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 1-4, 6-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a worksite condition corresponding to a worksite operation of a mobile work machine on a worksite;
generating a machine performance metric representing operational performance of the mobile work machine for the worksite operation on the worksite;
generating a machine impact metric based on a comparison of the machine performance metric and a base performance metric;
generating a correlation between the machine impact metric and the worksite condition; and
generating a machine control signal based on the correlation.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “generating a machine performance metric representing operational performance of the mobile work machine for the worksite operation on the worksite (determine a value for performance);
generating a machine impact metric based on a comparison of the machine performance metric and a base performance metric (compare actual performance to expected performance);
generating a correlation between the machine impact metric and the worksite condition (relate conditions to performance); and
generating a machine control signal based on the correlation (Examiner notes that the limitations of at least claims 4, 10, and 11 indicate that generating a machine control signal based on the correlation has a scope of simply communicating data between processors or making an inference, which are considered mental steps)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 12.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a worksite condition corresponding to a worksite operation of a mobile work machine on a worksite;
Claim 12: A mobile work machine control system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the mobile work machine control system to: obtain a worksite condition corresponding to a worksite operation of a mobile work machine on a worksite.
The additional element in the preamble of “A mobile work machine control system” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Obtaining a worksite condition corresponding to a worksite operation of a mobile work machine on a worksite represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A memory (generic memory) and a computer and a processor (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2--4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
The Examiner notes that there are currently no prior art rejections for claims 1-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anderson (US 20210007277 A1) is considered by the Examiner to be the closest prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 1, Anderson teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a worksite condition corresponding to a worksite operation of a mobile work machine on a worksite (Anderson [0066] At block 448, current or future conditions of the worksite are identified by logic 166. These conditions can be identified from the in situ data obtained at block 442 and/or the a priori data obtained at block 422. The conditions can take a wide variety of different forms. For example, weather conditions can be identified at block 450. This can include current or anticipated precipitation. At block 452, terrain conditions can be identified. Examples of terrain conditions include, but are not limited to, terrain topology (e.g., slope), soil type, soil moisture or other conditions. See Fig. 4-1 422, 424, and 448);
generating a machine performance metric representing operational performance of the mobile work machine for the worksite operation on the worksite (Anderson [0066] These conditions can be identified from the in situ data obtained at block 442 and/or the a priori data obtained at block 422. See Fig. 4-1 442); and
generating a machine control signal (Anderson [0075] At block 478, control signals are generated by control system 104 to control subsystems 106 in accordance with the assignment criteria. See Fig. 4-2 478).
Anderson, as best understood by the Examiner, when considered alone and in combination with the remaining prior art of record, does not seem to fairly teach or suggest generating a machine impact metric based on a comparison of the machine performance metric and a base performance metric;
generating a correlation between the machine impact metric and the worksite condition; and
generating a machine control signal based on the correlation.
Claim 12 is analogous to claim 1, and is therefore not rejected under prior art for similar reasoning.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are not rejected under prior art due to their dependences on claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights