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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 05/19/2026.
Claims 1 and 22 have been amended.
Claim 21 has been cancelled.
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 1-20 and 22-27 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 1-20 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;
wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck,
whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued.
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. It also directed to mental step of determine the load data.
“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. It also directed to mental step of analyzing data.
“wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck” is directed to math because this description outlines a fundamental mathematical operation know as a comparation. The processing unit run an algorithm to evaluate the relationship between these two numbers using mathematical logic. It also directed to mental step of analyzing data.
“whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued” is directed to math because the process uses a conditional statement (an if then function) based on the principles of equivalence relations and comparison operations. It also directed to mental step of output results based on analyzing data.
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; wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck, whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued” 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)).
“wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck” 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)).
“whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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)).
“wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck” 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)).
“whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
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.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein a camera is used as the optical sensor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the optical sensor is onboard the industrial truck” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the optical sensor is located on a lifting device of the industrial truck” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the optical sensor is located outside the industrial truck” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 6, “wherein the optical sensor is onboard an aerial drone” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 7, “wherein the data processing unit is onboard the aerial drone” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the data processing unit is onboard the industrial truck” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 9, “wherein the data processing device is operated in a stationary manner” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 10, “wherein the sensor data of the optical sensor is transmitted to the data processing unit via a wireless data link” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 11, “wherein at least two data processing units are used which exchange information via a wireless data link” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 12, “wherein analysis of the sensor data of the optical sensor is performed in the data processing unit by an imaging process does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 13, “wherein 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” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 14, “wherein loads of at least two industrial trucks are detected by the optical sensor onboard the aerial drone” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 15, “wherein the load of the industrial truck or loads of at least two industrial trucks are detected by the optical sensor onboard the aerial drone” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 16, “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” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 17, “wherein 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” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 18, “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” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 19, “wherein a three- dimensional distribution of the load on a load area of the industrial truck is determined in the data processing unit by analysis of the sensor data of the optical sensor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 20, “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” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 23, “wherein the optical sensor is attached to the industrial truck” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 24, “wherein the optical sensor is attached to an aerial drone” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 25, “wherein the data processing unit is installed in the aerial drone” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 26, “wherein the data processing unit is linked with a data transmitting device, which exchanges information with at least one additional aerial drone and/or the industrial truck” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 27, “wherein the optical sensor is attached to a lifting device of the industrial truck” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Hence the claims 1-20 and 22-27 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that the amended independent claims do not merely collect data, perform math, and display a result; rather, the optical sensor and AI-based analysis operate together as an integrated technological system tied to a particular machine (the industrial truck), with triggered events ("if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued"). These features operate in a manner that meaningfully limits the scope of any exception and forecloses the broad preemption concerns that underscore § 101 jurisprudence.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites 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; wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck, whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued.
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. It also directed to mental step of determine the load data.
“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. It also directed to mental step of analyzing data.
“wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck” is directed to math because this description outlines a fundamental mathematical operation know as a comparation. The processing unit run an algorithm to evaluate the relationship between these two numbers using mathematical logic. It also directed to mental step of analyzing data.
“whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued” is directed to math because the process uses a conditional statement (an if then function) based on the principles of equivalence relations and comparison operations. It also directed to mental step of output results based on analyzing data.
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; wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck, whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued” 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)).
“wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck” 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)).
“whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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)).
“wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck” 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)).
“whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
-Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach, “wherein in the data processing unit, load data of a determined load is compared with load data of the load specified in a work order for the industrial truck, whereby if the load data agree, a release is issued for the industrial truck, and if the load data differ, an error message and/or a return work order for the industrial truck is issued” as cited in claims 1 and 22.
Examiner agrees, therefore the rejection under 102 of claims 1-20 and 22-27 has been withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 ET.
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
Prosecution Insights