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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on July 1, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to claims 1 and 8 are withdrawn in consideration of Applicant’s amendments. The checkbox notification for objection/s to the specification was with regard to the claim objections above.
The non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1 and 2 over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,460, in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2025/0044764 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1.
The provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection of claim 1 over claim 10 of Application No. 18/607,775, in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2025/0044764 is withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1.
The previous rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in consideration of Applicant’s amended claim 20.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Applicant Remarks pages 19-21, filed July 1, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicants amendments to claims 9 and 19 have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Applicant has included arguments about how claim limitations should be analyzed for subject matter eligibility. Examiner will focus on the substance of the provided arguments.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 1 is not directed to a method of organizing human activity (Remarks pages 11-12). Examiner gave no indication that the limitations of claim 1 were interpreted as a method of organizing human activity.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 1 is not directed to a mental process practicably performed in the human mind because of the complexity of blocking out specific object locations within an angular range between an upper carriage and a lower carriage and a radius range of a work implement that define an exclusion zone, or static arc, such that the operator is not alerted of objects detected in the exclusion zone (Remarks pages 12-13). However, as provided below in the analysis of the claim 1 limitations in step 2A Prong 1, this is equivalent to a person mentally looking for objects that may be potential obstacles in their peripheral vision and not looking for objects located in an area where a work implement is currently located. In other words, in instances where the person is controlling a work implement of a work vehicle when the upper carriage and lower carriage are aligned at 0 degrees, the person may mentally note and account for any potential obstacles in their peripheral vision (e.g. clockwise from 320 degrees to 270 degrees and clockwise from 90 degrees to 40 degrees) while not accounting for objects located in an area occupied by the work implement directly ahead (e.g. clockwise from 40 degrees to 320 degrees). Thus, the claim is directed to a mental process practicably performed in the human mind.
Applicant further argues that without a computer system to perform these operations an operator would be unable to be alerted of objects outside the exclusion zone and not alerted of objects within the exclusion zone. However, a person is able to mentally determine if objects in a particular area should be ignored and objects outside that area should not be ignored. Further, the use of a computer system to implement an abstract idea is indicative of a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding step 2A Prong 2, Applicant appears to argue that claim 1 recites specific and meaningful limitations such that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that “determining, by a controller of the work machine, a reference frame translation based on output provided by an angle sensor coupled to at least one of the upper frame and the lower frame, wherein the angle sensor is configured to measure a swing angle of the upper frame relative to the lower frame, wherein the reference frame translation translates polar coordinates of a location of the upper frame to a lower frame reference measured relative to the lower frame” recites specific and meaningful limitations. However, the limitation above recites a mental process practicably performed in the human mind. This is the equivalent of a person determining a coordinate transform that will translate a location of an upper frame measured in a polar coordinate system relative to an upper frame into a lower frame coordinate system. Coordinate transformations are mathematical operations practicably performed in the human mind. Further, the angle sensor is not positively recited in claim 1 and its output is merely used to determine a current location of the upper frame for determining a reference frame translation. Thus, the angle sensor output is interpreted as extra solution activity or mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, the controller is merely a processor that implements an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant argues that “determining, by the controller of the work machine, an exclusion zone based on the reference frame translation and a radius range of motion of the work implement relative to the lower frame, wherein the exclusion zone is defined at least in part by a static are corresponding to an angular range between the upper frame and the lower frame and the radius range of motion of the work implement” recites specific and meaningful limitations. However, the limitation above recites a mental process practicably performed in the human mind. This is the equivalent of a person determining an area where objects should be ignored. A person is able to mentally determine a coordinate transformation, a range of motion of a work implement, and an angular range between an upper frame and a lower frame based on their knowledge of a work machine and a work implement. Thus, a person can mentally determine an arc shaped area where objects should be ignored based on a reference frame translation and a range of motion of a work implement. Finally, the controller is merely a processor that implements an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant argues that “determining, by the controller of the work machine and with the aid of an object detection system, whether an object detected by the object detection system is interior or exterior to the exclusion zone” recites specific and meaningful limitations. However, the limitation above recites a mental process practicably performed in the human mind. This is the equivalent of a person determining if an object is within an area or not within an area. A person is able to mentally determine the location of an object and mentally define an area in their surroundings. Thus, a person can mentally determine if an object is within an area or not within an area. Further, the object detection system is claimed at a high level of generality and can reasonably be interpreted as a sensor for data gathering (i.e. extra solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, the controller and aid of an object detection system can be interpreted as a controller using input from a sensor or merely a processor that implements an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant argues that “in response to determining the object is exterior to the exclusion zone, generating, by the controller, an alert to an operator of the work machine” recites specific and meaningful limitations. However, the alert is recited at a high level of generality and is interpreted as extra solution activity or generic outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that claim 1 adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field (Remarks page 15-16). However, the additional elements of claim 1 including a controller using output from an angle sensor and aid from an object detection system to issue an alert are considered WURC under Electric Power Group (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Controllers or processors make calculations based on input information and output information based on the calculations. Further, the additional elements of claim 1 including the structural elements of a work machine with an upper frame rotatably assembled with a lower frame via a rotary joint and a work implement contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method in a data gathering step and field-of-use limitation and so does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Finally, see U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0044764 by Maley that includes a processor using output from an angle sensor and object detection sensors to determine the location of work components and prevents an alert when a detected object corresponds to a work component as well as the structural limitations recited in claim 1.
Regarding Ex Parte Desjardins, Applicant appears to be arguing that claim 1 is incorrectly evaluated at a high level of generality. However, the additional limitations of claim 1 are claimed at a high level of generality. Method steps that include a mental process with specificity are still interpreted as a mental process. Further, there is no clear argument as to where an interpretation at a high level of generality was incorrectly applied.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
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 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method, which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites: A method of operating a work machine including an upper frame rotatably assembled with a lower frame via a rotary joint, the work machine including a work implement coupled to the lower frame, the method comprising:
determining, by a controller of the work machine, a reference frame translation based on output provided by an angle sensor coupled to at least one of the upper frame and the lower frame, wherein the angle sensor is configured to measure a swing angle of the upper frame relative to the lower frame, wherein the reference frame translation translates polar coordinates of a location of the upper frame to a lower frame reference measured relative to the lower frame;
determining, by the controller of the work machine, an exclusion zone based on the reference frame translation and a radius range of motion of the work implement relative to the lower frame, wherein the exclusion zone is defined at least in part by a static arc corresponding to an angular range between the upper frame and the lower frame and the radius range of motion of the work implement; and
determining, by the controller of the work machine and with the aid of an object detection system, whether an object detected by the object detection system is interior or exterior to the exclusion zone; and
in response to determining the object is exterior to the exclusion zone, generating, by the controller, an alert to an operator of the work machine.
The limitation highlighted in claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consists of determining a translation between two coordinate systems by measuring a swing angle of an upper frame of a work machine relative to a lower frame, determining an area or zone associated with a work implement based on the translation and a range of motion of the work implement, and determining if a detected object is inside or outside the zone. This is the equivalent of a person mentally determining a translation between two coordinate systems based on observing, calculating or receiving a swing angle of an upper frame of a work machine relative to a lower frame, visualizing an area or static arc that encompasses a work implement based on the translation and a known range of motion of the work implement, and determining if an observed object is within the area encompassing the work implement or not. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites: A method of operating a work machine including an upper frame rotatably assembled with a lower frame via a rotary joint, the work machine including a work implement coupled to the lower frame, the method comprising:
determining, by a controller of the work machine, a reference frame translation based on output provided by an angle sensor coupled to at least one of the upper frame and the lower frame, wherein the angle sensor is configured to measure a swing angle of the upper frame relative to the lower frame, wherein the reference frame translation translates polar coordinates of a location of the upper frame to a lower frame reference measured relative to the lower frame;
determining, by the controller of the work machine, an exclusion zone based on the reference frame translation and a radius range of motion of the work implement relative to the lower frame, wherein the exclusion zone is defined at least in part by a static arc corresponding to an angular range between the upper frame and the lower frame and the radius range of motion of the work implement; and
determining, by the controller of the work machine and with the aid of an object detection system, whether an object detected by the object detection system is interior or exterior to the exclusion zone; and
in response to determining the object is exterior to the exclusion zone, generating, by the controller, an alert to an operator of the work machine.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The step of providing a measured swing angle of an upper frame relative to a lower frame includes a mental process as a person is able to mentally determine a swing angle. However, even if an output from an angle sensor step were determined to be an additional element, the step is recited at a high level of generality (as a general means of gathering information) and would amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The step of detecting an object includes a mental process as a person is able to mentally detect an object in their field of view. However, even if the aid of an object detection system were determined to be an additional element, the limitation is recited at a high level of generality and would amount to mere data gathering (i.e. insignificant extra solution activity). Further, the generation of an alert step is recited at a high level of generality (as a generic outputting of information such as displaying or transmitting of information) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is also a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Still further, the method and controller amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of determining a translation, determining an area or zone, and determining an object position are performed by a processor. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the structural limitations of a work machine including an upper frame coupled to a lower frame via a rotary joint and a work implement amount to an object on which the method of determining a translation, a zone, and position of an object operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, the use of the work machine contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method in a data gathering step and field-of-use limitation and so does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Thus, the additional structural limitations of the work machine do not amount to a particular machine and do not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As stated above in Step 2A, even if the steps for providing a measured swing angle of an upper frame relative to a lower frame performed by an angle sensor and aid from an object detection system were additional elements, providing measured data and outputting a result are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field under Electric Power Group (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, generating alerts based on calculations is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field. Processors make calculations based on input and output results based on the calculations. Receiving input data, calculating and outputting results are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by processors. (See also U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0044764 by Maley that includes a processor using output from an angle sensor and object detection sensors to determine the location of work components and prevents an alert when a detected object corresponds to a work component.)
Independent claim 10 is rejected using a similar rationale as applied to claim 1 above, as claim 10 is commensurate in scope with claim 1 but is drawn to a work machine.
Dependent claims 2-8, 11-18 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception, additional structural elements in a field of use and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 11-18 and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NICHOLAS P LANGHORNE whose telephone number is (571)272-5670. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/N.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights