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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 6, 12, and 13 have been previously canceled.
Claim 15 has been added.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14, and 15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 7-10, filed 20 January 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims of the current application are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application related to a technical benefit, such as, enabling flexible assignment of the one or more transporting assets to different mass excavation projects and/or excavation sites without negatively affecting the determination of the environmental impact of the different mass excavation projects.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application, such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field, as considered below in view of MPEP 2106. In particular, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. Applicant’s improvement in this case is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technological field.
The following are examples of eligible subject matter based on technological improvements: see, e.g., McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 ("The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters."); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been "cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans"); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330, 1333 (discussing patent eligible claims directed to "an innovative logical model for a computer database" that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery" (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)).
In contrast, the claims of the current application are similar to gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result (TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48), wherein the courts have indicated not to be sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claims simply state receiving a plurality of data, determining a result based on the data, outputting results of the data determination, evaluating the results, and outputting the results of evaluation.
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Instead, the claims recite the following additional elements: ‘a processing circuitry’, ‘a memory’, ‘a site check-out system’, ‘a user terminal’, ‘a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’, ‘one or more loading assets’, ‘one or more transporting assets’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a processing circuitry’, ‘a memory’, ‘a user terminal’, ‘a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘a site check-out system’, ‘one or more loading assets’, ‘one or more transporting assets’).
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 10-12, filed 20 January 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that Waggaman fails to disclose the claimed limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In line with the guidelines of MPEP 2141, the claim limitations have been outlined below and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references in view of the determinations of obviousness.
Stephenson discloses collecting utilization data which may comprise engine data, horsepower data, fuel data, load data such as time at idle and time at full or other horsepower, run-time data such as period or duration of operation at various states and/or time and date operated, and other suitable data comprising information on the performance or work performed by an engine or item of equipment that generates emissions as a by-product of consuming fuel to perform work (Stephenson: ¶31-32, ¶37-40, ¶44-47, ¶50-51, ¶59-60). Waggaman discloses determining a vehicle operating time based on the vehicle data, such as measured positions and/or times for a portion of the vehicle 110, such as the bucket of a backhoe, or movement of the entire vehicle, from the vehicle data collection system 102, i.e., the check-out system, wherein the vehicles include backhoes, bulldozers, trucks, earthmovers (Waggaman: ¶26-30, ¶51, ¶95, ¶114-119).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the asset daily operating time, as taught by Waggaman, into the system and method of Stephenson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create useful information as to the performance and efficiency of the machinery” (Waggaman: ¶64).
Applicant further submits that Bruno fails to disclose the claimed limitations, however, these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 15 recite(s) the limitation "A system, comprising: an excavation site comprising a site check-out system; one or more loading assets; one or more transporting assets; a user terminal; and the system according to claim 7…". The claim limitations make it unclear whether the “excavation site”, the “site check-out system”, the “loading assets”, the “transporting assets”, the “user terminal”, are the same “excavation site”, “site check-out system”, “loading assets”, “transporting assets”, and “user terminal” claimed in the system of claim 7. Therefore, the claim limitations are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Claims that are dependent upon the claim(s) listed above are therefore rejected. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 14, and 15 is/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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 14, and 15 recite(s) a system and series of steps for determining an environmental impact of mass excavation projects, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes.
The limitation(s) of, ‘obtaining a daily operating time of the one or more loading assets at the excavation site…’; ‘determining at least one first environmental impact for the one or more loading assets’; ‘obtaining a distance to a target depositing site…’; ‘determining at least one second environmental impact for the one or more transporting assets’; ‘assigning at least part of the determined first and second environmental impact to one or more of the mass excavation projects…’; ‘providing…information indicating the environmental impact assigned to a mass excavation project…, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a processing circuitry’, ‘a memory’, ‘a site check-out system’, ‘a user terminal’, ‘a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’, ‘one or more loading assets’, ‘one or more transporting assets’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a processing circuitry’, ‘a memory’, ‘a user terminal’, ‘a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘a site check-out system’, ‘one or more loading assets’, ‘one or more transporting assets’).
Claim(s) 2-5 and 8-11 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for determining an environmental impact of mass excavation projects, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
As analyzed above, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-5, 7-11, 14, and 15 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120166096), in view of Waggaman (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20100094687), in further view of Devi (“A study on energy use for excavation and transport of soil during building construction”, 2017).
In regards to claim 1, Although Stephenson teaches A computer-implemented method performed by a system for assigning an environmental impact to mass excavation projects utilizing an excavation site, wherein the excavation site engage one or more loading assets and one or more transporting assets (Stephenson: ¶17-20, ¶27-40 disclose an emission tracking system 300, implemented as a computer program in an integrated computer system, for one or more internal combustion or other suitable engines that consume fuel to perform work at the site, such as earth movers, cranes, rigs or other equipment to move, locate or position equipment or materials at the site), the reference does not explicitly state wherein the method comprises obtaining an asset daily operating time based on time data from a site check-out system.
However, Stephenson and Waggaman together teach the method comprising:
obtaining a daily operating time of the one or more loading assets at the excavation site based on the time between a first daily registered transport of excavated material load away from the excavation site as notified by a site check-out system and a last daily registered transport of an excavated material load away from the excavation site by the one or more transporting assets as notified by a site check-out system (Waggaman: ¶26-30, ¶51, ¶95, ¶114-119 disclose determining a vehicle operating time based on the vehicle data, such as measured positions and/or times for a portion of the vehicle 110, such as the bucket of a backhoe, or movement of the entire vehicle, from the vehicle data collection system 102, i.e., the check-out system, wherein the vehicles include backhoes, bulldozers, trucks, earthmovers; Stephenson: ¶31-32, ¶37-40, ¶44-47, ¶50-51, ¶59-60 disclose collecting utilization data which may comprise engine data, horsepower data, fuel data, load data such as time at idle and time at full or other horsepower, run-time data such as period or duration of operation at various states and/or time and date operated, and other suitable data comprising information on the performance or work performed by an engine or item of equipment that generates emissions as a by-product of consuming fuel to perform work);
determining at least one first environmental impact for the one or more loading assets based on the obtained daily operating time and at least one fuel or energy consumption rate of the one or more loading assets (Stephenson: ¶32, ¶36-40, ¶44-47, ¶50-51, ¶54-60 disclose determining total engine emissions during a job, wherein engine exhaust emissions may be determined from total hydraulic horsepower by determining fuel usage of the engine at the horsepower load and then determining emissions based on the fuel usage).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the asset daily operating time, as taught by Waggaman, into the system and method of Stephenson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create useful information as to the performance and efficiency of the machinery” (Waggaman: ¶64).
Additionally, although Stephenson teaches determining emissions based on fuel usage, horsepower and/or utilization time, the reference does not explicitly teach determining an environmental impact based on an obtained transport distance.
However, Stephenson and Devi together teach:
obtaining a distance to a target depositing site for each registered transport of an excavated material load away from the excavation site by the one or more transporting assets (Stephenson: ¶19, ¶31-32, ¶37-42, ¶44-47, ¶50-51, ¶59-60 disclose an emission tracking system 300 for one or more internal combustion or other suitable engines that consume fuel to perform work at the site, such as earth movers, cranes, rigs or other equipment to move, locate or position equipment or materials at the site; Devi: “2.2. Direct measurement of emissions using portable instrument” and “3. Methodology and case studies” disclose determining asset emissions measurements based on a plurality of parameters including the distance between the construction site and the dumping location);
determining at least one second environmental impact for the one or more transporting assets based on the obtained distances and at least one fuel or energy consumption rate of the one or more transporting assets (Stephenson: ¶32, ¶36-40, ¶44-47, ¶50-51, ¶54-60 disclose an emission tracking system 300 for one or more internal combustion or other suitable engines that consume fuel to perform work at the site, wherein engine exhaust emissions may be determined from total hydraulic horsepower by determining fuel usage of the engine at the horsepower load and then determining emissions based on the fuel usage; Devi: “2.2. Direct measurement of emissions using portable instrument” and “3. Methodology and case studies” disclose determining asset emissions measurements based on a plurality of parameters including fuel mileage and the distance between the construction site and the dumping location);
assigning at least part of the determined first and second environmental impact to one or more of the mass excavation projects, thereby enabling flexible assignment of the one or more transporting assets to different mass excavation projects and/or excavation sites without negatively affecting the determination of the environmental impact of the different mass excavation projects (Stephenson: ¶32, ¶36-40, ¶44-47, ¶50-51, ¶54-60 disclose estimating emissions and cost of a job and modifying the job plan, i.e., the assignment of assets, based on the estimations; Devi: “2.2. Direct measurement of emissions using portable instrument” and “3. Methodology and case studies” disclose selection of excavation and earthmoving assets based on the emissions analysis); and
providing, to a user application in a user terminal, information indicating the environmental impact assigned to a mass excavation project upon receiving a request from the user application, in order for the environmental impact information to be displayed to a user of the user terminal (Stephenson: ¶31-32, ¶34-40, ¶44-47, ¶50-51, ¶54-60 disclose the job plan/emissions report 346 may be viewed on a display as part of the user interface 330).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the emissions calculations based on transport distances, as taught by Devi, into the system and method of Stephenson and Waggaman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the overall project performance” and “improving the energy performance of earthmoving operations” (Devi: “1. Introduction” and “2.2. Direct measurement of emissions using portable instrument”).
In regards to claim 2, Stephenson, Waggaman, and Devi teach the method of claim 1. Stephenson further teaches wherein the assigning is based on an assigned utilization share of the excavation site to each respective mass excavation project (Stephenson: ¶31-32, ¶36-41, ¶44-48, ¶50-51, ¶54-60).
In regards to claim 3, Stephenson, Waggaman, and Devi teach the method of claim 1. Stephenson and Devi further teach wherein the distance is obtained based on a predetermined distance associated with the target depositing site assigned to each registered transport of an excavated material load away from the excavation site by the one or more transporting assets (Stephenson: ¶19, ¶31-32, ¶37-42, ¶44-47, ¶50-51, ¶59-60; Devi: “2.2. Direct measurement of emissions using portable instrument” and “3. Methodology and case studies”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the transport distances, as taught by Devi, into the system and method of Stephenson and Waggaman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the overall project performance” and “improving the energy performance of earthmoving operations” (Devi: “1. Introduction” and “2.2. Direct measurement of emissions using portable instrument”).
In regards to claim 4, Stephenson, Waggaman, and Devi teach the method of claim 1. Stephenson and Devi further teach wherein the distance is obtained based on location data provided by each of the one or more transporting assets (Stephenson: ¶19, ¶31-32, ¶37-42, ¶44-47, ¶50-51, ¶59-60; Devi: “2.2. Direct measurement of emissions using portable instrument” and “3. Methodology and case studies”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the transport distances, as taught by Devi, into the system and method of Stephenson and Waggaman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve the overall project performance” and “improving the energy performance of earthmoving operations” (Devi: “1. Introduction” and “2.2. Direct measurement of emissions using portable instrument”).
In regards to claim 5, Stephenson, Waggaman, and Devi teach the method of claim 1. Stephenson further teaches wherein the environmental impact is represented by a carbon-dioxide, CO2, or carbon-dioxide equivalent, CO2e, indicator or value (Stephenson: ¶26, ¶31-32, ¶36-41, ¶44-48, ¶50-51, ¶54-61, ¶64).
In regards to claim 7, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Stephenson teaches A system for assigning an environmental impact to mass excavation projects utilizing an excavation site, wherein the excavation site engage one or more loading assets and one or more transporting assets, the system comprising a processing circuitry and a memory (Stephenson: ¶17-20, ¶27-40 disclose an emission tracking system 300, implemented as a computer program in an integrated computer system, for one or more internal combustion or other suitable engines that consume fuel to perform work at the site, such as earth movers, cranes, rigs or other equipment to move, locate or position equipment or materials at the site). Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 1 applies to the rejection of claim 7.
In regards to claim 8, Stephenson, Waggaman, and Devi teach the system of claim 7. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 2.
In regards to claim 9, Stephenson, Waggaman, and Devi teach the system of claim 7. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 3. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 3 applies to the rejection of claim 9.
In regards to claim 10, Stephenson, Waggaman, and Devi teach the system of claim 7. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 4. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 4 applies to the rejection of claim 10.
In regards to claim 11, Stephenson, Waggaman, and Devi teach the system of claim 7. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 5.
In regards to claim 14, Stephenson, Waggaman, and Devi teach the method of claim 1. Stephenson further teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed on a processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 1 (Stephenson: ¶17-20, ¶27-40).
In regards to claim 15, Stephenson, Waggaman, and Devi teach the system of claim 7. Stephenson further teaches A system, comprising: an excavation site comprising a site check-out system; one or more loading assets; one or more transporting assets; a user terminal; and the system according to claim 7 for assigning an environmental impact to mass excavation projects utilizing the excavation site (Stephenson: ¶17-20, ¶27-40 disclose an emission tracking system 300, implemented as a computer program in an integrated computer system, for one or more internal combustion or other suitable engines that consume fuel to perform work at the site, such as earth movers, cranes, rigs or other equipment to move, locate or position equipment or materials at the site).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628