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 .
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: acquisition unit, setting unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-8, 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the latest submitted claims of 1/2/2025, the claims depend from a claim that has multiple dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1:
A sprinkling vehicle management system comprising:
a water amount data acquisition unit that acquires water amount data indicating an amount of water stored in a tank of a sprinkling vehicle for sprinkling; and
a speed setting unit that sets a traveling speed of the sprinkling vehicle based on the water amount data.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a sprinkling vehicle management system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A sprinkling vehicle management system comprising:
a water amount data acquisition unit that acquires water amount data indicating an amount of water stored in a tank of a sprinkling vehicle for sprinkling;[mental process step] and
a speed setting unit that sets a traveling speed of the sprinkling vehicle based on the water amount data.[mental process/step]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “acquires…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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 indicated 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 as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A sprinkling vehicle management system comprising:
a water amount data acquisition unit that acquires water amount data indicating an amount of water stored in a tank of a sprinkling vehicle for sprinkling;[mental process step] (data gathering)and
a speed setting unit that sets a traveling speed of the sprinkling vehicle based on the water amount data.[post-solution activity of mental process/step of data gathering]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquires, sets a traveling speed …,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the acquire step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle condition data for use in the speed setting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. . Lastly, the “vehicle management system” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, 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, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way 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 limitation(s) do/does 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the acquires… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “setting unit that sets a traveling speed…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) [2] do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application[decreasing and increasing the speed setting unit as the water increases or decreases can be set in the mind as a judgement how much speed should be for an amount of water in the tank mentally]. Therefore, dependent claims [2] are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [claim 1].
Claims 3-7 are eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) [1-2] is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vance et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20210046499).
Regarding claim 1, Vance et al. disclose a sprinkling vehicle management system (See Fig.1) comprising:
a water amount data acquisition unit that acquires water amount data indicating an amount of water stored in a tank of a sprinkling vehicle for sprinkling (See paragraph 0005; the amount of water consumed also inherently provide the amount of water stored in the tank); and
a speed setting unit that sets a traveling speed of the sprinkling vehicle based on the water amount data. (See paragraph 0022; modulate speed of the motor may cause fluid output from the delivery pump to be varied…..)
Regarding claim 8, Vance et al. disclose a sprinkling vehicle (as shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a traveling device (122, 124, 126, Fig.1);
a vehicle body supported by the traveling device (See Fig. 1 the body 100);
a tank supported by the vehicle body (tank 104 as sown in Fig.1); and
a control device (ECM 114; Fig. 1) that sets a traveling speed of the traveling device based on water amount data indicating an amount of water stored in the tank. (See paragraph 0022)
[0022] As further shown in FIG. 1, the fluid dispensing system 104 may include an electronic control module (ECM) 114 electrically connected to the motor 118. The ECM 114 may control one or more actuators (not shown) associated with the motor 118 of the fluid dispensing system 104. Furthermore, the ECM 114 may be electrically connected to a pressure sensor (not shown) located at the fluid manifold 112 and the spray heads 108 via one or more solenoids 116. The ECM 114 may be configured to modulate a speed of the motor 118, which may cause a fluid output from the delivery pump 110 to be varied (e.g., a flow rate, a pressure of the fluid from the delivery pump 110, and/or the like may be varied). Varying the fluid output from the delivery pump 110 may increase or decrease a pressure of the fluid in the fluid manifold 112, which may cause the spray heads 108 to dispense the fluid at an increased or decreased flow rate and/or pressure. Furthermore, the ECM 114 may be configured to change a direction in which the spray heads 108 are pointing, and thus change a direction in which the fluid is dispensed from the spray heads 108. The dispensing of the fluid from the machine 100 may be based on an operator command. For example, based on an operator command, the ECM 114 may transmit corresponding control signals for controlling an operation of the spray heads 108 of the fluid dispensing system 104. Additionally, or alternatively, the control signals for controlling the operation of the spray heads 108 may be automated (e.g., based on a position of the machine 100 and a geometry and/or path of one or more vehicles that travel on the path on which the fluid is to be dispensed).
Regarding claim 9, Vance et al. disclose a sprinkling vehicle management method (See Fig.1) comprising:
setting a traveling speed of a sprinkling vehicle based on water amount data indicating an amount of water stored in a tank of the sprinkling vehicle for sprinkling (See paragraph 0022 as the speed is modulated based on the water/fluid of the sprinkling vehicle); and
controlling a traveling device (122, 124, 126 of Fig.1) of the sprinkling vehicle based on the traveling speed (See paragraph 0021, 0022 as the ECM 114 is electrically connected for controlling the traveling device based on traveling speed).
Regarding claim 2, Vance et al. disclose wherein the speed setting unit decreases the traveling speed as the amount of water increases, and increases the traveling speed as the amount of water decreases. (See paragraph 0022 as the speed modulated and 0025 control the travel lane wherein it would affect the traveling speed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not specifically disclose a speed condition storage unit that stores a speed condition indicating a relationship between the amount of water stored in the tank and the traveling speed of the sprinkling vehicle, wherein the speed setting unit sets the traveling speed based on the water amount data and the speed condition.
Nor does the prior art disclose wherein the traveling speed is set based on the water amount data and a speed condition indicating a relationship between the amount of water stored in the tank and the traveling speed of the sprinkling vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vance et al. us 11511302 discloses a method for applying fluid to a travel lane is disclosed. The method may include receiving information related to a travel lane including a first set of tire paths and a second set of tire paths to be traveled by one or more vehicles, generating spray pattern control information for a fluid application machine having multiple spray heads based on the first set of tire paths and the second set of tire paths to be traveled by the one or more vehicles, and selectively triggering the multiple spray heads of the fluid application machine to alternately apply fluid to the first set of tire paths and the second set of tire paths based on the spray pattern control information and based on a current position of the fluid application machine on the travel lane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661