DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. No priority has been claimed in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. No information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted with the previous response.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 2/14/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A volume measurement system comprising:
at least one three-dimensional time-of-flight sensor (3D ToF sensor) configured to measure a distance from each of the at least one 3D ToF sensor to a 3D surface of objects;
a data store comprising a program of instructions, a set of user-defined parameters comprising a region of interest for measuring the volume of objects, and a set of predetermined fill level warning criterion comprising a volumetric criterion, a height criterion, and a count criterion, and a set of computer-generated parameters comprising a temporal distribution of measurement attributes associated with the region of interest; and,
a processor (205) operably coupled to the at least one 3D ToF sensor and the data store such that, when the processor executes the program of instructions, the processor causes operations to be performed to automatically generate a set of error compensated volume metrics (ECVM), the operations comprising,
generate a 3D point cloud as a function of signals received from each of the at least one 3D ToF sensor;
apply the 3D point cloud to an error compensation model comprising the set of user-defined parameters and the set of computer-generated parameters to generate a set of measurement attributes;
generate the set of ECVM comprising a fill level measurement, a height measurement, and a total count of items within the region of interest as a function of the measurement attributes; and,
generate an output signal based on a comparison between the set of ECVM and the set of predetermined fill level warning criterion, such that errors comprising occlusion of objects from the at least one 3D ToF sensor are actively compensated;
the at least one 3D ToF sensor and a controller being arranged in a housing;
the controller being operably coupled to an emitter configured to emit the signals and a receiver configured to detect the signals, the emitter and the receiver being disposed in the housing.
apply the output signal to an actuator to actuate a decision making indicium.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 20.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1 and 8 belong to a statutory category, namely they are system claims. Likewise, claim 20 a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “operations to be performed to automatically generate a set of error compensated volume metrics (ECVM), the operations comprising, generate a 3D point cloud as a function of signals received from each of the at least one 3D ToF sensor; apply the 3D point cloud to an error compensation model comprising the set of user-defined parameters and the set of computer-generated parameters to generate a set of measurement attributes; generate the set of ECVM comprising a fill level measurement, a height measurement, and a total count of items within the region of interest as a function of the measurement attributes; and, generate an output signal based on a comparison between the set of ECVM and the set of predetermined fill level warning criterion, such that errors comprising occlusion of objects from the at least one 3D ToF sensor are actively compensated.…”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 20.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “at least one three-dimensional time-of-flight sensor (3D ToF sensor) configured to measure a distance from each of the at least one 3D ToF sensor to a 3D surface of objects; a data store comprising a program of instructions, a set of user-defined parameters comprising a region of interest for measuring the volume of objects, and a set of predetermined fill level warning criterion comprising a volumetric criterion, a height criterion, and a count criterion, and a set of computer-generated parameters comprising a temporal distribution of measurement attributes associated with the region of interest” (claims 1, 8, and 20) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “a processor” (claims 1, 8, and 20) however the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0108] describing a variety of different types of “processors” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “a processor” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, the output is directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant’s specification [0069 ] states that the indicium maybe a visual indicator. The claim as written maybe interpreted as sending a signal as the tower light. This may be interpreted as a print out, a light, a display, etc. This would be considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 20). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 20, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7, and 9-19, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In this instance, applicant argues that the amended claims are analogous to subject matter eligibility examples 39, 45 and Thales Visionix v. United states.
Example 39 was eligible because it provided a technical improvement to the specific area of facial detection. The claims are not analogous, as the pending claim of determining a fill level maybe done by mental process by a human making observations and hand calculations. Point cloud data point maybe acquired by a sensor and mapped by hand. While not efficient, it is possible and therefore the claim is considered abstract.
Regarding Thales Visionix v. United states. multiple sensors were configured in a particular configuration. In the pending application there is a 3d time of flight sensor, that senses. No particular configurations are claimed. Therefore, the claimed inventions are not considered to be analogous.
With regards to example 45, used the abstract idea to physically control an injection controlling machine. Examiner had previously suggested amendments to bring the claims in line with this example. The claims as written don’t make it clear that the physical controlling of the tower light or decision making indicium is in response to the abstract idea. Examiner suggested amendments to make that clear, however the claims as currently written do not address the concerns previously made.
For these reasons the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
12. 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.
13. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
14. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 April 2, 2026