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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4 – 5, 8, 11 – 12 and 22 have been amended. Claims 2 – 3, 9 – 10 and 15 – 21 have been canceled. Claims 23 – 25 have been added. Claims 1, 4 – 8, 11 – 14 and 22 – 25 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 8 and 22 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101
Regarding claims 1, 14 (should be independent claim 8) and 22, the Applicant alleges: “
Claim 1 now recites "a first obtaining step of obtaining, from a depth sensor: first depth data, the first depth data being included in first type depth data that is depth data, from the depth sensor to a first target object which has been scooped up by an excavator and which is disposed in a container, and third depth data, the third depth data being included in second type depth data that is depth data from the depth sensor to an inside of the container in a case where the container is empty." Claim 1 further recites "a calculating step of calculating an estimated weight of the first target object based on a difference between a first value related to the first type depth data and a second value related to the second type depth data." These amendments specify that the claimed method employs a depth sensor to obtain depth data representing physical distance measurements, and that the weight calculation is based on a difference between values derived from depth measurements of the loaded container and the empty container. This is not an abstract mathematical concept but rather a concrete technical process that derives weight from physical distance measurements obtained by a specific sensor.”
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed inventive concept is to use obtained depth data to calculate and estimate a weight of a target object using an estimation model, which is a mathematical concept of an abstract idea.
Obtaining depth data using a depth sensor is an additional element. However, it is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole is still considered as an abstract idea without a significantly more.
The Applicant further alleges: “
The Office Action contends that the training step constitutes a mathematical concept because "a model learns a mathematical function that maps the input (an image) to the output (a numerical value)." However, Claim 1 as amended does not merely recite training a generic model with generic data. Claim 1 now recites "a training step of training an estimation model, with reference to the first depth data, the third depth data, the estimated weight of the first target object and a measured weight of the first target object." The training is performed with specific technical inputs: depth data from a depth sensor measuring distance to a target object in an excavator's container, depth data measuring the empty container, a calculated estimated weight based on the difference between these depth measurements, and an actual measured weight. This training process is specifically configured to improve weight estimation accuracy for target objects disposed in containers of excavators, which represents a particular technical application rather than a generic mathematical operation.”
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner again respectfully disagrees.
Machine learning model is basically mathematical functions. Using a list of depth data and weight data to training a machine learning model is to optimize the mathematical functions. Accuracy is increased when the mathematical functions is optimized to a maximum (minimum). Anyway, it is still a mathematical concept. Therefore, it is still considered as an abstract idea without a significantly more.
The Applicant still further alleges: “
The Office Action further contends that the estimating step can be performed as a mental process because "a human can estimate a weight of a target object based on an algorithm and an image." Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The Office Action characterizes the obtaining steps as "insignificant extra-solution activity" constituting mere data gathering. However, the amended claim recites obtaining depth data "from a depth sensor" where the depth data represents physical distance measurements "from the depth sensor to a first target object which has been scooped up by an excavator and which is disposed in a container." This is not generic data gathering but rather obtaining specific physical measurements using a depth sensor in the context of excavator operations. The specification at Published Application [0096] describes that "the depth camera 352 can generate the image in which information on a depth (distance from the depth camera 352) is included" and identifies specific methods including "a parallactic angle method, a time of flight (TOF) method, and a pattern method of detecting a pattern of a reflected wave of a dot-like or striped light beam." The depth data obtained represents real physical distance measurements from a specific sensor, not abstract or generic data.”
Examiner’s response:
A human mind can estimate a weight of a target object based on an algorithm and data (volume, material density, etc.) (or by using a pen and paper). Estimating a weight also can be performed by using mathematical functions. Thus, it is a mental process or a mathematical concept.
Obtain depth data from a depth sensor is an additional element. Even the Applicant argues that depth sensor is a special device, it is still considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity unless the claim goes to further with meaningful technical details.
The Applicant still further alleges: “
The claimed invention provides a technical improvement over prior art approaches. As described in the specification, a conventional load measurement apparatus calculates load values "based on values outputted from an angle sensor and a pressure sensor" which require the installation of "a hydraulic sensor into an inside of a hydraulic system," and "it is difficult to incorporate the hydraulic sensor into an existing hydraulic excavator." Specification, paras. [0002] and [0005]. In a method disclosed in another conventional system that employs an image, the specification describes that it is not possible to evaluate a weight of the excavated object." Id. The claimed invention addresses these technical problems by enabling weight estimation using depth data from a depth sensor. Paragraph [0022] of the specification confirms that "it is possible to evaluate the weight of the target which has been scooped up by the excavator, in a state where the target object is accommodated in the container. It is therefore possible to improve working efficiency, as compared with a method of separately evaluating the target object with use of a weight measurement apparatus."
Examiner’s response:
The §101 test is based on the claimed limitations, whether the claimed limitations incur mathematical concepts, metal processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities. The inventive concept can be different from old and previous method, but it can still be an abstract idea.
The Applicant still further alleges: “
Accordingly, the claimed method is integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites obtaining depth data related to "a first target object which has been scooped up by an excavator and which is disposed in a container" and "an inside of the container in a case where the container is empty." The claim further recites calculating weight "based on a difference between a first value related to the first type depth data and a second value related to the second type depth data," training an estimation model using the depth data along with estimated and measured weights, and estimating the weight of a second target object. These elements together constitute a specific technical process for weight estimation, not merely an abstract idea applied to a generic technological environment.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim elements reflect a specific technical arrangement: obtaining depth measurements from both loaded and empty container states using a depth sensor, calculating an estimated weight from the difference in depth values, training an estimation model using the depth data and both estimated and measured weights, and then applying the trained model to estimate weights of subsequent target objects. This combination of elements represents a particular technical solution to the problem of estimating weight of target objects in excavator containers, and is not merely a conventional arrangement of generic computer components.”
Examiner’s response:
Regarding “
"a first target object which has been scooped up by an excavator and which is disposed in a container",
it is merely a description of what a first target object is. It does not provide with meaningful technical details for the claimed invention.
Regarding “
calculating weight "based on a difference between a first value related to the first type depth data and a second value related to the second type depth data," training an estimation model using the depth data along with estimated and measured weights, and estimating the weight of a second target object,”
as the Examiner explained above, they are considered as mathematical calculations, or mental processes.
Thus, the claimed limitations considered as a whole is still an abstract idea without a significantly more. Therefore, the §101 rejection is still maintained.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 102/103
The Applicant’s argument (pages 13 – 15) is persuasive. The claims amendment overcomes the prior art of the record. After a further search, no reference is found to teach, or in a combination to teach, the claimed limitations for all independent claims.
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 – 14 and 22 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In regarding claims 1, 8 and 22:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 22 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claim 1, 8 and 22 are directed an idea for weight estimation which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 22: the claim comprising limitations of:
a first obtaining step of obtaining, from a depth sensor:
first depth data, first depth data being included in first type data that is depth data, from the depth sensor to a target object which has been scooped up by an excavator and which is disposed in a container; and
third depth data, the third depth data being which is included in second type depth data that is depth data from the depth sensor to an inside of the container in a case where the container is empty;
a calculating step of calculating an estimated weight of the first target object based on a difference between a first value related to the first type depth data and a second value related to the second type depth data;
a training step of training an estimation model, with reference to the first depth data, the third depth data, the estimated weight of the first target object and a measured weight of the first target object;
a second obtaining step of obtaining second depth data which is included in the first type depth data and fourth depth data which is included in the second type depth data; and
an estimating step of estimating a weight of a second target object based on the estimation model, the second depth data, and the fourth depth data.
Regarding “a calculating step of calculating an estimated weight of the first target object based on a difference between a first value related to the first type depth data and a second value related to the second type depth data”, it is basically a mathematical calculation to calculate an estimated weight of an target object based on a difference between two depth data. This claimed limitation can be categorized as mathematical concepts.
Regarding “a training step of training an estimation model, with reference to the first depth data, the third depth data, the estimated weight of the first target object and a measured weight of the first target object”, it is basically using a mathematical way to optimize a mathematical function with a plurality of depth data and weight data. This claimed limitation can be categorized as mathematical concepts.
Regarding “an estimating step of estimating a weight of a second target object based on the estimation model, the second depth data, and the fourth depth data”, it can be interpreted as a human can estimate a weight of a target object based on an algorithm and an image (volume, material density, etc.), or mathematically using a function to estimate a weight of a target object. This claimed limitation can be categorized as mental processes, or mathematical concepts.
As analyzed above, the above claimed limitations are Mental Processes, or Mathematical Concepts.
Prong 2:
The claims 1, 8 and 22 include additional elements of:
a first obtaining step of obtaining, from a depth sensor:
first depth data, first depth data being included in first type data that is depth data, from the depth sensor to a target object which has been scooped up by an excavator and which is disposed in a container; and
third depth data, the third depth data being which is included in second type depth data that is depth data from the depth sensor to an inside of the container in a case where the container is empty;
a second obtaining step of obtaining second depth data which is included in the first type depth data and fourth depth data which is included in the second type depth data;
processor, non-transitory recording medium.
For limitations of “
a first obtaining step of obtaining, from a depth sensor:
first depth data, first depth data being included in first type data that is depth data, from the depth sensor to a target object which has been scooped up by an excavator and which is disposed in a container; and
third depth data, the third depth data being which is included in second type depth data that is depth data from the depth sensor to an inside of the container in a case where the container is empty;
a second obtaining step of obtaining second depth data which is included in the first type depth data and fourth depth data which is included in the second type depth data”,
they are a process of data gathering of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
For limitations of “processor, non-transitory recording medium”, they are considered as adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 above additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g. obtaining data, processor) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a computational algorithm, a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processors, computer-readable storage media.
The additional element (e.g. obtaining data, processor) perform only basic function, which would be common to every additional element (e.g. obtaining data, processor). It is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g. obtaining data) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 23 – 25, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1, 8 and 22, because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1, 8 and 22, wherein limitations regarding additional aspect for process; “obtain …”, "output ... ", “train …”, “estimate …”, “are …”, “derive …”, “is …”, “is used …” and “selecting …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claims 1, 8 and 22 as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
After a further search, no reference is found to teach, or in a combination to teach, the claimed limitations for all independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677