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 .
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-21 is directed to a method, claim 22-27 is directed to using a system to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for the determination on of a load on an industrial truck, comprising:
detecting the load by at least one optical sensor; and
determining the load by analysis of sensor data from the optical sensor using artificial intelligence in at least one data processing unit.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“detecting the load by at least one optical sensor” is directed to math because it is a conversion of physical light properties into quantifiable data, which then requires significant mathematical interpretation and calculation to ensure the safety, efficiency, and functionality of the industrial truck.
“determining the load by analysis of sensor data from the optical sensor using artificial intelligence in at least one data processing unit” is directed to math because it is an implementation of advanced mathematics in a physical context. From the initial physical principles governing the sensor's operation to the intricate, multi-layered statistical models within the AI, every element is a direct application of mathematical theory. This intersection of physics, engineering, and data science is a testament to the power and universality of mathematics as the foundational tool for understanding and interacting with the complex world around us. The journey from photons hitting a sensor to a calculated load value is a seamless, elegant flow of applied mathematical principles and computation.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “detecting the load by at least one optical sensor; determining the load by analysis of sensor data from the optical sensor using artificial intelligence in at least one data processing unit” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for the determination on of a load on an industrial truck” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“detecting the load by at least one optical sensor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining the load by analysis of sensor data from the optical sensor using artificial intelligence in at least one data processing unit” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or 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). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. “using artificial intelligence in at least one data processing unit”, to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the “using artificial intelligence in at least one data processing unit” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of “using artificial intelligence in at least one data processing unit” to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method for the determination on of a load on an industrial truck” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“detecting the load by at least one optical sensor” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining the load by analysis of sensor data from the optical sensor using artificial intelligence in at least one data processing unit” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 22 is similar to claim 1 but recites a system for the determination of a load on an industrial truck comprising at least one data processing unit working with artificial intelligence to implement a method. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 22 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 22.
Dependent claims 2-21 and 23-27 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Hence the claims 1-27 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (WO 2020215772 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Guo et al. disclose a method for the determination on of a load on an industrial truck (110), wherein the load ("container" 120 and "item" 130) is detected by at least one optical sensor ("camera" 113) and determining the load by analysis of sensor data from the optical sensor using artificial intelligence in at least one data processing unit (see paragraph [0077], final sentence: " a support vector machine (SVM) can be used to train the container recognition model to obtain the container recognition model.").
Regarding claims 2, Guo et al. disclose wherein a camera (113) is used as the optical sensor (para. [0029]).
Regarding claims 3, Guo et al. disclose wherein that the optical sensor is onboard the industrial truck (para. [0029]: the intelligent forklift 110 includes at least a container image acquisition module 113, such as a depth camera).
Regarding claims 4, Guo et al. disclose wherein the optical sensor is located on a lifting device of the industrial truck (para. [0029]: the intelligent forklift 110 includes at least a container image acquisition module 113, such as a depth camera).
Regarding claims 8, Guo et al. disclose wherein the data processing unit is onboard the industrial truck (para. [0029]: the intelligent forklift 110 also includes a processing module 114, which is configured to process the images acquired by the container image acquisition module 113).
Regarding claims 12, Guo et al. disclose wherein the analysis of the sensor data of the optical sensor is performed in the data processing unit by an imaging process (para. [0029]: the intelligent forklift 110 also includes a processing module 114, which is configured to process the images acquired by the container image acquisition module 113, such as a depth camera).
Regarding claims 13, Guo et al. disclose the industrial truck and the load are detected by the optical sensor, and by an analysis of the sensor data from the optical sensor in the data processing unit, load data of the determined load is compared with data previously stored in the data processing unit for the industrial truck and, in the event of a variance of the load data, the load data for the industrial truck is updated (para. [0054]: the depth feature and area feature of the preset template to be compared can be determined… the depth feature and area feature of the target region of interest are respectively compared with the depth feature and area feature of the preset template to be compared to obtain the depth feature difference and the area feature difference.).
Regarding claims 17, Guo et al. disclose the individual load objects of the load are determined by analysis of the sensor data of the optical sensor performed in the data processing unit and their number is determined (see Fig.4, abstract).
Regarding claims 19, Guo et al. disclose a three-dimensional distribution of the load (130) on a load area (120) of the industrial truck is determined in the data processing unit by analysis of the sensor data of the optical sensor see Fig.1 and Fig.2).
Regarding claims 23, Guo et al. disclose wherein the optical sensor is attached to the industrial truck (para. [0029]: the intelligent forklift 110 includes at least a container image acquisition module 113, such as a depth camera).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 16, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hattori (DE 102020123381 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Hattori discloses a method or a system or the determination on of a load (pallet 5) on an industrial truck k (fork-lift truck 1) comprising: detecting the load by at least one optical sensor (camera 12); and determining the load (pallet 5) by analysis of sensor data from the optical sensor (camera 12) using artificial intelligence ("deep learning") in at least one data processing unit.
Regarding claims 2, Hattori disclose wherein a camera (12) is used as the optical sensor.
Regarding claims 3, Hattori disclose wherein that the optical sensor is onboard the industrial truck.
Regarding claims 8, Hattori disclose wherein the data processing unit is onboard the industrial truck.
Regarding claims 12, Hattori disclose wherein the analysis of the sensor data of the optical sensor is performed in the data processing unit by an imaging process.
Regarding claims 16, Hattori disclose wherein individual load objects of the load are determined by analysis of the sensor data of the optical sensor in the data processing unit and their dimensions are determined and from their dimensions, an overall size of the load is calculated.
Regarding claims 23, Hattori disclose wherein the optical sensor is attached to the industrial truck.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9-11, 14, 15, 18, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (WO 2020215772 A1) in view of Muller et al. (EP 3378825 A1).
Regarding claims 5, Guo et al. fail to disclose the optical sensor is located outside the industrial truck.
Muller et al. teach the optical sensor (21) is located outside the industrial truck (1) (see Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Muller et al. with the teaching of Guo et al. in order to provide industrial truck with airborne object.
Regarding claims 6, Muller et al. teach wherein in the optical sensor (21) is onboard an aerial drone (flying drone 10) (see Fig.1).
Regarding claims 7, Muller et al. teach the data processing unit is onboard the aerial drone (flying drone 10) (see Fig.1; e.g., (e.g., the identification data can also be transmitted from the communication interface of the industrial truck to data processing systems for processing, providing and storing this identification data of the relevant goods, which are located outside the industrial truck).
Regarding claims 9, Muller et al. teach the data processing device is operated in a stationary manner (the camera data can also be transferred, for example, to stationary data processing systems for further processing and storage.).
Regarding claims 10, Muller et al. teach the sensor data of the optical sensor is transmitted to the data processing unit via a wireless data link (The camera data of the recording device 12 of the airworthy object 10 can thereby wirelessly to the communication interface 8 of the truck).
Regarding claims 11, Muller et al. teach at least two data processing units are used which exchange information via a wireless data link (Alternatively, these identification data can be transmitted wirelessly, ie by radio, from the flyable object 10 to a data processing device consisting of databases in order to update stock in real time in dependence on the respective transport request).
Regarding claims 18, Muller et al. teach wherein markers of individual load objects of the load are read by analysis of the sensor data of the optical sensor in the data processing unit and the information read is associated with the respective individual load objects (e.g., Muller discloses the identification data can also be transmitted from the communication interface of the industrial truck to data processing systems for processing, providing and storing this identification data of the relevant goods, which are located outside the industrial truck. In this way, the inventories in these data processing systems, which may include databases, can be updated in real time during the execution of the transport request).
Regarding claims 24, Muller et al. teach the optical sensor (21) is attached to an aerial drone (10) (see Fig.1).
Regarding claims 25, Muller et al. teach the data processing unit is installed in the aerial drone (10) (see Fig.1).
Regarding claims 27, Muller et al. teach the optical sensor is attached to a lifting device of the industrial truck (see Fig.1, camera attached to the lifting mast 2a).
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 26, the method or the system has a second industrial truck or a second aerial drone. These features also fall within the scope of what a person skilled in the art does as a matter of routine, especially since the resulting advantages are readily foreseeable.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (WO 2020215772 A1) in view of Zwygart (EP 2019808 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Guo et al. is silent on teaching wherein a load center of gravity of the load is determined in the data processing unit by analysis of the sensor data of the optical sensor.
Zwygart et al. teach wherein a load center of gravity of the load is determined in the data processing unit by analysis of the sensor data of the optical sensor (analyzing means may process the signals of several optical stress sensors to determine in addition one or more of the following parameters: the location of the center of gravity of the load, the lifting force exerted by each lifting member). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zwygart et al. with the teaching of Guo et al. in order to provide lifting member with load measuring means.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. 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.
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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857