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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 1/2/2024.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/2/2024 and 6/27/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition unit”, “transmission unit”, “determination unit”, etc. in claims 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea – mental process) without significantly more. Claim 1 is used as an example. Claim 6 recites a machine. The two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) are:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1. A work machine management system comprising: (a) an acquisition unit configured to acquire posture information indicating a posture of a driver of a work machine when boarding and alighting; (b) a transmission unit configured to transmit the posture information to an outside of the work machine; and (c) a determination unit configured to determine appropriateness of the posture when boarding and alighting based on the received posture information. [emphasis added].
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite a system and a machine, therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One: Yes. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mental process – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The step of (c) (above in emphasized claim 1) are generically recited and nothing in these steps precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human equipped with an appropriate apparatus. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data and determining a posture/pose of a driver/person from the image/video. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen and a paper, can not perform. The determining, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim encompasses the user thinking that the once the image/video is received, pose/posture or an orientation of a driver/operator and appropriateness of can be determined. This way, essentially one can present/output information about the image that represents that posture/orientation. Thus, these limitations are a mental process.
With regard to (2A), Prong Two: No. The instant claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of (a) “acquire” and (b) “transmit”, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The use of a system to acquire/transmit an image/information (i.e., “data”) at a high level of generality such that said “data” can be used in the operation of the recited judicial exception (the mental step of “acquiring” and “transmitting”). Supplying “data” does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said data do not change the way in which said system operates. There are no specifics on how the data is received. This can be interpreted as “visualization”. Even if this step is by a “physical processor” that may be, for example, a video/camera. A camera/sensor is well known in the field, and receiving data from a camera/sensor is also well known.
This generic system/machine limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In conclusion, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
With regard to (2B), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. There is no improvement to technology here. There is only step of (c). with additional elements of (a) and (b), and it has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do.
Therefore, the claims 1 and 6 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
With regard to dependent claims 2-5, similar analysis is applied and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application – does not provide significant more than the judicial exception. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claim 1 and not repeated herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0309795 to Jakobsen et al. (hereafter, “Jakobsen”).
With regard to claim 1 Jakobsen discloses a work machine management system (paragraph [0006], Figs. 1a, 1b) comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire posture information indicating a posture of a driver of a work machine when boarding and alighting (cameras 102, paragraphs [0036, 0046], 2D pose in paragraph [0048] and 3D pose in paragraph [0049] – “plurality of angles of observation may show the movement and pose(s) of the person in a region of space, as recorded by the plurality of cameras being placed around the region of space”, paragraphs [0071, 0073-0078); a transmission unit configured to transmit the posture information to an outside of the work machine (interface 12 in Fig. 1a; paragraph [0092], Fig. 1d); and a determination unit configured to determine appropriateness of the posture when boarding and alighting based on the received posture information (“the pose-estimation functionality is used to control the utility vehicle”, “the control of the utility vehicle may be restricted, e.g., to avoid an erroneous or malicious takeover of the utility vehicle”, paragraphs [0053, 0055, 0057, 0060, 0063]).
With regard to claim 2 Jakobsen discloses a notification processing unit configured to perform notification processing based on the appropriateness of the posture when boarding and alighting (controlling the vehicle per appropriateness of posture, Fig. 1d, paragraphs [0053, 0055, 0056, etc.]).
With regard to claim 3 Jakobsen discloses wherein the notification processing performed by the notification processing unit is at least any one of notification of occurrence of an inappropriate posture when boarding and alighting, processing of recording the occurrence of the inappropriate posture when boarding and alighting as a log, or processing of transmitting appropriateness information indicating the appropriateness of the posture when boarding and alighting (paragraphs [0053, 0055, 0056, etc.]).
With regard to claim 4 Jakobsen discloses wherein the appropriateness of the posture when boarding and alighting is determined by whether or not the posture is a posture in which a body is supported with three or more of four limbs (paragraphs [0047, 0052, 0071, 0074]).
With regard to claim 5 Jakobsen discloses wherein the appropriateness of the posture when boarding and alighting is appropriateness of a direction of the driver (paragraph [0047] where “the pose of the person may be based on, or formed by, the relative positions and angles of the limbs of the person”).
With regard to claim 6, claim 6 is rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 6, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676