DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-14 of application 18/634,085, filed on 12-April-2024, are presented for examination. The IDS received on the same date has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
2.1 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2.2 Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14: A peripheral monitoring method for a work machine [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h)], the peripheral monitoring method comprising:
acquiring information detected by a three-dimensional detector mounted on the work machine such that a part of the work machine is included in a measurement range of the three-dimensional detector [pre-solution activity (data gathering), 2106.05(g) using generic sensors, generic link to technical field, 2106.05(h)]; and
specifying a position or a pose of the three-dimensional detector based on at least a shape of the part of the work machine included in the detected information acquired in said acquiring [mental process/step].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. Therefore, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories [see MPEP 2106.03].
101 Analysis – Step 2A/Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
In Step 2A/Prong 1 of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes [see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)].
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of mental processes, because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
The claim recites the limitation of specifying a position or a pose of the three-dimensional detector based on at least a shape of the part of the work machine included in the detected information acquired in said acquiring. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Applicant’s specification even supports this conclusion, where, on page 4, applicant states: “In the related art, calibration for ascertaining at least one of the position or the pose of the space recognition device puts a heavy load on an operator who performs the setting processing. According to an aspect of the present disclosure, a technique for reducing a load on an operator in order to specify a position or a pose of a space recognition device provided in a work machine is provided.”
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A/Prong 2: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A/Prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: (1) Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (2106.05(f)); (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (2106.05 (g)); and/or (3) generic/generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (2106.05 (h)), do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of acquiring information detected by a three-dimensional detector mounted on the work machine such that a part of the work machine is included in a measurement range of the three-dimensional detector. The acquiring steps from the detectors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering work machine information for use in the specifying step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim [see MPEP 2106.05].
As discussed with respect to Step 2A/Prong 2, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception as a general means of acquiring three-dimensional information for use in the specifying step, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
2.3 Independent claims 1 (a system) and 13 (a device) are similar in scope to claim 14, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as detailed above in regard to claim 14.
Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowed Claims
3.1 The following is an Examiner's Statement of Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The present application is directed to a non-obvious improvement over the
following prior art references:
USP 12,252,870 - which provides a wear detection system that can be configured to receive a video stream including a plurality of images of a bucket of the work machine from a camera associated with the work machine. The bucket has one or more ground engaging tools (GET). The wear detection system can also be configured to identify a plurality of tool images from the video stream over a period of time. The plurality of tool images depict the GET at a plurality of instances over a period of time. The wear detection system can also be configured to determine a plurality of tool pixel counts from the plurality of tool image and determine a wear level for the GET based on the plurality of tool pixel counts.
USP 9,944,499 - which provides a computing system (CS) that calculates a three-dimensional (3D) position of an origin of a 3D upperworks coordinate system for a crane based on local coordinates of the crane. The origin is located along an axis of rotation between an upperworks of the crane and a lowerworks of the crane that is rotatably coupled with the upperworks. The CS transforms the 3D position of the origin from the local coordinates to global 3D coordinates using absolute position sensing data from first and second positioning sensors attached to the crane and using global 3D coordinates specific to the jobsite where the crane is located. The CS computes positions of at least one movable component of the crane with respect to a tracked object on the jobsite. The CS utilizes the computed positions to provide assistance in maneuvering the crane with respect to the tracked object.
USP Publication 2021/0246625 - which provides a loading machine includes a swing body, work equipment provided on the swing body, a posture measuring device to measure a posture of the swing body, and a depth detecting device to detect a depth of at least part of a surrounding of the swing body in a detection range. A control device controls the loading machine. The control device includes a posture information acquisition unit that acquires posture information indicating the posture measured, a detection information acquisition unit that acquires depth information indicating the depth detected, a target azimuth direction determination unit, and an output unit. The target azimuth direction determination unit determines a target azimuth direction in swing control based on the posture information and the depth information acquired when the swing body is stopped swinging. The output unit outputs a swing operation signal based on the target azimuth direction.
3.2 Claims 1-14 are considered allowable, since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP § 2111.01, none of the references of record, either individually or in combination, disclose the specific arrangement of elements in the same combination specified in independent claims 1, 13 and 14 for a peripheral monitoring system for a work machine, specifically including:
(Claim 1) “a three-dimensional detector mounted on the work machine such that a part of the work machine is included in a measurement range of the three-dimensional detector; and
processing circuitry configured to acquire information detected by the three-dimensional detector and to specify a position or a pose of the three-dimensional detector based on at least a shape of the part of the work machine included in the acquired detected information.”
3.3 There are inventions in the field that provide similar functionality and/or have similar features, as the prior art of record shows. The examiner's search failed to find this combination of features, nor was it obvious in light of the prior art. It is for these reasons that the claims of the present application are found to be patentable over the prior art.
Dependent claims 2-12 are deemed allowable as depending either directly or indirectly from allowed independent claim 1.
Prior Art
4. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of documents A-F on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, such documents defining the general state of the art which is not considered to be of particular relevance.
Response Guidelines
5.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed [see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133]. Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned [see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)].
5.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (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.
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.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661