DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 02/20/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-5 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For each of claims1-4 fall within category of process; For example each of claim 5 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)),.
Regarding Claims 1-4
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of residual feed estimation.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A residual feed estimation management server for a feed bin, comprising:
a communication unit configured to communicate with a measuring terminal installed at a top of an inner side of a feed bin, said communication unit is configured to
receive from the measuring terminal height information of the residual feed measured at a central point of the feed bin;
a database including multiple reference gradients each of which is learned in accordance with a certain height of the feed and at least one of temperature and humidity inside the feed bin, a type of the feed bin, and a type of the feed;
a gradient generation unit configured to generate gradient information on an upper portion of residual feed located at a point in a vertical direction from the central point of the feed bin using said height information said gradient generation unit is configured to generate the gradient information according to the height information using a matching reference gradient retrieve from said database;
a remaining amount estimation unit configured to estimate a remaining amount of the feed using the gradient information;
a failure management unit configured to output a failure signal to an external user terminal when the height information is not received from the measuring terminal at a preset time period or a gradient of the measuring terminal exceeds a preset value, and authenticate that a failure has been processed when an identification code formed on the feed bin or the measuring terminal is obtained and transmitted to the user terminal within a predetermined period of time; and
a data transaction unit configured to set a right to modify the gradient information, combine identification information of a user to modified gradient information obtained by modifying the gradient information, encrypt the modified gradient information, and transact the modified gradient information.
The italicized limitations above represent mental steps (i.e., managing interactions between people, and/or a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitation “generate gradient information [..]; estimate a remaining amount [..]” is a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper),
For example, the limitation “output a failure signal … transmitted to the user terminal..” is a fundamental communication practice, a exchange information activity, managing interactions between people, and/or a mental process.
For example, the limitation “set a right to modify the gradient information … transact the modified gradient information” is a updating information a mental process.
See 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The 1st additional element is “receive from the measuring terminal height information of the residual feed measured at a central point of the feed bin; a database including multiple reference gradients each of which is learned in accordance with a certain height of the feed and at least one of temperature and humidity inside the feed bin, a type of the feed bin, and a type of the feed; output a failure signal to an external user terminal” This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “A residual feed estimation management server for a feed bin, comprising: a communication unit configured to communicate with a measuring terminal installed at a top of an inner side of a feed bin, said communication unit” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a generic computer component. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component with generic sensor with component as tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually or in a combination does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Step 2B
Claims 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, the limitation of Claims “server for a feed bin; a communication unit”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-4
Dependent claims 2-4 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-10 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-4 are managing interactions between people, and/or a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper.
Regarding claim 5
Claim 5 contains language similar to claims 1-4 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner Notes
Regarding claims1-5, There is no prior art rejection over claims, specifically claim 1 and 5, however there is 101 rejections. The limitations are “generate gradient information on an upper portion of residual feed located at a point in a vertical direction from the central point of the feed bin using said height information said gradient generation unit is configured to generate the gradient information according to the height information using a matching reference gradient retrieve from said database; configured to estimate a remaining amount of the feed using the gradient information; to output when the height information is not received from the measuring terminal at a preset time period or a gradient of the measuring terminal exceeds a preset value, and authenticate that a failure has been processed when an identification code formed on the feed bin or the measuring terminal is obtained and transmitted to the user terminal within a predetermined period of time; and to set a right to modify the gradient information, combine identification information of a user to modified gradient information obtained by modifying the gradient information, encrypt the modified gradient information, and transact the modified gradient information.”
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, the Applicant did not agree with it, see pages 6-11. the Applicant argus that the amended claims, “The claim clearly provides an inventive concept for an accurate evaluation of the gradient of the feed and does not aim to monopolize the conventional mental process of evaluating the general effect of the formula… it is a system that includes a designated database and a gradient generation unit configured to determine the gradient in the feed bin based on the height information and a matching reference gradient retrieved from the database”, “the elements of a database, including multiple reference gradients each of which is learned in accordance with prestored data, as claimed, and the gradient generation unit configured to determine the gradient by applying a matching reference gradient on the height information, are neither well-known nor nominally or tangentially related to the invention” and “the claim as a whole provides an inventive system for determining the gradient based on learned reference gradients stored in the database. This inventive concept is clearly unique and, as a whole, cannot be considered as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because limitations, (e.g. the limitation “generate gradient information [..]; estimate a remaining amount [..]” ; “output a failure signal … transmitted to the user terminal..” ;“set a right to modify the gradient information … transact the modified gradient information”) represent mental steps (i.e., managing interactions between people, and/or a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. See 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). In view of the the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see the rejection above. Furthermore, See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. As such 101 rejection is maintain.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Sch. (US 2022/0026258) disclose A bin level monitoring system bin level monitoring system comprising an optical sensor for sensing a feed level inside a feed bin, a circuit board communicatively connected to the sensor for receiving a level signal from the sensor and for processing the level signal to generate bin level data, a battery for powering the circuit board and sensor, an enclosure for enclosing the circuit board and a radio transmitter for transmitting the bin level data. The sensor may be a LIDAR sensor or a time-of-flight (ToF) sensor. the sensor is a LIDAR sensor. The LIDAR sensor is able to operate for many years without requiring maintenance or service despite the dust, temperature variation and other adverse conditions inside of a feed bin. The sensor is fully enclosed by one or more quartz glass lenses. As described and illustrated, the sensor includes a self-cleaning wiper to clean the sensor's quartz glass lenses at regular intervals. As described and illustrated, the sensor is mounted to a bin using a sensor-mounting bracket. The sensor-mounting bracket enables the sensor to be mounted to any shape or size of feed bin. The sensor-mounting bracket includes a collar surrounding the feed bin lid opening. The sensor bracket hangs on this collar and fastens using compound force created by the tightening of a specialized bolt, tightened against the inside face of the lid collar. Inside of the bin, the bracket extends away from the opening to ensure that the sensor itself is protected during bin refills. This bracket enables rapid installation. The sensor wire is routed beneath the lid to the outside of the bin where it connects to the PCB and enclosure. As described above, in a second embodiment, the sensor is a time-of-flight (ToF) machine vision sensor or ToF camera. The ToF sensor utilizes a highly advanced method of ranging and profiling. The ToF sensor has demonstrated an unprecedented ability to model the surface of product inside of a feed container. Using 57,000 unique depth points the sensor is able to reconstruct a highly accurate 3D surface profile from which a precise calculation of bin volume can be determined. The number of depth points can of course be varied in other variants depending on the resolution of the particular ToF camera being used. This unique approach to feed-level monitoring enables the system to accurately identify anomalies like “feed-bridging” and “rat-holing”, preventing errant or false readings. Machine vision technology will enables a completely self-sustaining and non-intrusive technology to gather accurate bin-level readings at fraction of the cost of competing technologies. In this one specific implementation, the system enclosure includes a built-in solar panel to provide trickle charging to the enclosure battery, even in low-light situations. The enclosure has also been designed to avoid having to modify a feed bin. The mounting bracket utilizes three spherical rare-earth magnets oriented to form a low-profile tripod. This tripod orientation makes the bracket compatible with all shapes and sizes of feed bins regardless of radius or roof slope. In one specific implementation, the magnets together generate 60 lbs of holding force, enabling the entire system to be quickly installed or removed without having to permanently modify the feed bin.
b) Grigorov et al. (US 2009/0199457) disclose it is possibly to exterminate the pests by using laser, ultrasound, electromagnetic and other influences. In that case, their presence is registered, the pest is identified through the use of sensors for presence and/or for identification and than the microprocessor switches on the contactor, which activates the laser or the directional ultrasounds or electromagnetic waves, where the same sensors take part in determining the required extermination impulse for the pest.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857