DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/552,260 filed on December 12, 2025 in which claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, and 14-20 were amended.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112(b), and 103.
Examiner's Note on the Completeness of the Reply
The Non-Final Office Action dated October 10, 2025 contained a rejection of claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Applicant failed to address this objection in either the presently filed Remarks or by amending these claims to remedy the deficiencies. If Applicant fails to address this objection in the future, those actions shall be deemed non-compliant.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 5, 2025 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(3), which requires a copy of the translation of a non-English-language document. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 11 include the limitation “in response to the schedule condition being determined to be not satisfactory, the control unit being configured to adapt at least one operational parameter and/or the operation schedule of the trolley assisted mining truck for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge” or similar. (Emphasis added). This appears to state that the purpose of the adjustment is to obtain a sustainable state of battery charge, but does not appear to actually require such a state to be obtained. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claims 6 and 15 includes the limitations “wherein the background data comprises data indicative of at least one of the running resistance of the trolley assisted mining truck, a wheel suspension movement of the trolley assisted mining truck, the auxiliary energy consumption, the load loaded on the trolley assisted mining truck, and environmental conditions, wherein the environmental conditions include: the humidity of the air, the humidity of the ground, the temperature of the air, the temperature of the ground, the presence of rain or snow, the roughness of the ground, and the kind of ground the trolley assisted mining truck is moving on,” or similar. (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim only requires the environmental conditions to include the given information when the background data comprises environmental conditions. In other words, if the background data does not comprise environmental conditions, the claimed environmental conditions are not required to be present.
Claim 11 recites a method including the limitation “determining by a control unit a schedule condition indicative of whether the operation schedule can be met based on the charge status determined by the battery charge status unit and the progress data determined by the transport status unit, and, in response to schedule condition being determined to be not satisfactory, adapting at least one operational parameter and/or the operation schedule of the trolley assisted mining truck for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require “adapting at least one operational parameter and/or the operation schedule of the trolley assisted mining truck for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge” to be performed because the claim allows for a situation in which the condition is determined to be satisfactory. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Heil (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/512,669), at 6; Ex parte Frost (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/785,052) at 7; Ex parte Dawson (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/103,472) at 6; and Ex parte Candelore (PTAB 2017) (App. S.N. 14/281,158) at 5 (supporting the interpretation that “in response to” limitations are conditional).
Claim 14 recites a method claim including the limitation “further comprising in response to the at least one operational parameter of the trolley assisted mining truck being adapted by the control unit for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge for the operation schedule, factoring by the control unit the life span of the battery when calculating the battery charging power.” (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the factoring the life span of the battery to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Heil (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/512,669), at 6; Ex parte Frost (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/785,052) at 7; Ex parte Dawson (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/103,472) at 6; and Ex parte Candelore (PTAB 2017) (App. S.N. 14/281,158) at 5 (supporting the interpretation that “in response to” limitations are conditional).
Claim Interpretation—35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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), because the claim limitations 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 limitations are: “battery charge status unit,” “transport status unit,” “control unit,” “first communication unit,” and “second communication unit” in claims 1, 3, 5, 7-16, 18-20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” “step,” or a generic placeholder, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “detection unit” in claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 18-20.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims contain “and/or” language. While definite, the preferred verbiage for such language is “at least one of A and B,” See Ex parte Gross (PTAB 2014) (App. S.N. 11/565,411), at Page 4, Footnote 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, and 14-20 are objected to for the following reasons: The claim amendments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. § § 1.52(a)(iv), which requires all papers submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office be submitted in “dark ink or its equivalent.” Instead, the markup appears to be in colored ink that is not fully legible. Although the claims have been accepted for entry on this occasions, future submissions that are not in the required dark ink shall be deemed non-compliant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a method, system, and computer program for determining if an electric vehicle has enough charge to perform a task.
The limitations “determining battery charge status data indicative of the present charge status of the battery of the trolley assisted mining truck;” “determining progress data of the progress of the trolley assisted mining truck in a present transport cycle of the operation schedule;” “determining a schedule condition indicative of whether the operation schedule can be met and maintained based on the battery charge status data determined by the battery charge status unit and the progress data determined by the transport status unit;” and "in response to the schedule condition being determined to be not satisfactory, … adapt at least one operational parameter and/or the operation schedule of the trolley assisted mining truck for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of these limitations in the mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
For example, a human being can know the general characteristics of a vehicle’s battery charge including how long a charge lasts in that vehicle, due to prior observation, and judge whether or not the vehicle has enough battery to finish performance of its tasks.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim first merely recite the additional element “a trolley assisted mining truck connectable to one or more trolley lines, the trolley assisted mining truck having an electric drive and a battery for delivering energy to the electric drive, the trolley assisted mining truck carrying out an operation schedule comprising predefined transport cycles.” This merely describes the technological environment of the invention. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The claim next merely recites the additional element of “a detection unit comprising a battery charge status unit, “a transport status unit,” and “a control unit.” This merely describes instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Bastien, US Publication 2011/0301794, as discussed below.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, this claim merely defines the type of progress data, which is part of the abstract idea.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 16, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims merely require specific operating parameters that will be used to control the vehicle, which is the technological environment of the invention. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Bastien, US Publication 2011/0301794, as discussed below.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims merely require specific information for the schedule to be adjusted, which is part of the abstract idea.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims merely require the presence of an additional sensor for gathering data, which is data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Bastien, US Publication 2011/0301794, as discussed below.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, this claim merely requires specific types of data, which is part of the abstract idea.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims merely require the presence of a communication system, which is the technological environment of the invention. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Daum et al., US Publication 2012/0316717, as discussed below.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims merely require the presence of a machine learning unit, which is the technological environment of the invention. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Abbot et al., US Publication 2019/0227528, as discussed below.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9 and 14, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims merely require that the control unit is “adapted” to perform specific calculations, which is instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Bae et al., US Publication 2021/0218262, as discussed below.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, this claim merely requires that the control unit is “adapted” to perform specific calculations, which is instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Bae et al., US Publication 2021/0218262, as discussed below.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, this claim merely defines the type of progress data, which is part of the abstract idea.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, this claim first merely requires the presence of an additional sensor device, which is the technological environment of the invention. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The claim next specifies types of data to be considered, which is part of the abstract idea.
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Bastien, US Publication 2011/0301794, as discussed below.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7-16, 18-20, the claim limitations “battery charge status unit,” “transport status unit” and “control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
When a claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for a computer implemented means-plus-function claim, the specification must disclose the specific algorithm required to transform the general-purpose computing equipment into the required special purpose computer. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
The examiner could not find any specific structure or specific algorithm in the present specification, nor has Applicant pointed to such structure or algorithm.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 10, this claim includes the limitation “wherein the control unit is adapted to calculate an optimum of battery charging of the mining truck and life span of the battery.” (Emphasis added). The term “optimum” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine when an “optimum” of battery charging had been calculated in contrast to a non-optimum.
Regarding claim 12, this claim includes the limitation “wherein adapting the at least one operational parameter of the trolley assisted mining truck by the control unit includes changing, especially increasing, the electrical charging of the trolley assisted mining truck via the trolley line.” (Emphasis added). The phrase “especially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20, these claims depend on at least one of the above claims. Therefore, these claims inherit the rejections of any parent claims discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bastien, US Publication 2011/0301794 (hereinafter Bastien), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated October 10, 2025. in view of Daum et al., US Publication 2012/0316717 (hereinafter Daum), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated February 27, 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Bastien discloses “a system for controlling the electrical charging and/or state of battery of a trolley assisted mining truck connectable to one or more trolley lines.” (Bastien ¶ 38 and Fig. 5). Additionally, Bastien discloses “the trolley assisted mining truck having an electric drive and a battery for delivering energy to the electric drive.” (Bastien ¶ 15). Further, Bastien discloses “the trolley assisted mining truck carrying out an operation schedule comprising predefined transport cycles” (Bastien ¶ 43) where the route of travel is an operation schedule comprising predefined transport cycles. Moreover, Bastien discloses “the system including: a detection unit comprising a battery charge status unit for determining battery charge status data indicative of the present charge status of the battery of the trolley assisted mining truck” (Bastien ¶ 32) where various electronics may determine the battery's “state of charge (SOC).” Likewise, Bastien discloses “A transport status unit for determining progress data of the progress of the trolley assisted mining truck in a present transport cycle of the operation schedule” (Bastien ¶ 43) where the location of the mining truck is the progress data as defined by claim 2. Bastien also discloses “a control unit for determining a schedule condition indicative of the vehicle’s current operating conditions“ (Bastien ¶¶ 21, 45) where step 618 determines whether power is available for operations or not, which may be determining if a scheduled event (i.e., a schedule) has caused the power on the catenary line to be available. (Bastien ¶ 45). Bastien discloses that the steps of Fig. 6, including step 618 are performed by a controller (i.e., a control unit, Bastien ¶ 21). Finally, Bastien discloses “in response to the schedule condition being determined to be not satisfactory, the control unit being configured to adapt at least one operational parameter and/or the operation schedule of the trolley assisted mining truck for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge” (Bastien ¶¶ 45-46) where, when it is determined that there is a schedule power outage (i.e., a not satisfactory schedule condition), the control unit decouples the power source from the catenary line (i.e., adapts at least one operational parameter).
Bastien does not appear to explicitly disclose “a control unit for determining a schedule condition indicative of whether the operation schedule can be met and maintained based on the battery charge status data determined by the battery charge status unit and the progress data determined by the transport status unit.”
However, Daum discloses a mine car control method including “a control unit for determining a schedule condition indicative of whether the operation schedule can be met and maintained based on the battery charge status data determined by the battery charge status unit and the progress data determined by the transport status unit” (Daum ¶ 125) by determining if the estimated trip load exceeds the electric energy that is available to power the vehicle.
Bastien and Daum are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of mine cart battery control systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bastien and Daum before him or her to modify the operating condition determination of Bastien to include the particular operating condition determination of Daum.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Bastien teaches the “base device” for controlling power supplies to a mine cart. Further, Daum teaches the “known technique” for determining if a battery in a mine cart has sufficient power to perform a task that is applicable to the base device of Bastien. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 11, it merely recites a method performed by the system of claim 1. The method comprises execution of computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Bastien and Daum comprises executing computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses “wherein the progress data comprise data indicative of at least one of the position of the at least one trolley assisted mining truck, the distance of the at least one trolley assisted mining truck to the trolley line, the overall length of the transport cycle, the remaining length of the transport cycle in the actual transport cycle, the duration of one transport cycle, the number of transport cycles gone by the trolley assisted mining truck, the number of transport cycles planned to go by the trolley assisted mining truck in the operation schedule, the time of operation of the trolley assisted mining truck, the remaining time of operation planned for the trolley assisted mining truck in the operation schedule, and the load on the at least one trolley assisted mining truck in the actual and/or previous transport cycle” (Bastien ¶ 43) where the progress data comprises the location of the mining truck.
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 16, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1, 11, and 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses “wherein the operational parameter of the trolley assisted mining truck adapted by the control unit is at least one of the speed of the trolley assisted mining truck when in contact with the trolley line, the electrical current charged via the trolley line in a loading cycle of the trolley assisted mining truck, and the transport cycle of the mining truck, and/or wherein the at least one operational parameter of the trolley assisted mining truck is adapted by the control unit for changing the electrical charging of the trolley assisted mining truck via the trolley line, and/or wherein the at least one operational parameter and/or the operation schedule of the trolley assisted mining truck is adapted by the control unit for reducing the energy consumption from the battery during a transport cycle” (Bastien ¶ 21) where the determination to charge the battery is “changing, especially increasing, the electrical charging of the trolley assisted mining truck via the trolley line.” Because these options are provided in an “and/or” format, only one option must be shown.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses “wherein the operation schedule further comprises at least one of a time slot for a predetermined number of transport cycles, parameters of the transport cycle, the length of the trolley line, the path of the transport cycle, a number of transport cycles, the position of the trolley line, target operational parameter of the trolley assisted mining truck, and target charging parameters for the electrical charging of the trolley assisted mining truck via the trolley line” (Bastien ¶ 43) where the “planned route of travel” is a “parameter of the transport cycle.”
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses “wherein the detection unit further comprises a sensor for gathering background data indicative of at least one of a status of the trolley assisted mining truck, a status of a part of the trolley assisted mining truck, and a status of the environmental conditions of the trolley assisted mining truck” (Bastien ¶ 32) where the various battery information is “a status of a part of the trolley assisted mining truck.”
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses “wherein the background data comprises data indicative of at least one of the running resistance of the trolley assisted mining truck, a wheel suspension movement of the trolley assisted mining truck, the auxiliary energy consumption, the load loaded on the trolley assisted mining truck, and environmental conditions, wherein the environmental conditions include: the humidity of the air, the humidity of the ground, the temperature of the air, the temperature of the ground, the presence of rain or snow, the roughness of the ground, and the kind of ground the trolley assisted mining truck is moving on” (Bastien ¶¶ 23, 43) by determining the load to be carried, which is “the load loaded on the trolley assisted mining truck.”
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses “wherein the detection unit is arranged on the trolley assisted mining truck and the control unit is arranged remotely from the trolley assisted mining truck, and wherein the system further comprises: a first communication unit for communicating the data determined by the detection unit to the control unit; and/or a second communication unit for communicating data of the control unit to the trolley assisted mining truck” (Daum ¶ 38) by including a communication unit that communicates between stations and the electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses “wherein determining the progress data by the transport status unit includes determining at least one of the location of the at least one trolley assisted mining truck, the distance of the at least one trolley assisted mining truck to the trolley, the overall length of the transport cycle, the remaining length of the transport cycle in the actual cycle, the duration of one transport cycle, the number of transport cycles gone by the trolley assisted mining truck, the number of transport cycles planned to go by the trolley assisted mining truck, the time of operation of the trolley assisted mining truck, the remaining time of operation planned for the trolley assisted mining truck, and the load on the trolley assisted mining truck in the transport cycle” (Bastien ¶ 43) where the progress data comprises the location of the mining truck.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses “further comprising detecting by a sensor background data indicative of at least one of a status of the trolley assisted mining truck, a status of a part of the trolley assisted mining truck, and a status of the environmental conditions of the trolley assisted mining truck” (Bastien ¶ 32) where the various battery information is “a status of a part of the trolley assisted mining truck.” Further, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses “wherein the background data comprise in particular at least one of data indicative of the running resistance of the trolley assisted mining truck, data indicative of a wheel suspension movement of the trolley assisted mining truck, the auxiliary energy consumption, the load loaded on the trolley assisted mining truck, and environmental conditions, wherein the environmental conditions include in particular the humidity of the air, the humidity of the ground, the temperature of the air, the temperature of the ground, the presence of rain or snow, the roughness of the ground, and the kind of ground the trolley assisted mining truck is moving on” (Bastien ¶¶ 23, 43) by determining the load to be carried, which is “the load loaded on the trolley assisted mining truck.”
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bastien in view of Daum, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Abbot et al., US Publication 2019/0227528 (hereinafter Abbot), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated October 10, 2025.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the control unit comprises a self-learning tool that determines a schedule condition and/or adapts the at least one operational parameter using continuous feedback from the detection unit and the transportation status unit.”
However, Abbott discloses a battery management system including a control unit “wherein the control unit comprises a self-learning tool that determines a schedule condition and/or adapts the at least one operational parameter using continuous feedback …” (Abbott ¶ 70) where the self-updating machine learning controller (i.e., self-learning tool) uses feedback from the various sensors to adapt the operational parameters, such as motor speed and output torque.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Abbot was combined with Bastien and Daum, the detection and transportation units of Bastien and Daum would provide feedback to the self-learning tool implemented according to the teachings of Abbott. Therefore, the combination of Bastien, Daum, and Abbott at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the control unit comprises a self-learning tool that determines a schedule condition and/or adapts the at least one operational parameter using continuous feedback from the detection unit and the transportation status unit,” rendering it obvious.
Bastien, Daum, and Abbott are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of battery management systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bastien, Daum, and Abbott before him or her to modify the battery management system of Bastien and Daum to include the self-updating machine learning controller of Abbott.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve performance of the battery. (Abbott ¶ 130).
Claims 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bastien in view of Daum, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Bae et al., US Publication 2021/0218262 (hereinafter Bae), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated October 10, 2025.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the control unit is adapted to factor the life span of the battery when calculating the battery charging power, if the control unit adapts the at least one operational parameter of the trolley assisted mining truck for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge for the operation schedule.”
However, Bae discloses a battery management system with a control unit “wherein the control unit is adapted to factor the life span of the battery when calculating the battery charging power” (Bae ¶¶ 34, 72) by charging the battery according to the control condition (Bae ¶ 72), which is set based on improving the life span of the battery (Bae ¶ 34).
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Bae was combined with Bastien and Daum, that the life span calculation of Bae would be used in all instances of chagrining the battery. Thus, the combination of Bastien, Daum, and Bae at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “if the control unit adapts the at least one operational parameter of the trolley assisted mining truck for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge for the operation schedule,” rendering it obvious.
Bastien, Daum, and Bae are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of battery management systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bastien, Daum, and Bae before him or her to modify the battery charging of Bastien and Daum to include the life span based calculation of Bae.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for more accurate estimations of the battery life. (Bae ¶ 33).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bastien, Daum, and Bae discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 9 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien, Daum, and Bae discloses “wherein the control unit is adapted to calculate an optimum of battery charging of the mining truck and life span of the battery.” (Bae ¶ 34).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bastien and Daum discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Bastien and Daum does not appear to explicitly disclose “in response to the at least one operations parameter of the trolly assisted mining truck being adapted by the control unit for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge for the operation schedule, factoring by the control unit the life span of the battery when calculating the battery charging power.”
However, Bae discloses a battery management system with a control unit “factoring by the control unit the life span of the battery when calculating the battery charging power” (Bae ¶¶ 34, 72) by charging the battery according to the control condition (Bae ¶ 72), which is set based on improving the life span of the battery (Bae ¶ 34).
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Bae was combined with Bastien and Daum, that the life span calculation of Bae would be used in all instances of chagrining the battery. Thus, the combination of Bastien, Daum, and Bae at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “in response to the at least one operations parameter of the trolly assisted mining truck being adapted by the control unit for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge for the operation schedule, factoring by the control unit the life span of the battery when calculating the battery charging power,” rendering it obvious.
Bastien, Daum, and Bae are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of battery management systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bastien, Daum, and Bae before him or her to modify the battery charging of Bastien and Daum to include the life span based calculation of Bae.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for more accurate estimations of the battery life. (Bae ¶ 33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) due to the amendment of “sensor unit” and the provided support for the “first communication unit” and “second communication unit” (Remarks 25-26) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The inclusion of these terms within the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been removed.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the object to claims 1-3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20, Applicant first argues “there is nothing inherently indefinite with the ‘and/or’ language” and then states that in Ex parte Gross, the claim language included “at least one of” prior to the “and/or” that was not included in the present claims. Thus, Applicant concludes that the objections should be withdrawn. (Remarks 11). The examiner disagrees.
Regarding the statement that “there is nothing inherently indefinite with the ‘and/or’ language,” this is not germane to the objection, because indefiniteness is an issue under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), for which no rejection relating to the use of “and/or” was made.
Regarding the absence of “at least one of,” Applicant fails to explain why this affects the “and/or.” The issue in Ex parte Gross was the use of “and/or” and not the presence of “at least one of.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that the claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the invention is “directed to a specific, complex technical process for controlling the physical operation and energy consumption of a particular industrial machine (a trolly assisted mining truck) operated within a defined environment” that “requires a control unit to adapt at least one operational parameter in response to the schedule condition being determined to be not satisfactory.” (Remarks 11-12). Applicant continues that the “claimed invention also solves the technical problem of maintaining self-sustainable battery charging despite external variables … where a standing truck with a flat battery may seriously impede production and generate high costs.” (Remarks 12). Finally, Applicant argues that the “assertion that the system is ‘well-understood, routine, and conventional’ activity is incorrect” because it “addresses challenges unique to this specific application.” (Remarks 13). The examiner disagrees.
Each of Applicant’s arguments is not commensurate in scope with the claims. For example, the claimed invention does not “control[] the physical operation and energy consumption” of any machine. Instead, it merely “adapt[s]” a piece of data, which can be easily performed in the mind. Further, in Berkheimer v. HP INC., 881 F. 3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the federal circuit held that improvements are only considered “to the extent they are captured in the claims.” Berkheimer at 1369. Nothing in the present claims relates to “a standing truck with a flat battery” or improving production or lowering costs. Finally, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Applicant makes no attempt to explain why the provided references fail to show that the identified components were not well-understood, routine, and convention and, instead, merely presents conclusory statements that lack any evidentiary support.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) due to their interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant argues that a “battery charge status unit … suggests a device configured to measure electrical parameters” and that support may be found at ¶¶ 31-32 of the present specification. Applicant continues that the “transport status unit” is supported at ¶¶ 36 and 46-47 of the present specification. Applicant further argues that the “control unit” has support at ¶¶ 30, 42, 44, 45, 48, and 59-61, specifically that it is “a self-learning tool,” and that the term “is a commonly understood structural term in the electrical and computer arts, referring to a programmable logic device, processor, or computer apparatus integrated to manage the system.” (Remarks 14-15). The examiner disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the recitation of a battery charge status unit “suggests a device configured to measure electrical parameters,” Applicant’s argument is not responsive to the rejection. The standard under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is not what the term “suggests” but what “are understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Further, as stated previously, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding Applicant’s reliance on ¶¶ 31-32 of the present specification, this provides no structural support for the term “battery charge status unit.” Although it recites that it may include sensors, current sensing devices, or measuring devices, it provides no detail on what these devices are. (Spec. ¶ 32). For example, under this support, a pressure sensor would be included within the scope of the “battery charge status unit.” However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to use a pressure sensor to detect battery charge. These paragraphs also define the battery charge status unit functioning in that it is “for determining battery charge status data of the actual or present charge of the battery.” (Spec. ¶ 31). When a claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for a computer implemented means-plus-function claim, the specification must disclose the specific algorithm required to transform the general-purpose computing equipment into the required special purpose computer. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B). Here, no algorithm is provided.
Regarding the recitation of the “transport status unit,” these recitations fail to provide adequate support for the same reasons as discussed with the “battery charge status unit.” The specification at ¶¶ 36 and 46-37 largely defines the transport status functionally but does not disclose the algorithm required. Further, although it does recite that it may be a light sensor, there is no indication how the detection of light would determine the progress of the trolly assisted mining truck in its current operation schedule. Light sensors are generally understood to detect the presence and/or amount of light, which is unrelated to a status within a schedule.
Finally, regarding the control unit, by Applicant’s own admission, the control unit is a “self-learning tool,” (Remarks 15) indicating that this control unit is not a generic “process[or], storage devices, and communication devices” as argued by the Applicant within the same paragraph of the remarks. Thus, the specification must disclose the specific algorithm required to transform the general-purpose computing equipment into the required special purpose computer. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B). Here, no self-learning algorithm is provided.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 103, Applicant first argues that “Bastien’s teachings are not focused on a system or method for controlling the electrical charging and/or state of battery of a trolly assisted mining truck” because “Bastien teaches a system and method for operating the electric drive based on different operation modes” and “simply describes a system for mode selection (e.g., charge vs. discharge vs. boost).” (Remarks 9-10). The examiner disagrees.
As admitted by Applicant, Bastien selects a mode of the battery including a charge mode. (Remarks 10). Thus, Bastien is “controlling the electrical charging.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that Bastien fails to teach “a control unit for determining a schedule condition indicative of whether the operation schedule can be met and maintained based on the battery charge status data determined by the battery charge status unit and the progress data determined by the transport status unit.” (Remarks 18-20).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As was clearly stated in the Non-Final Rejection, it is Daum that teaches this limitation. (Non-Final Act. 19). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that Bastien fails to teach the newly added limitation “in response to the schedule condition being determined to be not satisfactory, the control unit being configured to adapt at least one operational parameter and/or the operation schedule of the trolley assisted mining truck for obtaining a sustainable state of battery charge” because previously cited ¶ 21 of Bastien does not teach this amended limitation. (Remarks 20-21). The examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed in the updated rejection above.
Applicant next argues that “Daum fails to cure the deficiencies of Bastien.” (Remarks 21). The examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is based on an erroneous premise—namely that there are any deficiencies of Bastien. As has been discussed above, Applicant has failed to show any such deficiencies. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next appears to argue that Daum cannot be combined with Bastien because Applicant alleges that the results would not be predictable. (Remarks 21). Specifically, Applicant argues that Bastien contains three electrical sources while Daum only contains a single electrical source and that such a modification would be “complicated.” (Remarks 21-23). The examiner disagrees.
Appellant appears to be arguing that the teachings of Daum would have to be “bodily incorporated” into the system of Bastien. Appellant has not asserted that the proposed modification would have been beyond the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but that it would merely have been “complicated.” Absent such an assertion, the rejection must “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,” and find a person of ordinary skill in the art would overcome those difficulties within their level of skill. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662