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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 09/10/2025, Applicant, on 12/09/2025 canceled claims 2, 4, and 15-17. Claims 1, 3, 5-14, and 18-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. The USC § 102 and 103 have been overcome by amending the claims and including allowable subject matter. However, the updated 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-14, and 18-20 applied in light of Applicant's amendments.
The Applicant argues “the "additional elements" of claims 1, 19, and 20 not only improve efficiency and safety at the work site, but also enable power supply work at the work site to be carried out safely and smoothly, thereby integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and significantly more the judicial exception.” (Remarks 12/09/2025).
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that Appellant’s assertion that the claims are meaningful/practical application lacks merit when taken in view of the disembodied nature of the steps. The claim steps are silent as to how, or by what means, the steps are accomplished, and therefore is disembodied such that the step(s) cannot be reasonably understood as amounting to a practical application as suggested Appellant. Applicant’s steps are not the result of an algorithm being applied to a technical process, as in Diehr or Research Corp., but instead is recited at the beginning of the claim, at a high level of generality, is disembodied, and has not been shown to yield any discernible transformation or improvement to the functioning of the technology, a technical process, or to the electronic processor used to implement the claim steps. The amended clam language is added as a wherein statement. The Examiner suggests clearly adding structural elements (positively reciting the plurality of structural elements) to appropriately reflect what/how is accomplishing the respective steps.
The claimed subject matter, is directed to an abstract idea by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of methods of organizing human activity or the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process for performing certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claimed subject matter is merely claims a method for calculating and analyzing information regarding power machines. Although it may be intended to be performed in a digital environment, the claimed subject matter (as currently claimed in the independent claim) speaks to the calculating and analyzing (modeling and projecting) data. Such steps are not tied to the technological realm, but rather utilizing technology to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the claimed subject matter can also be categorized as a Mental Process as it recites concepts performed in the human mind (observation and evaluation). The steps of calculating data, training/updating models, and generating a model can be performed by a human (mental process/pen and paper). The practice of calculating information and constructing models with set parameters and timelines can be performed without computers, and thus are not tied to technology nor improving technology.
The solution mentioned in the amended limitation is not implemented/integrated into technology and thus not an improvement to the technical field. Further, there is no integration into a practical application as the claims can be interpreted as humans per se, as the claims fail to tie the steps to technology; insignificant extra solution activities (which are merely calculating and/or analyzing data).
The steps relied upon by the Applicant as recited does not improve upon another technology, the functioning of the computer itself, or allow the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer. The Applicant is using generic computing components (processors) to perform in a generic/expected way (obtaining and analyzing data). The abstract idea is not particular to a technological environment, but is merely being applied to a computer realm. The process of calculating and analyzing data specifically for power usage, and performing additional analysis are not “necessarily rooted", but rather they are utilizing computer technology to perform the abstract idea. The Examiner does not recognize any elements of the Applicant's claims and/or specification that would improve or allow the computer to perform a function(s) not previously performable by the computer, or improve the functioning of the computer itself. It is insufficient to indicate that the claims are novel and non-obvious, and thus contain “something more.” Just because the components may perform a specialized function does not mean that that the computer components are specialized. As such the application of the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data regarding a service system, and performing correlation analysis is insufficient to demonstrate an improvement to the technology.
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, 3, 5-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3, 5-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry, it is first noted that the method (claim 19), computer program product (claim 20), and apparatus (claims 1-18) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of 2019 PEG, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental Process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process group.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s), as set forth in exemplary claim 19, are: acquiring (i) information indicating an operation plan for a work machine which indicates at least one of a stop time period or a number of stops of the work machine at each of a plurality of locations at which a portable or stationary power-feeding device which feeds power to the work machine traveling on electrical power can be arranged in advance, or (ii) information indicating an actual value of at least one of a stop time period or a number of stops of the work machine at each of the plurality of locations; and, based on the information acquired by the acquiring,(a) deciding a location, among the plurality of locations, at which the portable or stationary power-feeding device should be arranged in advance, and performing control to output information indicating the location decided, [[or]] and (b) performing control to output information for deciding a location, among the plurality of locations, at which the portable or stationary power-feeding device should be arranged in advance, wherein the portable or stationary power-feeding device includes a first kind of power- feeding device including a first kind of power supply and a second kind of power-feeding device including a second kind of power supply, the second kind of power supply has an amount of energy loss during startup that is larger than that of the first kind of power supply and/or an amount of suppliable electrical power that is larger than that of the first kind of power supply, and at least one of the steps (a) and (b) includes: deciding, among the plurality of locations, a first location at which the first kind of power-feeding device should be arranged and a second location at which the second kind of power-feeding device should be arranged, based on the information acquired by the first acquisition unit; performing control to cause a display device to display a first mode of a display object on a position, in a movement path diagram indicating a movement path of the work machine, that corresponds to the location at which the first kind of power- feeding device should be arranged; and performing control to cause a display device to display a second mode of a display object on a position, in the movement path diagram, that corresponds to the location at which the second kind of power-feeding device should be arranged. Independent claims 1 and 20 recite the CRM and system for performing the method of independent claim 1 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a first acquisition unit…a control unit…; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein a program, the program, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to…; (as recited in claims 1, 19, and 20). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: a first acquisition unit…a control unit…; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein a program, the program, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to…; (as recited in claims 1, 19, and 20) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0043]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (2-18) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. For example claims 2-7 “the control unit performs control to decide, based on the information acquired by the first acquisition unit, a location, among the plurality of locations, at which the power-feeding device should be arranged, and output information indicating the location decided; the first acquisition unit acquires information indicating an operation plan for the work machine which indicates at least one of a stop time period or a number of stops of the work machine at each of the plurality of locations at which the power-feeding device can be arranged; the first acquisition unit acquires information indicating an operation plan for the work machine which indicates at least one of a stop time period or a number of stops of the work machine at each of the plurality of locations at which the power-feeding device can be arranged; the first acquisition unit acquires (i) information indicating the operation plan for each of a plurality of the work machine, or (ii) information indicating an actual value of at least one of a stop time period or a number of stops of each of the plurality of work machines at each of the plurality of locations, and the control unit decides a location, among the plurality of locations, at which the power-feeding device should be arranged based on the information acquired by the first acquisition unit; the control unit identifies a consecutive period during which at least any of the plurality of work machines stops at each of the plurality of locations based on the information acquired by the first acquisition unit and decides a location, among the plurality of locations, at which the power-feeding device should be arranged based on a length of the period identified; the first acquisition unit acquires information indicating an operation plan for the work machine which indicates a stop time period and a number of stops of the work machine at each of the plurality of locations; based on a stop time period and a number of stops of the work machine at each of the plurality of locations indicated by the operation plan, the control unit calculates, for each of the plurality of locations, an evaluation value as a location at which the power-feeding device is to be arranged, and based on the evaluation value, the control unit preferentially decides a location with the evaluation value that is higher, among the plurality of locations, to be a location at which the power-feeding device should be arranged; the control unit calculates a product of a stop time period and a number of stops of the work machine at each of the plurality of locations and preferentially decides a location with the product value that is higher, among the plurality of locations, to be a location at which the power-feeding device should be arranged; the power-feeding device includes an electric accumulator, and the control unit decides a location, among the plurality of locations, where a stop time period of the work machine is shorter than a predetermined time period as well as a number of stops of the work machine is more than a predetermined number of times, to be a location at which the power-feeding device should be arranged; the power-feeding device includes an electric generator, and the control unit decides a location, among the plurality of locations, where a stop time period of the work machine is equal to or longer than a predetermined time period, to be a location at which the electric generator should be arranged; the power-feeding device includes a first kind of power-feeding device including an electric accumulator and a second kind of power-feeding device including an electric generator, and the control unit decides a location, among the plurality of locations, where a stop time period of the work machine is shorter than a predetermined time period as well as a number of stops of the work machine is more than a predetermined number of times, to be a location at which the first kind of power-feeding device should be arranged, and decides a location, among the plurality of locations, where a stop time period of the work machine is equal to or longer than the predetermined time period, to be a location at which the second kind of power-feeding device should be arranged.; the control unit decides a location, among the plurality of locations, where a stop time period of the work machine is shorter than the predetermined time period as well as a number of stops of the work machine is equal to or fewer than the predetermined number of times, to be a location at which neither the first kind of power-feeding device nor the second kind of power-feeding device is installed; a calculation unit that calculates, based on a stop time period and a number of stops of the work machine at each of the plurality of locations indicated by the operation plan, an expected value of an amount of electrical power to be supplied to the work machine from each of the first kind of power-feeding device and the second kind of power-feeding device; a second acquisition unit that acquires an actual value of an amount of electrical power supplied to the work machine from each of the first kind of power-feeding device and the second kind of power-feeding device arranged at the locations decided by the control unit; and an updating unit that updates at least one of the predetermined time period or the predetermined number of times based on a comparison result between the expected value of the amount of electrical power calculated by the calculation unit and the actual value of the amount of electrical power acquired by the second acquisition unit; the power-feeding device includes a first kind of power-feeding device including a first kind of power supply and a second kind of power-feeding device including a second kind of power supply, the second kind of power supply has an amount of energy loss during startup that is larger than that of the first kind of power supply and/or an amount of suppliable electrical power that is larger than that of the first kind of power supply, and the control unit decides, among the plurality of locations, a first location at which the first kind of power-feeding device should be arranged and a second location at which the second kind of power-feeding device should be arranged, based on the information acquired by the first acquisition unit; the power-feeding device includes a first kind of power-feeding device including a first kind of power supply and a second kind of power-feeding device including a second kind of power supply, the second kind of power supply has an amount of energy loss during startup that is larger than that of the first kind of power supply and/or an amount of suppliable electrical power that is larger than that of the first kind of power supply, and the control unit decides, among the plurality of locations, a first location at which the first kind of power-feeding device should be arranged and a second location at which the second kind of power-feeding device should be arranged, based on the information acquired by the first acquisition unit; wherein the control unit decides, among the plurality of locations, a location at which the first kind of power-feeding device should be arranged and a location at which the second kind of power-feeding device should be arranged, based on the information acquired by the first acquisition unit, performs control to cause a display device to display a first mode of a display object on a position, in a movement path diagram indicating a movement path of the work machine, that corresponds to the location at which the first kind of power-feeding device should be arranged, and performs control to cause a display device to display a second mode of a display object on a position, in the movement path diagram, that corresponds to the location at which the second kind of power-feeding device should be arranged; the first mode of the display object is different from the second mode of the display object in shape and/or color”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
/Arif Ullah/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625