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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/5/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The specification objection is withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn, however new rejections are presented below.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant has not provided arguments for the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, “the concrete pump” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the concrete pump” to mean “the truck-mounted concrete pump”.
Regarding claims 10-15, these claims depend from claim 9 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 9 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 9 noted above.
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 9 is 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.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 9 recites:
“A work machine system, comprising: a truck-mounted concrete pump having outriggers and a moving boom; an ultra-wideband (UWB) system comprising one UWB tag and a number of UWB anchors; a marking apparatus that is handleable by a user and is operable by the user, the UWB tag being mounted on the marking apparatus; and a control unit of the truck-mounted concrete pump that is designed so as, when the marking apparatus is operated, to store positions of the UWB tag ascertained by the UWB system at the time of the operation, and the control unit further being designed to calculate, based on the stored positions, a range of the moving boom with respect to a defined set-up location of the truck-mounted concrete pump so as to determine whether the range is sufficient to cover a defined surface area with the moving boom without requiring movement of the concrete pump”.
The limitations of storing positions of the UWB tag, calculating a range of the moving boom based on the stored positions, and determining whether the range is sufficient, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a control unit, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the control unit storing, calculating, and determining, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of mentally storing positions of the UWB tag, estimating a range of movement in his mind, and determining whether the range is sufficient in his mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a control unit to perform storing, calculating, and determining. The control unit in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic controller performing a generic computer function of storing, calculating, and determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a work machine system, a truck-mounted concrete pump having outriggers and a moving boom, an ultra-wideband system comprising on UWB tag and a number of UWB anchors, a marking apparatus, and a control unit, to perform storing, calculating, and determining, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-15 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as an operating device, which amount to generic computer components. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 9.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of the vehicle based on the stored positions. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Also, please note claims 10-11 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims recite a practical application of controlling movement of the boom based on the stored positions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo (US 20240293933 A1) in view of Mayer (US 20170144635 A1) and Kim (US 20210402600 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Longo discloses a work machine system, comprising (Paragraphs 0027, 0029);
a marking apparatus that is handleable by a user and is operable by the user (Paragraphs 0032-0035);
when the marking apparatus is operated (Paragraphs 0030-0034; “indicating working points, carried out manually by the operator O”);
based on the stored positions (Paragraphs 0030-0034; “indicating working points, carried out manually by the operator O”).
Longo does not specifically state a truck-mounted concrete pump having outriggers and a moving boom; a control unit of the truck-mounted concrete pump that is designed so as; the control unit further being designed to calculate, a range of the moving boom with respect to a defined set-up location of the truck-mounted concrete pump so as to determine whether the range is sufficient to cover a defined surface area with the moving boom without requiring movement of the concrete pump.
However, Mayer teaches a truck-mounted concrete pump having outriggers and a moving boom (Paragraphs 0024-0026; “The truck-mounted concrete pump 10 shown in FIG. 1 comprises a vehicle with a chassis 12, a four-armed concrete-distributing boom 14 arranged thereon and serving as a carrier for a concrete delivery pipe, four laterally extendable support arms 16”);
a control unit of the truck-mounted concrete pump that is designed so as (Paragraph 0024; “a computer-aided safety device 20”);
the control unit further being designed to calculate, a range of the moving boom with respect to a defined set-up location of the truck-mounted concrete pump so as to determine whether the range is sufficient to cover a defined surface area with the moving boom without requiring movement of the concrete pump (Paragraphs 0035-0037; “the safety device 20 determines which possibilities the operator has for operating the distributing boom 14”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with a truck-mounted concrete pump with a control unit designed to calculate and determine whether the range is sufficient of Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the boom of a truck-mounted concrete pump can be controlled remotely or by a marking apparatus. It is necessary to determine the range of the boom to ensure stability of the truck and capacity of the gears. One would have been motivated to combine Longo with Mayer as this achieves safety and stability of the truck. As stated in Mayer, “a concrete-distributing boom to variable work locations, the boom arms being moved, generally in a remote-controlled manner, by means of swivel drives. In order to ensure the required static stability, the machines must be supported during the working and pumping operation” (Paragraph 0003).
Longo does not specifically state an ultra-wideband (UWB) system comprising one UWB tag and a number of UWB anchors; the UWB tag being mounted on the marking apparatus; store positions of the UWB tag ascertained by the UWB system at the time of the operation.
However, Kim teaches an ultra-wideband (UWB) system comprising one UWB tag and a number of UWB anchors (Paragraphs 0053-0056);
the UWB tag being mounted on the marking apparatus (Paragraphs 0055, 0081, 0140; Kim modifies the pointer element 4 of the marking apparatus of Longo to a UWB tag);
store positions of the UWB tag ascertained by the UWB system at the time of the operation (Abstract, Paragraphs 0050, 0054, 0064, 0121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with UWB tags on the end of the marking apparatus, UWB anchors, and storing positions of the UWB tags of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tags can be placed on the marking apparatus and anchors on the work machine to create a UWB positioning system. The work machine is able to store positions of the UWB tag in order to recreate the trajectory of the tag. UWB signals are more reliable and penetrate through obstacles more effectively, which improves the position tracking of the UWB tag at the end of the marking apparatus. One would have been motivated to combine Longo with Kim as this achieves a reliable UWB position tracking system. As stated in Kim, “The embodiments of the present disclosure may be applied to the tracking robot, such as a delivery robot, a cart robot, and the like, which moves following a user, to improve reliability in tracking a user position” (Paragraphs 0155-0157).
Regarding claim 10, Longo discloses the control unit is further designed to control a movement of the boom on the basis of the stored positions (Paragraphs 0029, 0042-0043, 0050, 0065, Claim 15).
Regarding claim 13, Longo discloses the marking apparatus comprises an operating device by which the marking apparatus is operable (Paragraphs 0043, 0053; Operating device is mapped to activation button 8).
Regarding claim 14, Longo discloses the marking apparatus comprises a rod (Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0053, 0062, Fig. 3);
the operating device is mounted at one end of the rod (Paragraphs 0043, 0053).
Longo does not specifically state the UWB tag is mounted at an opposite end of the rod.
However, Kim teaches the UWB tag is mounted at an opposite end of the rod (Paragraphs 0055, 0081, 0140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with UWB tags on the end of the rod of the marking apparatus of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tags can be placed on the marking apparatus and anchors on the work machine to create a UWB positioning system. The work machine is able to store positions of the UWB tag in order to recreate the trajectory of the tag. UWB signals are more reliable and penetrate through obstacles more effectively, which improves the position tracking of the UWB tag at the end of the marking apparatus. One would have been motivated to combine Longo with Kim as this achieves a reliable and intuitive UWB position tracking system. As stated in Kim, “The embodiments of the present disclosure may be applied to the tracking robot, such as a delivery robot, a cart robot, and the like, which moves following a user, to improve reliability in tracking a user position” (Paragraphs 0155-0157).
Regarding claim 15, Longo discloses the rod is telescopable (Paragraphs 0034, 0053, 0062).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo, Mayer, and Kim, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cassano (US 20130110288 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Longo discloses a control unit designed to control a movement of the boom on the basis of the stored position.
Longo does not specifically state the control unit is further designed to control movement of the boom such that the boom does not adopt a boom position that corresponds to stored positions indicative of an obstacle.
However, Cassano teaches the control unit is further designed to control movement of the boom such that the boom does not adopt a boom position that corresponds to stored positions indicative of an obstacle(Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0038, 0040; “In the working spaces of the robots objects are also present (for example, the fixed workbench 2) that render altogether inaccessible to the robots the corresponding regions of their working space”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with controlling movement of the boom so the boom does not adopt the stored position of Cassano with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interference regions can be set up as locations where the robotic arm cannot move to. This can be because there might be other robots or objects in that interference region that pose a collision hazard. One would have been motivated to combine Longo with Cassano as this achieves reducing robotic arm interference risks. As stated in Cassano, “prohibited interference regions (PIRs), defined as regions of space where the presence of the robot must without fail always be inhibited, for example, on account of the permanent presence of one or more objects with which the robot must not interfere” (Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 12, Longo discloses a control unit and a boom.
Longo does not specifically state the control unit is further designed to generate a warning signal when the boom approaches a stored position indicative of an obstacle.
However, Cassano teaches the control unit is further designed to generate a warning signal when the boom approaches a stored position indicative of an obstacle (Paragraph 0026-0027; “In the working spaces of the robots objects are also present (for example, the fixed workbench 2) that render altogether inaccessible to the robots the corresponding regions of their working space”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Longo with generating a warning signal when the boom approaches the stored position of Cassano with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interference regions can be set up as locations where the robotic arm cannot move to. This can be because there might be other robots or objects in that interference region that pose a collision hazard. Warning signals can be generated when the boom approaches the interference regions in order to stop the boom and warn the operator that the robotic arm has an interference risk. One would have been motivated to combine Longo with Cassano as this achieves reducing robotic arm interference risks. As stated in Cassano, “prohibited interference regions (PIRs), defined as regions of space where the presence of the robot must without fail always be inhibited, for example, on account of the permanent presence of one or more objects with which the robot must not interfere” (Paragraph 0014).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669