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, 4, 7, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 6, 12, and 13 have been previously canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14, and 15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant' s remarks, see Page(s) 8-9, filed 15 May 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections, have been fully considered, and are persuasive, in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 9-11, filed 15 May 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, but instead the claims are directed to an improvement in the technical field of environmental-impact determination for mass excavation transport operations, such as, providing an agnostic and simplified way to determine a transport distance. Applicant submits that this allows transporting assets to be flexibly used across different mass excavation projects or excavation sites while still assigning transport environmental impact to the correct project.
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. Specifically, the simplified distance determination and transporting asset flexibility are improvements to the mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and intended results of the abstract idea.
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)).
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 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). 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.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 11-12, filed 15 May 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, and are persuasive, in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest 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, 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, and generating a digital load receipt for each transport of an excavated material load away from the excavation site by the one or more transporting assets, the digital load receipt registering the transport and assigning a target depositing site selected from a plurality of available target depositing sites.
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’; ‘generating a… load receipt for each transport…’; ‘obtaining… a distance to the assigned 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’, ‘digital load receipt’. 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’, ‘digital load receipt’).
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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 1-5, 7-11, 14, and 15 is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel/non-obvious. However, claims 1-5, 7-11, 14, and 15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described above.
The closest prior art of record is Stephenson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120166096), Waggaman (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20100094687), Bruno (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20090055232), Ferguson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180266241), Nield (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210042676), Sprock (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20160292846), Jung (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20240386756), and Devi (“A study on energy use for excavation and transport of soil during building construction”, 2017).
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest 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, 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, and generating a digital load receipt for each transport of an excavated material load away from the excavation site by the one or more transporting assets, the digital load receipt registering the transport and assigning a target depositing site selected from a plurality of available target depositing sites.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights