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 .
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 1-20 are 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“An angle determining method, performed by a program controller of a split machine, comprising: obtaining angle data when an upper mechanism of a split machine rotates to a preset position, wherein the angle data comprise a first heading angle of the upper mechanism collected by a first sensor and a second heading angle of a lower mechanism of the split machine collected by a second sensor;
determining a first absolute value of a difference between the first heading angle and the second heading angle;
determining an actual heading angle of the lower mechanism according to the second heading angle and
determining an actual heading angle of the upper mechanism according to the second heading angle and an actual rotation angle between the upper mechanism being at the preset position and the lower mechanism, in a case where a second absolute value of a difference between the first absolute value and the actual rotation angle is greater than a first preset threshold; a relative rotation angle of the split machine is determined according to a difference between the actual heading angle of the upper mechanism and the actual heading angle of the lower mechanism; spatial attitude information of the split machine is determined based on the relative rotation angle; and a spatial attitude of the split machine is obtained by using the spatial attitude information to adjust movement of the split machine according to the spatial attitude.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “determining a first absolute value of a difference between the first heading angle and the second heading angle; and determining an actual heading angle of the lower mechanism according to the second heading angle and determining an actual heading angle of the upper mechanism according to the second heading angle and an actual rotation angle between the upper mechanism being at the preset position and the lower mechanism; a relative rotation angle of the split machine is determined according to a difference between the actual heading angle of the upper mechanism and the actual heading angle of the lower mechanism; spatial attitude information of the split machine is determined based on the relative rotation angle; and a spatial attitude of the split machine is obtained by using the spatial attitude information” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “in a case where a second absolute value of a difference between the first absolute value and the actual rotation angle is greater than a first preset threshold” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. This mental step represents a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. In the context of this claim, it encompasses a user manually evaluating the difference against a known threshold (a step of evaluation, observation, and judgement). The above mental step, under the BRI, alternatively/additionally is treated as a mathematical relationship step (MPEP 2106.04.II: “construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation”).
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 8.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recite a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: An angle determining method, performed by a program controller of a split machine, comprising: obtaining angle data when an upper mechanism of a split machine rotates to a preset position, wherein the angle data comprise a first heading angle of the upper mechanism collected by a first sensor and a second heading angle of a lower mechanism of the split machine collected by a second sensor; adjust movement of the split machine according to the spatial attitude;
In Claim 8: An angle determining device, configured to be arranged in a program controller of a split machine, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and, based on instructions stored in the memory, configured to: obtain angle data when an upper mechanism of a split machine rotates to a preset position, wherein the angle data comprise a first heading angle of the upper mechanism collected by a first sensor and a second heading angle of a lower mechanism of the split machine collected by a second sensor; adjust movement of the split machine according to the spatial attitude.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a program controller of a split machine (Claims 1 and 8), a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and, based on instructions stored in the memory (Claim 8) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitations that generically recite obtaining angle data when an upper mechanism of a split machine rotates to a preset position, wherein the angle data comprises a first heading angle of the upper mechanism collected by a first sensor and a second heading angle of a lower mechanism of the split machine collected by a second sensor (all independent claims) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. The limitation of “adjusting movement of the split machine according to the spatial attitude” is not meaningful as recited in generality and also represents insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7 and 9-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claims 17 and 18 (an induction switch configured to send an indication signal when the upper mechanism rotates to the preset position, Claim 17, and the induction switch comprises a transmitter and a receiver, one of the transmitter and the receiver being arranged at the upper mechanism and the other being arranged at the lower mechanism, Claim 18) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-20 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
The following references are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention:
SEKI KAZUHIDE (JP H0921605), hereinafter ‘KAZUHIDE’, discloses
An angle determining method, comprising:
obtaining angle data when an upper mechanism of an excavator (“split machine”) rotates, wherein the angle data comprise a first (heading) angle of the upper mechanism collected by a first sensor and a second (heading) angle of a lower mechanism of the split machine collected by a second sensor (detecting a relative turning angle of a revolving structure with respect to a traveling structure in a construction machine such as a hydraulic excavator or a hydraulic crane, p.1; the traveling unit 1 (i.e. lower mechanism, emphasis added) and the revolving unit 2 (i.e. upper mechanism, emphasis added) are rotating, p.2; the
arithmetic circuit 14 calculates the angle difference between the traveling body 1 and the revolving structure 2 with respect to the north direction, that is, the azimuth difference based on these signals, p.5; The relative turning angle between the traveling body 1 and the revolving structure 2 can be obtained, p.5; A magnetic sensor 97 for detecting geomagnetism is attached to the traveling body 1. Similarly, the magnetic sensor 98 for detecting the geomagnetism is used as the revolving structure 2, p.5);
determining a first absolute value of a difference between the first (heading) angle and the second (heading) angle (the traveling body and the revolving structure are each provided with a geomagnetic sensor, and the turning angle is detected by the output difference of the pair of geomagnetic sensors, p.6; means for calculating a different turning angle, Claim 1).
NASU KATSUYOSHI (JP H11107323), hereinafter ‘KATSUYOSHI’, discloses determining an actual (heading) angle of the lower mechanism according to the second (heading) angle (using the turning angle θ1 and the swing angle θ2 input in step 250, the sum (θ) of the turning angle θ1 and the swing angle θ2 is obtained from θ = θ1 + θ2 (step 310). Then, the sum angle θ is −18, p.8).
Chang-jian ZHU (CN 112327213), hereinafter ‘ZHU’, discloses determining a difference between the first absolute value and the actual rotation angle (generating a rotation angle; measuring the difference value of the actual rotating angle of the electric rotating body 1 and the measuring angle of the rotating angle sensor 152 by the test table encoder 7, and judging the detecting error of the rotating angle sensor 152, p.152, that implies a threshold, emphasis added.)
Xinjing Cheng (US 20200165800), hereinafter ‘Chen’, discloses a device for detecting a rotary angle and an excavator that includes angle sensors with different detection precision or detection principles. A gap may be left at the joint between the angle detection part 3 and the first rotating shaft 5, and an accommodation space for placing the angle detection part 3 is formed in the supporting base 4 [0032], i.e. a difference between the first absolute value and the actual rotation angle. The device may be designed as a height-adjustable structure so as to increase the application scope of the device (i.e. “adjust movement of the split machine according to the spatial attitude.”)
Shuang-shuang RUAN (CN 109059913), hereinafter ‘Ruan’, in a vehicle navigation system, proposes to use the GNSS and speedometer fast correcting initial attitude corner, considering the system obtains some deviation exists between the initial posture angle and the true value, in order to improve the precision of system initialization, combined GNSS output information and mileage information, using distance DR calculated in the position information and the GNSS location information system for establishing measuring equation, and the initial error propagation equation to establish system state equation, the system initial acquisition attitude angle for estimation and compensation (i.e. “adjust movement of the split machine according to the spatial attitude.”
However, in regards to Claims 1 and 8, the claims differ from the closest prior art, KAZUHIDE, KATSUYOSHI, ZHU, RUAN, and Cheng, either singularly or in combination, because the art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in a split machine, determining an actual heading angle of the lower mechanism according to the second heading angle and determining an actual heading angle of the upper mechanism according to the second heading angle and an actual rotation angle between the upper mechanism being at the preset position and the lower mechanism, in a case where a second absolute value of a difference between the first absolute value and the actual rotation angle is greater than a first preset threshold, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.9): … independent claim 1 has been amended to be performed by a program controller of a split machine and amended to adjust movement of the split machine according to the spatial attitude. Such a limitation cannot constitute a mental process.
The Examiner submits that generically reciting a program controller represents insignificant extra-solution activity because such controller is not a particular machine and cannot indicate a practical application. A step of adjusting a movement of a split machine also represents insignificant post solution activity similar to adjusting alarm limits in Flook.
As discussed in the rejection, this step is an additional element and is not allocated to a mental grouping.
The Applicant argues (pp. 9-10): … the relative rotation angle of the split machine when the upper mechanism rotates to the preset position can be accurately obtained, and the spatial attitude of the split machine can be accurately obtained, thereby improving the safety and the operation accuracy of the split machine. In other words, a non-abstract technical improvement has been achieved. Moreover, the non-abstract technical improvement is directed to a practical application of enhancing the safety and the operation accuracy of the split machine. Therefore, amended independent claim 1 as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application … The accurate relative rotation angle improves the spatial attitude of the split machine and thus improves the safety and the operation accuracy of the split machine, which is an improvement in the field of split machine.
The advantages listed in this argument are accomplished by the abstract idea steps.
However, according to MPEP 2106.05(a).II: “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
The Examiner additionally submits that the claims present only general linking of the use of the judicial exception (abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use. No specific enough process similar to the process of the 101-eligible claim (for example, “rubber molding process” of the Diamond v. Diehr case, Alice Corp.) is present in the current claims.
The claims are similar to Flook. In that case, a formula is used to update alarm limits with no disclosure related to an alarm system itself and, therefore, the claim did not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hareesha NG et al., “Kinematic and Isotropic Properties of Excavator Mechanism”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), NCERAME - 2015 Conference Proceedings, 2015, 6 p., discloses forward kinematics of an excavator mechanism. The force exerted by the tip of the bucket on the ground to remove the soil depends on the orientation of the tip of the bucket and transmission angle of the linkage. This digging force varies with the orientation of the tip of the bucket with ground surface. Only at some orientation, digging force will be at a maximum.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights