DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 10/22/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-11, 13-18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejection: Applicant requests withdrawal of the 101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examine will explain the 101 analysis: STEP One: The claim is directed to a statutory category (Step 1 : YES). STEP 2A Prong One: Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a method of an abstract idea of extracting a target region, identifying a target object, and determining a push order, which concludes that the claims include an abstract idea. This idea is similar to the basic concept of a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, which has been found by the courts to be an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES). STEP 2A Prong Two: Now, the claim is analyzed to determine where the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The acquiring limitation involves mere gathering of data which are insignificant extra-solution activity. Also, the additional elements, processors and memory, are recited at a high level of generality to simply perform the generic computer functions. Therefore, the claim is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO) STEP 2B: Finally, the claim does not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of determining soil information and recommending an agricultural prescription for the soil. The additional elements, processor, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an incentive concept. Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection for claims 1-20 is maintained.
****Examiner Notes**** a) Examine would like to note that if Applicant incorporates an actual concept of a control aspect rather than just determination of a control aspect, it would overcome the current 101 rejection. With that being said, Examiner would like to indicate that the subject matter in paragraph [0081] of the instant application provides a control aspect that would be efficient enough to overcome the current abstract idea. The paragraph states “The movement unit 15 causes, on the basis of the push position thus determined and the push order thus determined, the excavation apparatus 30 to push the object (earth and sand), and ends the process”. If Applicant incorporates this control aspect when the excavation apparatus 30 actually pushes the object based on the push order already in the claim, then the claim would not fall under an abstract idea, and it would overcome the current 101 rejection. b) Examiner would also like to note that Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 6, 13, and 20 are persuasive and claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are withdrawn from the 101 rejection. With that being said, Applicant can incorporating the subject matter of claim 6 to the independent claims which would also overcome the current 101 rejection, since claim 6 deals with the actual movement/control of the process of the target object than just determining the process of moving the target object. By incorporating the subject matter of claim 6, it would overcome the current 101 rejection.
Regarding the 102 rejection: Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 have overcome the 102 rejection raised in the previous action; therefore the 102 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 rejection: Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 have overcome the 103 rejection raised in the previous action; therefore the 103 rejection is hereby 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 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: the claim recites, inter alia:
“extracting, based on the depth information of the object, at least one target region where a candidate of at least one movement target object to be moved is present": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a region based on information. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
"identifying, based on the depth information and a vicinity of the at least one target region, the at least one movement target object to be moved by a work machine": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine objects to be moved based on information. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. "determines a push order": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine commands/orders based on information. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only limitations not treated above, “acquiring depth information indicating a depth of an area including the object”, involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality, and comprises only a processor to simply perform the generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. As per claims 1, 8, and 15, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest:The prior art fails to explicitly teach or suggest or render obvious identifying, based on the depth information and a vicinity of the at least one target region, the at least one movement target object to be moved by a work machine, wherein in a case where the at least one movement target object is a plurality of movement target objects, setting, as start points of the plurality of movement target objects, ones of closest identified points to a boom axis of the work machine for each of the plurality of movement target objects, and determining a push order from a longest identified distance to a shortest identified distance between the boom axis and the start points of the plurality of movement target objects. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 would also be allowed by virtue of their dependency.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The additional limitation that the “work machine is an excavation apparatus, and that the method further includes moving the at least one identified movement target object using the excavation apparatus” from claims 6, 13, and 20, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed subject matter applies the identified information to control a specific physical machine to perform a concrete excavation operation, thereby improving the functioning of the machine and effecting a real-world physical transformation. Accordingly, the claims would not be directed to an abstract idea and would overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 if included into the independent claims. Claims 7 and 14 would also be objected to by virtue of their dependency.
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 MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662