DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-14, 16, and 19-27 are pending. Claims dated 07/07/2026 are being examined.
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 Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
It does not appear that the 112(f) interpretations are traversed, so the 112(f) interpretations are maintained and will not be copied herein again unless the Applicant traverses the interpretations in future responses.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Based on Applicant’s amendments, 101 rejections are introduced. Claim 13 no longer recites a practical application as was noted in the Office Action mailed 10/01/2025.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant has amended the claims 1 and 13 to overcome the previously set forth rejections. Accordingly, the Examiner has withdrawn the previously set forth 112(b) rejections to the claims.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 13-14, 16, and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Claim 13) A computer-implemented method for multidimensional profiling of unloaded material within a material unloading container having an interior and a material entryway, the method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of perception sensors mounted to the material unloading container, the plurality of sensors comprising at least a first sensor mounted on a first side of the material entryway and at least a second sensor mounted on a second side opposing the first side of the material entryway, perception data representative of a profile of unloaded material in at least a portion of the interior;
automatically determining:
one or more multidimensional profile characteristics of the unloaded material within the material unloading container at least via fusion of the perception data from the plurality of perception sensors;
further data relating to one or more material properties of the unloaded material, and determine the one or more material properties of the unloaded material at least in view of the one or more multidimensional profile characteristics and the further data relating to the one or more material properties; and
a remaining capacity of the material unloading container, at least partially in view of the determined one or more material properties and of one or more estimated material properties associated with material to be unloaded into the interior;
transmitting output signals representative of the determined one or more multidimensional profile characteristics, the one or more material properties, and the remaining capacity to a remote server;
at the remote server, coordinating respective work cycles for one or more material loading work machines with respect to at least the remaining capacity of the material unloading container, and
generating output signals representative of the respective work cycles to one or more remote data processing units associated with one or more respective material loading work machines.
101 Analysis – Step 1:
Independent claim 13 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Specifically, the limitations following “automatically determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses mental observation and evaluation. These determining steps encompass a person mentally observing and evaluating sensed data of an unloading container and the unloaded material inside of the unloading container.
The limitation “coordinating respective work cycles…” and “generating output signals representative of the respective work cycles…” encompasses mental evaluation. Applicant’s specification with reference to the PGPUB US-20240351809-A1 para. [0058] encompasses “determining a work plan” as part of “coordinating” respective work cycles and as part of the generated signals – so the broadest reasonable interpretation of such coordinating and generating encompasses mental evaluation (generating a work plan). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations of “receiving, from a plurality of perception sensors mounted to the material unloading container, the plurality of sensors comprising at least a first sensor mounted on a first side of the material entryway and at least a second sensor mounted on a second side opposing the first side of the material entryway, perception data representative of a profile of unloaded material in at least a portion of the interior”, amounts to mere data gathering for use in the determining steps which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. It has been held that limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05.
The additional limitations of “transmitting output signals representative of the determined one or more multidimensional profile characteristics, the one or more material properties, and the remaining capacity to a remote server”, under broadest reasonable interpretation amounts to insignificant post-solution activity in the form of outputting results obtained from the determining step described above. Applicant’s specification with reference to the PGPUB US-20240351809-A1 para. [0052] discloses the output may be a textual output on a display unit. That is, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant’s specification of said transmitting of output signals encompasses mere displaying of data i.e., simple text.
The additional limitations of “at the remote server”, amounts to acting merely as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Regarding the computer elements:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of a remote server in the claim amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Regarding the data gathering steps:
It has been determined that such limitations are conventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Regarding the insignificant post solution activity steps:
Examples of insignificant post-solution activities can include merely displaying a result (e.g., output) on a display device, merely communicating a message based on the result, merely recording the result in a memory storage device, and the like. Adding a final step of transmitting collected information to a process that recites an abstract idea does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function, and as recited above the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 14, 16, and 19-27 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, specifically only reciting/elaborating on additional activities that may also be reasonably performed in the human mind (claim 16: “determine…”; claims 20-21: “generate output signals” and coordination, which under BRI encompasses generation of a work plan as per above), and reciting/elaborating on additional insignificant extra-solution activities (data gathering – 14: “retrieving…”; claim 16: “receive…”; and post-solution activity: claim 19: “generate a display…”; claim 22: “transmit the output signals”; claim 23: “broadcast first messages, and further transmit second messages”; and new claims 26-27 further describing the data collected which falls under data gathering).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-12, and 24-25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically amendments to claim 1 to further distinguish the material properties and multidimensional profile characteristics, such that the data processing unit determines "further data relating to one or more material properties of the unloaded material, and determine the one or more material properties of the unloaded material at least in view of the one or more multidimensional profile characteristics and the further data relating to the one or more material properties." The closest prior art O’Connor et al. (US-20220410704-A1), in view of Glovier (US-20240206391-A1), in view of Puryk et al. (US-20210195840-A1) do not teach the limitations presented in the claim as a whole.
The dependent claims are allowable as they are dependent on allowable claim 1.
Claims 13-14, 16, 19-23, and 26-27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole as similarly reasoned in claim 1.
The dependent claims are also potentially allowable as they are dependent on potentially allowable claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20170206645-A1: Bonefas also teaches identifying a fill level of material in a receiving vehicle container and overlays this information in an image presented on a display.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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 on (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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights