DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Comment Regarding Non-Prior Art Issues
No prior art rejections are given for the instant claims. The examiner is available for a telephonic interview or, if the internet communications authorization form is filed, e-mail communications to come to agreement for claim language that would place the application in condition for allowance.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 8 is illegible and of insufficient quality. If needed, the figure may be enlarged or split across multiple sheets. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2 (and claims 3-6 and 9 by dependency): The word “further” in line 2 of claim 2 should be deleted.Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims appear to not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, appear to be directed to a signal per se or mere information in the form of data. What is the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “computer program product”? The examiner holds that this may read upon by the product (output or result of) of a computer program (i.e., a signal or mere transitory data). This 101 rejection may be easily overcome by using more standard language, such as: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon, wherein said instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:”, followed by the limitations recited in method form (similar to claim 13). Other similar language may be used.
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and claims 2-11 by dependency):
Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. See MEP 2173.05(g) “Functional Limitations”. The examiner holds that claim 1 extensively uses such functional language to merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention and, thus, the metes and bounds are unclear. This rejection may be easily overcome by re-wording the claim. See the 101 rejection above. Once the preamble is amended to overcome the 101 rejection, the body of the claim should positively recite the method steps that the program code is configured to carry out. The following is an example excerpt provided by the examiner.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon, wherein said instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of: calibrating, via a calibration routine, mounting alignments of a set of inertial measurement units (IMUs) on a construction vehicle, said construction vehicle being a dozer, excavator, motor grader, drive loader, skid loader or compact track loader, wherein the set of IMUs comprises at least two IMUs each being mounted on different parts of the construction vehicle, wherein the calibration routine comprises: performing a sequence of N calibration measurements with the set of IMUs, with N greater than or equal to three, and for each I-th of the N calibration measurements, with I consecutively from one to N, adopting an I-th pose of the construction vehicle, wherein for the first of the I-th poses: the construction vehicle is stopped, aligned in a first direction, and on level ground at a first location…
The phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the following limitations are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination and in light of the specification, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “a construction vehicle, said construction vehicle being a dozer, excavator, motor grader, drive loader, skid loader or compact track loader”. It is noted that “a construction vehicle” itself is an extremely broad term and could be any type of “vehicle” that could be in a construction site or in any way used in the process of construction. Applicant may amend to cover more types of vehicles or more specifically what is covered by “construction vehicle”, but the examiner holds that the functionalities of these types of vehicles (tilting/raising/lowering/rotating of buckets, booms, etc.) are critical to the core invention. It is noted that “substantially” is not an issue here as the specification provides a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (e.g., [0066]). This claim also contains other instances of “in particular” which render the claim indefinite (e.g., “in particular at the first location”). The examiner interprets the language following “in particular” as being part of the claimed invention.
The examiner notes that at least some of claims 2-11 contain issues similar to “i” above. These claims should be carefully reviewed. An exhaustive list is not provided by the examiner due to the extensive nature of the 112b issues. Further, amendments to claim 1 to overcome the 101 and 112b rejections will almost certainly require amendments to the dependent claims (e.g., “the computer program product”).
Regarding claim 4 (and claims 5-6 and 9 by dependency): It is unclear if “a first part”, “a first IMU”, “a second part”, and “a second IMU” are the same elements as or different elements than the two parts and two IMUs recited in claim 1. If these are different elements, claim 4 should be amended to start from “third”. If these are the same elements, then “a first part” should read “the first part” and the same for the remaining unclear limitations. Claims 5-6 are similarly unclear.
Regarding claims 7-8: “the blade or bucket” lacks antecedent basis in claim 1, on which these claims depend.
Regarding claim 12: This claim is rejected under 112b for the same reasons as sections “i” and “ii” of the 112b rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13: This claim is rejected under 112b for the same reasons as section “ii” of the 112b rejection of claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under both 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Of particular note is Kean (US 20230038266 A1), now U.S. Patent No. US 12,006,663 B2. This application contains allowed claims which are similar to the instant claims yet different enough so as to preclude a double patenting or obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Kean (US 20230038266 A1) does not qualify as prior art because it is by the same inventor and published within the grace period. Otherwise, the disclosure thereof would be utilized in a prior art rejection. A list of prior art found by the examiner is listed in the conclusion section below. Kalantar (US 20230018606 A1) teaches determining if a swing boom is static and, if so, correcting sensor data based on an observed swing angle ([0004]). Kalantar also teaches using swing boom stops as points for correcting sensor data. Kalantar fails to teach or suggest the three poses and triggering event, as claimed in the instant independent claims. Boss (US 20220364322 A1) teaches the calibration of IMU units on an excavator using one or more global navigation satellite system (GNSS) units / sticks. Boss suffers from at least the same deficiencies as Kalantar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KALANTAR; Shahab, (US 20230018606 A1), "IMU BASED SYSTEM FOR VERTICAL AXIS JOINT ANGLE ESTIMATION FOR SWING BOOM EXCAVATORS";
Boss; John, (US 20220364322 A1), "COMMISSIONING A CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE FOR MACHINE CONTROL";
ISHIHARA SHINJI et al., (EP 3904606 A1), "WORK MACHINE";
Green; Francisco R., (US 20200181884 A1), "YAW ESTIMATION"; and
MEDAGODA; Eran D.B. et al., (US 20170146667 A1), "SENSOR ALIGNMENT CALIBRATION".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855