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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
The claims improve a specific technological field and are not the automation of a business practice or a mathematical concept performed in isolation. Rather, the device receives telematics data from multiple trucks, performs continuous cycle analysis, and predicts future imbalances.
The forecasting depends on real-time sensor data and cannot be performed in the human mind.
The claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity because they recite a technological, not an organizational, solution.
Even if the claim recites an abstract idea, the claims provide significantly more because the claimed operations involve non-routine computer operations, produce a real-world transformation of machine operation, and are an unconventional combination of elements.
Regarding argument A: The claim combines a forecasting step (mathematical process), a determining step for a mitigative action (mental process), and a communicating step (signal transmission). The first two of these are abstract ideas, and the latter is insignificant post-solution activity, as previously discussed.
Regarding argument B: While the amended forecasting step cannot be performed in the human mind, it is performed with the use of a predictive algorithm which would fall under the mathematical processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding argument C: The argument is moot because organizing human activity is not a ground for the 101 rejection.
Regarding argument D: The applicant’s arguments are based on language from the specification, rather than the claimed invention. In particular, the applicant argues that the claims do not end with mere data display because the specification describes implementation either via a driver UI or via a vehicle control system. However, the implementation via a vehicle control system is not positively recited in the claim, and thus the claim does not provide significantly more.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method, a device, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. (Step 1: Yes.) Method claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A computer-implemented method of transport cycle balancing, the method being performed in processing circuitry of a monitoring device configured to automatically analyze telematics-based cycle information of a plurality of dump trucks, and comprising:
recurrently receiving first data indicative of movements of the plurality of dump trucks each operating in accordance with a transport cycle, each transport cycle including a planned hauling of material between a same first site and at least one second site, the first data including at least location data, loading status, travel direction, and timestamps generated by a machine monitoring system of each dump truck;
forecasting, based on the received first data, an imminent imbalance of inbound and outbound dump trucks for the first site, wherein forecasting the imminent imbalance further comprises at least one of: i) forecasting a number of the inbound dump trucks and a number of the outbound dump trucks for the first site, and determining that the two numbers are not equal; ii) forecasting an inflow rate of material to the first site, and determining that the forecasted inflow rate of material does not match an offloading capacity at the first site; iii) forecasting an outflow rate of material from the first site, and determining that the forecasted outflow rate of material does not match an offloading capacity at the at least one second site, and iv) forecasting an inflow rate of load capacity of the unbound dump trucks to the first site, and determining that the forecasted inflow rate of load capacity does not match a loading capacity at the first site during a future, predefined time interval within which the imminent imbalance is to occur, wherein the forecasting comprises executing a recurrent predictive algorithm that utilizes the received first data and cycle timing models to estimate future cycle states within the predefined time interval;
determining, in response to forecasting the imminent imbalance, a mitigative action for at least a first dump truck of the plurality of dump trucks to reduce a risk of the imminent imbalance occurring, and
communicating the mitigative action to the first dump truck via a wireless communications interface for presentation through an operator interface or for use by an on-board control system.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this method involves predicting an imbalance (e.g., traffic congestion) based on received data about movement of a fleet, and determining an action that members of the fleet can take to avoid said imbalance. The process of predicting an imbalance is performed using an algorithm; therefore, it falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Similarly, the process of determining a mitigative action based on a forecasted imbalance is one which can be performed in the human mind; therefore, it falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include (1): 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites the use of “processing circuitry” to implement the method; this amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The additional step of receiving data amounts to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering. Furthermore, the step of communicating the mitigative action “for presentation through an operator interface or for use by an on-board control system” fails to positively recite the implementation of the mitigative action and is thus the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission. Additionally, the recitation of “a plurality of dump trucks” serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the field of use of construction.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned above, the additionally recited elements amount to either instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. These elements are additionally recited at such a high level of generality as to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, and therefore fail to provide significantly more. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claims 8 and 13) are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4, and 9 further define “communicating the mitigative action” as “sending a signal”, and therefore the limitation remains no more than the insignificant extra-solution activity of signal transmission. Therefore, claims 2, 4, and 9 are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 further defines “receiving the first data” as “receiving a signal”, and therefore the limitation remains no more than the insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving a signal. Therefore, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 teaches that the forecasting is performed by a machine learning algorithm. However, this algorithm is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 defines the type of mitigative action; however, it fails to positively recite the mitigative action and thus remains the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Therefore claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites a dump truck which sends the information received by the monitoring device of claim 8. This dump truck is recited at such a high level of generality as to amount to no more than generally linking the judicial exception of claim 8 to the field of use of construction. In addition, the signal transmission is insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites that the dump truck receives the mitigative action and either displays the action or controls the dump truck. These are recited at such a high level of generality that the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the insignificant extra-solution activity of signal receipt. Therefore, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites a plurality of dump trucks such as those of claim 10. Therefore, claim 12 is not patent eligible for the same reasons as claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 13: The previously cited art fails to teach “forecasting an imminent imbalance”, instead merely determining the presence of a current imbalance. The closest available art is either Abe (JP 2005239288, previously cited) or Fushiki et al. (US 6546330, previously cited).
Abe teaches generating a congestion prediction signal when a waiting time at an n-1th table is greater than a waiting time at an n-2th table (Abe – [0007]). However, this prediction is not based on first data indicative of movements of a plurality of vehicles, let alone specifically dump trucks, instead being based on the processing time for a particular step in a factory process.
Fushiki et al. teaches forecasting a traffic jam in an area in which there are currently no probe cars, such as a forward area or a backward area of a probe car (Fushiki – Abstract). However, Fushiki et al. fails to forecast an imminent traffic jam, instead merely predicting that a traffic jam currently exists.
Regarding claims 2-12: Claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1, and would thus be allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669