using “pressure sensors”, “position sensors”, “inclination sensors”, and “temperature sensors” (Zimmerman ‘727, Para. 0048, 0061), such that the method of Zimmerman ‘727 differs from the pending limitations and does not teach estimating, via the controller, pressures in the hydraulic cylinder by estimating a hydraulic pressure drop across the hydraulic valve based on the comparison of the speed to the instantaneous command, and teaches away from estimating both the weight of the load and the hydraulic pressure drop occurs in the absence of pressure measurements from one or more pressure sensors.
Shatters (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0354176) teaches “a system for estimating the weight of a payload in a bucket of a machine” based on a “an estimate of a pressure drop between [a] lift cylinder assembly and [a] pressure sensor”, where the pressure drop is estimated based on “the temperature data, the extension velocity data and a mathematical model that has been fitted to empirical data relating to pressure loss between the lift cylinder assembly and the pressure sensor at different hydraulic fluid temperatures and lift cylinder assembly extension velocities” (Shatters, Para. 0005). While Shatters teaches measuring the pressure drop based on a speed of a lift cylinder, Shatters does not teach estimating, via the controller, pressures in the hydraulic cylinder by estimating a hydraulic pressure drop across the hydraulic valve based on the comparison of the speed to the instantaneous command, and teaches away from estimating both the weight of the load and the hydraulic pressure drop occurs in the absence of pressure measurements from one or more pressure sensors.
Hansen (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0145815) teaches a “method of weight determination of a load carried by a lifter of a lifting device” based on “at least one upward and one downward displacement of the lifter, whereby the lifter is displaced by means of a hydraulic actuator comprised by a hydraulic system, whereby, during the upward and downward displacement of the lifter, a pressure in the hydraulic system is measured by means of a pressure sensor” (Hansen, Para. 0062).
Marathe, et al., hereinafter Marathe (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0161185) teaches a “method for calculating the weight of a payload in a bucket of a machine” based on “physical data of the bucket” when curling “the bucket past a transition point, the transition point between a first position where gravity resists curling the bucket and a second point where gravity assists curling the bucket”, wherein physical data includes sensor measurements relating to “pressure and/or displacement measurement” (Marathe, Claim 9 and Para. 0028).
Nakamura, et al., hereinafter Nakamura (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0208373) teaches a controller which determines a “whether or not a load overflow of the work target object from the bucket has occurred” based on a “reference value” which is defined based on “a mutual relation between the load value of the work target object, a posture of the work implement, and a movement state of the work implement”; specifically, the estimation of Nakamura is based on various sensors, including implement angle sensors, pressure sensors at various implement locations, and a swing angular velocity sensor, etc. (Nakamura, Para. 0010, 0017, 0045-0047).
Hansen, Marathe, and Nakamura illustrate methods known in the art for estimating a weight of a load in a bucket, all of which differ from the pending limitations and do not teach estimating, via the controller, pressures in the hydraulic cylinder by estimating a hydraulic pressure drop across the hydraulic valve based on the comparison of the speed to the instantaneous command, and teach away from estimating both the weight of the load and the hydraulic pressure drop occurs in the absence of pressure measurements from one or more pressure sensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665