Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a communication on 11/25/2023. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. Applicant filed an IDS on 11/25/2025, it is considered.
Priority
4. Applicant claims an EP priority of 02/24/2023; a certified copy is requested.
Claimed Interpretations
5. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
6. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A. Per independent claim 1: Applicant claims a broad apparatus for a mining vehicle comprising a body, an actuator, a work implement, and a scanner, wherein the actuator is connected to the work implement and the body and arranged to change position of the work implement with respect to the body, the apparatus including at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
perform a calibration action of a calibration procedure for the mining vehicle;
receive scanning data of the calibration action on the basis of environment scanning performed by the scanner of the calibration action, wherein the scanning data is indicative of at least one position of a work implement portion of the work implement in relation to a body portion of the body:
receive calibration verification reference data indicative of at least one of a calibration target position of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion for the calibration action or a target movement range of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion for the calibration action;
process the scanning data and the calibration verification reference data to determine at least one of a deviation of current position of the work implement portion from the calibration target position or a deviation of current range of movement of the work implement portion from the target movement range; and
verify the calibration procedure on the basis of the determined at least one “direction”/ deviation
101 Analysis - Step 1: Independent claims 1, and 10 are directed to an broad apparatus, and a broad method of providing a verification of a deviation. Therefore, claims 1-15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, and 10 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claims 1, and 10 recite: a broad apparatus for a mining vehicle comprising a body, an actuator, a work implement, and a scanner, wherein the actuator is connected to the work implement and the body and arranged to change position of the work implement with respect to the body, the apparatus including at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, for:
perform a calibration (e.g., measuring) action of a calibration procedure for the mining vehicle;
receive scanning data of the calibration action on the basis of environment scanning performed by the scanner of the calibration action, wherein the scanning data is indicative of at least one position of a work implement portion of the work implement in relation to a body portion of the body (this claimed feature encompasses a mental/manual process of measuring related data):
receive calibration verification reference data indicative of at least one of a calibration target position of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion for the calibration action or a target movement range of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion for the calibration action (this claimed feature encompasses a mental process of receiving/reading data):
process the scanning data and the calibration verification reference data to determine at least one of a deviation of current position of the work implement portion from the calibration target position or a deviation of current range of movement of the work implement portion from the target movement range (e.g., merely use a generic computer); and
verify the calibration procedure on the basis of the determined at least one “direction”/ deviation (e.g., checking a path/“direction” of a tool - (this claimed feature encompasses a mental/manual process of measuring related data):
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) clearly constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Examiner would also note MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" (to estimate an accident may happen) to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("“[M]ental processes .. and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the translating is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer (for a calibration process) or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., there is no practical structure in pending claim 1 (i.e., using a generic sensor to collect data, and applying that “abstract idea” to a check/calibrate/scan a tool for a deviation at a very high level), such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong II
According to the 2019 PEG, the claim is to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer/controller/sensor to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., to operate a marine vessel) do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a sensor/scanner, a reference database (for accepted deviations), and a processor to perform the claimed steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component in the specification cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving/obtaining data, using a computer/controller unit, and outputting/generating processed data for verification are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background/IDSs recite that these claimed activities are all conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data, then processing/verifying them for accept/not-accept before using is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
B. Per independent claim 10: This claim has similar limitations as in claim 1; therefor, similar analysis is applied as shown above.
Accordingly, the independent claims 1, and 10 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
7. Dependent claims 2-9, and 11-15 are ineligible under 35 USC 101 because they incorporate their parent’s abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
8. 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
9. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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 “adapted to”, or “module for”/“module that” (as in pending claims 1-12) 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.
10. 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
11. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
For current examination purposes, the examiner assumes that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked in claims 1-15.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court found that an "adapted to" clause limited a machine claim where "the written description makes clear that 'adapted to,' as used in the [patent] application, has a narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed “actuator” is designed or constructed to be used in many different patent applications.
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.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure: i.e., claim language of “wherein the actuator is ... arrange to ...” (pending claim 1), “adapted to” (pending claim 10), or “adapted for” clauses, or “a position sensor” (pending claim 8), “configured to” (pending claims 4, 5, 9), although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in independent claim 10.
Above claimed functions invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 these function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(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 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-2, 4, 8-13, and 15 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wartenberg et al (US Pub. 20220324111 A1 – hereafter “Wartenberg’111”), and in view of Wang (US Pat. 10066367 B1)
: Wartenberg’111 suggests an apparatus, a method, and a corresponding storage medium for a mining vehicle comprising a body, an actuator, a work implement, and a scanner, wherein the actuator is connected to the work implement and the body and arranged to change position of the work implement with respect to the body, the apparatus including at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (see Wartenberg’111), cause the apparatus at least to:
perform a calibration action of a calibration procedure for the mining vehicle;
receive scanning data of the calibration action on the basis of environment scanning performed by the scanner of the calibration action, wherein the scanning data is indicative of at least one position of a work implement portion of the work implement in relation to a body portion of the body (see Wartenberg’111, claim 1, para. [0100], [0076] (for scanning, inputting), [0072] (for sending instructions to controller 408), para. [0049] (for a processor), see para. [0050] (for a system memory210):
receive calibration verification reference data indicative of at least one of a calibration target position of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion for the calibration action or a target movement range of the work implement portion in relation to the body portion for the calibration action (see Wartenberg’111 para. [0075] (for comparing recorded data to a stored one);
process the scanning data and the calibration verification reference data to determine at least one of a deviation of current position of the work implement portion from the calibration target position or a deviation of current range of movement of the work implement portion from the target movement range (see Wartenberg’111, para. [0063]); and
verify the calibration procedure on the basis of the determined deviation (see Wartenberg’111, para. [0063]).
Wartenberg’111 fail to disclose about a mining vehicle; however, Wang suggests that limitation (e.g., for ground digging, see Wang, Fig. 10, and col. 11 lines 40-49).
It 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 to implement Wartenberg’111 with Wang to applying a calibration for a mining vehicle since Wang’s vehicle also need to use Wartenberg’s calibration to reduce a deviation to a target in Wang’s vehicle (see Wang col 18 line 67 to col. 19 line 6).
14. Per dependent claims 2, 4, and 11-12: Wartenberg’111 also suggests about comparing obtained data to an allowable range/deviation with calibrations/(multiple adjusting deviations/ differences) (see Wartenberg’111, para. [0060]).
15. Per dependent claims 8-9: Applicant claims the reference data comprises position sensor data from a position sensor of the work implement, the position sensor data being indicative of position of the work implement in relation to the body portion (see Wang, Fig. 10, and col. 2 lines 23-36).
Applicant also claims the work implement comprises a bucket, and the mining vehicle is an autonomously driving vehicle and the apparatus is configured to perform the calibration procedure to perform autonomous driving of the mobile mining vehicle (see Wang, col. 29 lines 1-12).
16. Claims 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wartenberg’111, in view of Wang and in view of Kenkel et al (US Pub. 20210087777 A1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Applicant claims that scanning data comprises scanned point cloud data and determining the at least one deviation comprises receiving reference point cloud data of the work implement portion and the body portion; processing the scanned point cloud data and the scanned reference point cloud data to perform point cloud matching operation to detect the work implement portion and the body portion in the scanned point cloud data; and processing the scanned point cloud data to determine a distance between the detected work implement portion and the body portion in the scanned point cloud data.
Wartenberg’111, in view of Wang fail to point out scanning data comprises scanned point cloud data; however, Kenkel et al suggest that limitation (see Kenkel et al, para. [0025]).
It 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 to implement Wartenberg’111, in view of Wang with Kenkel et al to use point cloud data in 3D coordinate system so that each point could represents the entire external surface of an object.
Conclusion
17. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.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 (toll- free). 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 S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664