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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Response to Non-Final Rejection filed December 8, 2025. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-15, are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. JP2020-090916, filed May 25, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 9, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed December 08, 2025, with respect to the section titled Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of the Non-Final Rejection filed September 8, 2025, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of record have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments made to independent claim 1 integrates the claim into a practical application and provides significantly more. Examiner disagrees, stating that applicant’s amendments merely serve to further specify a mental process that may be conducted by a user wither mentally or with pen and paper.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
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, 3-6, and 8-14, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-14, are directed to a system and method for determining that an excavator and work machine are aligned in order for the excavator to able to drop materials present in its bucket onto the work vehicle. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations displayed in bold below:
An excavator comprising:
a lower traveling body;
an upper turning body turnably mounted to the lower traveling body;
an attachment that is attached to the upper turning body;
a bucket constituting the attachment; and
a control device configured to:
determine, from an output of a space recognition device configured to recognize a space surrounding the upper turning body, that the bucket is located above a loading platform of a transport vehicle; and
add, in response to the determination that the bucket is located above the loading platform, a weight of an object in the bucket to a weight of objects loaded onto the loading platform,
wherein the control device is further configured to:
estimate a state of the object spilled from the bucket outside the loading platform, including at least an area or a volume of the spilled object, based on an image acquired by an image acquisition device as the space recognition device;
calculate a weight of the spilled object by multiplying the estimated volume by the density of the object indicated by pre-stored characteristics of the object, or by referencing a table or learning model that associates the state of the object with the weight of the object; and
update the weight of the object loaded onto the loading platform by subtracting the calculated weight of the spilled object from the weight of the object loaded onto the loading platform.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. A user on the work site is able to visually the positional relationship between an excavator and a transport vehicle and make a mental determination as to whether or not the bucket is above the loading platform. Additionally, the user may receive a visual feed from a camera that is equipped to the bucket of the excavator and come to a similar mental determination that way. Finally, the user is able to view data that is collected from various sensors located on-board the excavator and the loading platform of the transport vehicle and calculate the total weight of the material in the bucket of the excavator and in the loading platform of the transport vehicle by adding the two values together either mentally or by using pen and paper. Additionally, a user is able to make an educated estimate of the volume of material that has been spilled outside of a transport vehicle and calculate the weight of said material by looking up the density of the material and performing the weight calculation either mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, additionally and/or alternatively represent mathematical relationships (i.e. configuring models and performing calculations) and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer or computing element does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
An excavator comprising:
a lower traveling body;
an upper turning body turnably mounted to the lower traveling body;
an attachment that is attached to the upper turning body;
a bucket constituting the attachment; and
a control device configured to:
determine, from an output of a space recognition device configured to recognize a space surrounding the upper turning body, that the bucket is located above a loading platform of a transport vehicle; and
add, in response to the determination that the bucket is located above the loading platform, a weight of an object in the bucket to a weight of objects loaded onto the loading platform,
wherein the control device is further configured to:
estimate a state of the object spilled from the bucket outside the loading platform, including at least an area or a volume of the spilled object, based on an image acquired by an image acquisition device as the space recognition device;
calculate a weight of the spilled object by multiplying the estimated volume by the density of the object indicated by pre-stored characteristics of the object, or by referencing a table or learning model that associates the state of the object with the weight of the object; and
update the weight of the object loaded onto the loading platform by subtracting the calculated weight of the spilled object from the weight of the object loaded onto the loading platform.
The functions of the control device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The characterization of the excavator and its corresponding structure (i.e. the lower traveling body, the upper turning body turnably mounted to the lower traveling body, the attachment that is attached to the upper turning body, and the bucket constituting the attachment) amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional element of the control device amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the characterization of the excavator and its corresponding structure (i.e. the lower traveling body, the upper turning body turnably mounted to the lower traveling body, the attachment that is attached to the upper turning body, and the bucket constituting the attachment) amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics/variables/limitations of claims 3-6, 8-10, and 12-15, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without recitation of any further additional elements. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 11 are comparable to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-15, are potentially allowable once the aforementioned 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The amendments made to Independent Claims 1 and 11 in conjunction with the newly amended dependent claim 15 place this application in condition for allowance.
The closest prior art of record includes previously applied prior art Shike (US 20200041329, already of record), in view of Aizawa et al. (US 20200407939; hereinafter Aizawa, already of record), further in view of Sherlock (US 20200011033, already of record), further in view of Stander et al. (US 20210292113; hereinafter Stander, already of record), further in view of Aizawa et al. (US 20210363726; hereinafter Masanori), and further in view of Shull (US 20200224392). Shike generally discloses a system and method for determining the amount of material being loaded onto a transport vehicle based on the reading of a load meter and load weight calculator. Aizawa generally discloses a system and method for loading material from a work machine to transport vehicle by recognizing using, an imaging sensor, that the transport vehicle is located underneath the bucket of the work vehicle. Sherlock generally a system and method for a payload tracking system which determines the volume of material to be transferred from a work vehicle to a transport vehicle. Stander generally discloses a system and method for determining whether or not a loading vehicle needs to be repositioned before receiving material from a work vehicle. Masanori generally discloses a system and method for calculating the volume and weight of material to be dug and transported to a transport vehicle by utilizing the specific gravity of the specific material. Shull generally teaches a system and method for tracking the total amount of material that has been loaded by a work vehicle onto a transport vehicle.
While the aforementioned references disclose elements of the invention, the combination of references does not fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, 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 all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Claims 3-4, 8-10, and 12-15, are allowable due to their dependencies on allowable claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights