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
Claims 1-17 and 21 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.
Step 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a vehicle comprising a chassis, tractive elements, prime mover, implement, connectivity module, and controller configured to establish networks, receive documents, compare versions, store updates, and display information. Therefore, the claim is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A Prong 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Limitation “compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second memory of the second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network, the second document being a second vehicle operation manual including user instructions for operating at least one of the prime mover or the implement”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because comparing two version dates or text blocks is a logical comparison that can be performed conceptually by a human mind.
Limitation “store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because the determination relies on the mental process of comparing documents. The storing the document is a conventional computer storage function used to execute that logic; it is not a mental process itself.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Limitations mentioned are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2a prong 2 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations
vehicle comprising a chassis
plurality of tractive elements supported by the chassis
prime mover configured to drive at least one of the plurality of tractive elements
implement configured to receive power from the prime mover
connectivity module configured to connect the vehicle to a local network
establish the local network between the connectivity module of the vehicle and a second vehicle
receive, via the local network communicably coupled to the vehicle, a first document associated with the vehicle
store the first document locally in a first memory on the vehicle
receive, via a user interface of the vehicle, a request for the second document
display the second document stored locally on the vehicle on the user interface to facilitate operation of the implement based on the second document
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to Functioning of Computer or Technical Field:
The recited vehicle components and connectivity modules confirm that the claim lacks specific structural technical parameters or algorithmic mechanics required to limit the invention to those improvements. The claim language defines broad operational goals at a high level of functional generality rather than an explicit technical mechanism that improves underlying computer processing speeds, memory limits, or network architecture hardware throughput. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0076], [0084], [0085], and [0083], these operations rely on conventional data structures and routine computer functions, leading to the conclusion that these elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application via an improvement to a computer or technical field.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine:
The recited vehicle components and connectivity modules confirm they do not constitute a specialized or non-generic structural machine configuration. While the claim may recite nominal physical nouns or hardware circuits, the specification defines these components broadly enough to encompass general-purpose processors, memory boundaries, or standard state machines. Instead, these components act as mere generic vehicles for executing software instructions because the execution path relies on ordinary computer elements performing standard data routing. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0037], [0041], and [0052], the operating environment utilizes ordinary processing units and basic storage structures, leading to the conclusion that these elements do not constitute a particular machine because they describe general-purpose computer components acting as mere vehicles for implementing software instructions without any specialized structural modification or unique technological configuration.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation:
The recited vehicle components and connectivity modules confirm they do not describe a permanent change of state for tangible items because they involve purely electronic manipulation of digital records rather than structural modifications to physical matter. Instead, they describe abstract concepts, digital routing, or basic computer logging since they merely represent conventional electronic data positioning and standard storage interactions. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0043], [0079], and [0085], the system manipulates digital bits rather than tangible items, leading to the conclusion that these elements do not constitute a particular transformation because they describe conventional electronic data manipulation and standard storage activities rather than a physical change of state or transformation of tangible matter.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations:
The recited vehicle components and connectivity modules confirm they describe a processing framework at a high level of functional generality because they define broad operational goals—such as basic data ingestion, storage, or interface delivery—without imposing specific technical constraints. Furthermore, they fail to limit the absolute scope of the claim beyond generic or routine operational practices since they cover standard data handling features common across generic processing platforms. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0076], [0080], and [0044], the boundaries are left functionally wide open, leading to the conclusion that these elements do not introduce meaningful limitations because they define the processing environment at a broad level of functional generality, failing to introduce specific technical constraints that narrow the preemptive scope of the exception.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply Exception:
The recited vehicle components and connectivity modules confirm they recite a desired operational outcome at a high level of functional generality because they state what broad results are accomplished without specifying concrete technical mechanisms or specialized physical parameters to achieve them. They represent basic automation constraints because they apply to any computing environment performing routine input/output or database steps. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0076], [0084], and [0085], the descriptions focus entirely on high-level goals rather than specific architectural boundaries, leading to the conclusion that these elements represent a mere instruction to apply the exception under MPEP § 2106.05(f) because they recite broad operational results at a high level of functional generality without incorporating specific, unconventional technical mechanisms to execute those results.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity:
The recited vehicle components and connectivity modules confirm they represent routine preprocessing or post-processing because they describe basic data acquisition or display operations that occur prior to or following the primary algorithmic exception logic. They are merely incidental to the primary process since they serve as conventional input/output mechanisms that facilitate standard interaction without adding an inventive or technical step to the actual core solution. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0076], [0080], [0045], and [0072], these activities are standard administrative or formatting tasks, leading to the conclusion that these elements constitute insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g) because they represent standard data indexing preprocessing or conventional interface post-processing that is merely incidental to the primary implementation of the abstract ideas.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment:
The recited vehicle components and connectivity modules confirm they do not integrate into a field of use that imposes meaningful limits because the referenced technical environment is broad and conventional, failing to impose hard physical or structural limits beyond standard commercial system constraints. Instead, they represent a conventional field-of-use limitation without technological improvement because restricting the abstract concept to this specific application area merely limits where the calculations are deployed without modifying the underlying machine infrastructure. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0002] and [0025], the environment is described as generic backdrop, leading to the conclusion that these elements are not integrated into a meaningful field of use because they merely restrict the application of the abstract exceptions to a conventional technological field without providing any non-generic structural or functional improvements to that environment.
Step 2B The ordered combination of true additional elements fails to add an inventive concept because they utilize routine, well-understood, and conventional processing activities executed on generic hardware. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0076], [0084], and [0085], these elements describe standard data comparison and storage pipelines that are conventional in the art. A factual inquiry into the hardware boundaries confirms that these additional elements describe a general software/system process running on conventional hardware rather than a specific, non-generic technological solution to a technical problem inherent to the machine itself. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0037], [0041], and [0052], the baseline hardware platform configurations utilize standard processing units and memory structures without specialized modifications. Because the ordered combination of additional elements only utilizes standard computer components and conventional steps to execute the abstract indexing and sorting concepts, the independent claim is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2 incorporates all limitations of claim 1 and adds a local mesh network established by the vehicle and second vehicle. This communication infrastructure describes a conventional technological environment at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs [0027], [0031]. By claiming this networking objective without incorporating structural constraints, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic automation. The claim constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to provide an inventive concept or integrate the exception into a practical application, rendering claim 2 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3 incorporates all limitations of claim 1 and adds a local mesh network established by the second vehicle and third vehicle. This communication infrastructure describes a conventional technological environment at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs [0027], [0031]. By claiming this networking objective without incorporating structural constraints, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic automation. The claim constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to provide an inventive concept or integrate the exception into a practical application, rendering claim 3 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4 incorporates all limitations of claim 3 and adds detecting the second vehicle and automatically joining the local network in response. This feature outlines an automated networking step that describes an algorithmic routine at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs [0027], [0036]. The broad claim language fails to capture narrow technical structures or specific processing circuit rules for how detection triggers automatic network entry. The limitation represents a mere instruction to apply the exception on a generic computing platform, rendering claim 4 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 incorporates all limitations of claim 1 and adds a user input and display for receiving a request and providing a second document. This hardware addition restricts the abstract concept to a conventional technological environment at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs [0034], [0076]. By claiming this user interaction objective without structural limitations, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic computer components. The claim represents insignificant extra-solution data presentation activity that fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, rendering claim 5 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6 incorporates all limitations of claim 5 and adds not providing a first document when the controller provides a second document to the display. This logical rule describes a data manipulation outcome at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs [0076], [0084]. By claiming this information exclusion objective without structural limitations, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic computer automation. The claim limitation represents a mere instruction to apply the exception, rendering claim 6 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7 incorporates all limitations of claim 1 and adds that the vehicle is a lift device. This field-of-use limitation restricts the abstract concept to a conventional technological environment at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs [0025], [0033]. By claiming this field-of-use objective without incorporating structural limitations from the specification, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic automation. Restricting the abstract data operations to standard lift components fails to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept, rendering claim 7 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8 incorporates all limitations of claim 1 and adds receiving a first document from a remote server coupled to the local network. This networking step describes a conventional data acquisition routine at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs [0043], [0075]. Gathering data via standard client-server connections represents insignificant extra-solution data collection activity that fails to integrate the exception, rendering claim 8 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9 incorporates all limitations of claim 1 and adds receiving a second request for a third document from a second vehicle and providing the third document via the local network. This feature outlines a bidirectional communication sequence that describes an algorithmic routine at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs [0076], [0084]. By claiming this data transfer objective without incorporating structural constraints, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic computer automation. The claim represents a mere instruction to apply the exception, rendering claim 9 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10 incorporates all limitations of claim 1 and adds determining if a first document is more recent than a second document when comparing documents. This cognitive evaluation step describes a data manipulation outcome at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs [0084], [0085]. By claiming this comparison objective without incorporating structural constraints, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic date evaluation code. This limitation represents a mere instruction to apply the exception, rendering claim 10 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11 incorporates all limitations of claim 10 and adds providing a first document to a second vehicle in response to a determination that the first document is more recent than the second document. This conditional sync step describes a data manipulation outcome at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs [0084], [0085]. By claiming this update objective without incorporating structural constraints from the specification, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic version update routines. The claim represents a mere instruction to apply the exception, rendering claim 11 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12
Step 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites “A documentation system comprising: a plurality of vehicles... connectivity modules... and a controller...” Therefore, the claim is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A Prong 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Limitation “determine the second vehicle is of a same type as the first vehicle”, classification: Mental Process. This step recites a basic categorization and comparison operation. Identifying whether two data records or vehicle assets share a common type represents a routine informational classification step that can be performed conceptually via mental logic or with pen and paper.
Limitation “compare a first document stored locally... with a second document stored locally... wherein the first document and the second document are vehicle operation manuals”, classification: Mental Process. This limitation recites comparing information content (operation manuals). Comparing data text blocks to determine variance or characteristics is a mental process and information collection concept.
Limitation “index the second document to a plurality of vehicle states of the first vehicle”, classification: Mental Process. This step is a basic sorting choice, as telling the controller to link a document to a list of vehicle conditions represents a routine way to organize files. Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea under the grouping of Mental Processes.
Limitation “store the second document locally on the first vehicle when the second document is more recent than the first document”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because the determination relies on the mental process of comparing documents. The storing the document is a conventional computer storage function used to execute that logic; it is not a mental process itself.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Limitations mentioned are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2a prong 2 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations
a plurality of vehicles including a first vehicle and a second vehicle
communicatively connected via connectivity modules onboard the first vehicle and the second vehicle to establish via a local area network
establish the local network between the connectivity modules of the vehicle and the second vehicle, the local network being a mesh network
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to Functioning of Computer or Technical Field
An eligibility evaluation of the additional elements confirms that the claim lacks the specific, structural technical parameters or algorithmic mechanics required to improve a computer or technical field. The claim language defines broad operational goals at a high level of functional generality rather than a specific hardware modification or low-level network protocol change. Restricting the software application to automated version checking does not improve the underlying computer infrastructure itself, leading to the conclusion that these elements do not integrate the exception under MPEP § 2106.05(a).
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
An eligibility evaluation confirms that the recited elements do not constitute a specialized or non-generic structural machine configuration. While the claim recites physical nouns such as “vehicles”, “connectivity modules”, and a “controller”, these components are generic backdrop vehicles used to implement software instructions. Bounding an abstract process to a specific environment (vehicles) using generic hardware components performing standard data routing does not transform the system into a particular machine configuration under MPEP § 2106.05(b).
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
An eligibility evaluation confirms that the claimed elements do not describe a permanent physical transformation of matter or tangible items. The data handling operations involve purely manipulation of digital data. Manipulating digital data is not a physical change of state for tangible matter, so it fails the test for a particular transformation under MPEP § 2106.05(c).
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations
An eligibility evaluation confirms that the claim fails to introduce specific technical constraints that narrow the preemptive scope of the exception. The claim language is drafted so broadly that it covers any routine data-handling system that performs basic file comparisons between documents. Because the boundaries are left functionally open to encompass standard data synchronization practices, the additional elements fail to introduce other meaningful limitations under MPEP § 2106.05(e).
MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply Exception
An eligibility evaluation confirms that these limitations represent a mere instruction to apply the abstract logic on a machine platform. The claim elements outline desired functional outcomes (“determine”, “compare”, “index”, “store”) without specifying the concrete, step-by-step technological mechanics necessary to achieve them. Simply executing an abstract data organization and sorting routine on an automated computer network represents basic automation rather than a patent-eligible technical architecture under MPEP § 2106.05(f).
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
An eligibility evaluation confirms that the additional communication elements represent routine preprocessing and post-processing steps. Establishing a local network link represents a way used to gather information prior to comparison. Similarly, storing the file locally represents a standard post-solution activity. These steps serve as generic input/output mechanisms that facilitate the execution of the abstract ideas without adding an inventive step to the actual core solution under MPEP § 2106.05(g).
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment
An eligibility evaluation confirms that the referenced technological environment does not impose meaningful limits on the exception. Restricting the abstract concepts of document indexing, comparison, and storage to the field of vehicle operation manuals merely restricts where the calculations are deployed. Limiting an abstract idea to a conventional technological field or a specific industry sector (vehicular fleet management) without providing structural or functional improvements to that environment fails to integrate the exception under MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B The ordered combination of the additional elements fails to add an inventive concept because the combination merely recites routine, well-understood, and conventional data management activities executed on a generic hardware platform. As detailed in the specification, the individual components consist of ordinary processing units and basic storage modules performing standard network discovery and data transmission. When arranged as an ordered combination, these components simply execute the abstract concepts of document categorization and version comparison through standard automation steps. Because the combination fails to provide an unconventional technical implementation to solve a machine-centric problem, the ordered combination does not supply an inventive concept.
Claim 13 incorporates all limitations of claim 12 and adds that the controller determines if the first document is more recent than the second document, then stores the second document when it is newer. This claim describes a data manipulation outcome at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs, [0085]. By claiming this recency determination objective without incorporating structural limitations from the specification, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic automation. Claim 13 fails to provide an inventive concept or integrate the exception into a practical application, rendering it ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14 incorporates all limitations of claim 12 and adds that the controller determines if the first document is more recent than the second document, then provides the first document to the second vehicle when it is newer. The claim describes a data manipulation outcome at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs, [0085]. By claiming this reverse update objective without incorporating structural limitations from the specification, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic automation. Claim 14 fails to provide an inventive concept or integrate the exception into a practical application, rendering it ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 15 incorporates all limitations of Claim 12 and adds that the first vehicle includes a user interface with a display for receiving requests and providing documents to users. This feature restricts the abstract concept to a conventional technological environment at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs, [0076]. By claiming this interface objective without incorporating structural limitations from the specification, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic automation. The claim represents insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, rendering Claim 15 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 16 incorporates all limitations of Claim 12 and adds that the controller does not provide the first document when providing the second document to the display. The claim describes a data manipulation outcome at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs, [0084]. By claiming this display control objective without incorporating structural limitations from the specification, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic automation. Claim 16 fails to provide an inventive concept or integrate the exception into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(f), rendering it ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 17 incorporates all limitations of Claim 12 and adds that the first vehicle is a lift device. This limitation restricts the abstract concept to a conventional technological environment at a high level of functional generality, as detailed in specification paragraphs, [0067]. By claiming this limitation without incorporating structural limitations from the specification, standard industry operations can accomplish the goal using generic automation. The claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept under MPEP § 2106.05(h), rendering Claim 17 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The claim recites “A vehicle comprising: a chassis; a plurality of tractive elements supported by the chassis; a prime mover... and a controller...” Because the claim recites a concrete physical structure composed of mechanical and electrical components configured to act as an integrated hardware unit, the claim is a machine, which is a valid statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 21
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites “A vehicle comprising: a chassis; a plurality of tractive elements supported by the chassis; a prime mover... and a controller...” Because the claim recites a concrete physical structure composed of mechanical and electrical components configured to act as an integrated hardware unit, the claim is a machine, which is a valid statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2a prong 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Limitation “store the first document locally on the vehicle, the first document being a first vehicle operation manual”, classification: Mental Process. This step is a basic sorting choice, as telling the controller to save a file only if it is a vehicle operation manual represents a routine way to organize files. Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea under the grouping of Mental Processes.
Limitation “compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second vehicle...”, classification: Mental Process. This step is just a basic file comparison, as checking one operation manual against another only identifies differences in date or version timestamps using standard computer logic. Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea under the grouping of Mental Processes.
Limitation “store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because the determination relies on the mental process of comparing documents. The storing the document is a conventional computer storage function used to execute that logic; it is not a mental process itself.
Limitation “index the second document to a plurality of vehicle states”, classification: Mental Process. This step is a basic sorting choice, as telling the controller to link a document to a list of vehicle conditions represents a routine way to organize files. Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea under the grouping of Mental Processes.
Limitation “determine, based on the sensor data, that the vehicle is in a first vehicle state of the plurality of vehicle states”, classification: Mental Process. This step is a basic sorting choice, as evaluating sensor data-which represents vehicle status information-to match a specific vehicle condition is a routine way to categorize data. Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea under the grouping of Mental Processes.
Limitation “display at least a portion of the second document related to the first vehicle state to a user interface...”, classification: Mental Process. This step is a basic information display outcome, as selecting and retrieving a specific text segment from memory based on a detected status represents a routine data collection and presentation task for user convenience. Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea under the grouping of Mental Processes
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Limitations mentioned are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2a prong 2 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The additional elements: a chassis, a plurality of tractive elements supported by the chassis, a prime mover, an implement, a sensor, a local network link, and a user interface.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to Functioning of Computer or Technical Field:
An eligibility evaluation of the additional elements confirms that the claim lacks the specific structural technical parameters or mechanics required to improve a computer or technical field. The claim language defines broad operational goals at a high level of functional generality (“receive”, “compare”, “determine”, “display”) rather than a specific low-level protocol modification. As detailed in specification paragraphs, [0041], [0043], and [0084], these operations rely entirely on conventional data structures and standard electronic data transmission techniques common across general-purpose platforms. Restricting the software loop to automated manual delivery does not improve the underlying computer infrastructure itself.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine:
An eligibility evaluation confirms that the recited elements do not constitute a specialized or non-generic structural machine configuration. While the claim recites physical vehicle components, these components represent conventional, generic technological backdrop for lifting equipment as outlined in specification paragraphs, [0025], and [0033]. They are not structurally modified by the software application. As described in specification paragraphs, [0041], and [0042], the software execution path relies on an ordinary general-purpose controller performing standard data routing over a standard local network, acting as a mere vehicle for implementing software instructions.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation:
An eligibility evaluation confirms that the claimed elements do not describe a permanent physical transformation of matter or tangible items. The data handling operations involve purely electronic manipulation of digital records and sensor values. As detailed in specification paragraphs, [0079], and [0085], the system manipulates digital bits rather than tangible items to synchronize document records across distributed vehicles. Shifting electronic files between storage boundaries and modifying display pixels represents routine data positioning rather than a physical change of state for tangible matter.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply Exception:
An eligibility evaluation confirms that these limitations represent a mere instruction to apply the abstract logic on a machine platform. The claim elements outline desired functional outcomes (“receive”, “compare”, “store”, “determine”, “display”) without specifying the concrete, step-by-step technological mechanics necessary to achieve them. As detailed in specification paragraphs, [0084], and [0085], the descriptions focus entirely on high-level goals and sequential processing targets rather than specific architectural boundaries. Simply executing an abstract data comparison and conditional filtering routine on an automated vehicular processor represents basic automation.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity:
An eligibility evaluation confirms that the additional hardware components and data acquisition steps represent routine preprocessing and post-processing steps that are merely incidental to the primary algorithmic exception logic. Gathering data via a generic sensor or a local network link represents a conventional data acquisition mechanism used to collect information prior to evaluation. Similarly, displaying the text segment on a standard user interface represents a standard post-solution data presentation function. As detailed in specification paragraphs, [0076], and [0080], these activities represent standard formatting or administrative input/output mechanisms.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment:
An eligibility evaluation confirms that the referenced technological environment does not impose meaningful limits on the exception. Restricting the abstract concepts of document indexing, comparison, and state-based delivery to the field of vehicle operation manuals merely restricts where the calculations are deployed. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0002] and [0025], the application environment is described as a generic backdrop for work equipment and machinery, failing to provide structural or functional improvements to that environment.
Step 2b The ordered combination of the additional elements fails to add an inventive concept because the combination merely recites routine, well-understood, and conventional data management activities executed on generic hardware. As detailed in specification paragraphs, [0085], and [0086], the sequential update process utilizes generic data and process pipelines for document comparison, storage decisions based on recency determination, and indexing operations. Furthermore, a factual inquiry into the hardware boundaries as detailed in specification paragraphs, [0041], and [0042] confirms that these components consist of ordinary processing units, basic storage modules, and standard mechanical components without specialized structural modification. Because the ordered combination of additional elements only utilizes standard computer components and conventional steps to execute the abstract indexing and sorting concepts, it does not supply an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A review of the specification, including user interface paragraphs [0043], [0044], [0072], and processing update pipelines [0084], [0085] confirms that the disclosure fails to describe this specific conditional display exclusion rule.
Response to Arguments
Section 35 U.S.C. 101
Pg. 7-9, Applicant argues that “… Claim 1, which is directed to a “vehicle,” has been amended to recite, among other elements:
a prime mover configured to drive at least one of the plurality of tractive elements;
an implement configured to receive power from the prime mover; a connectivity module configured to connect the vehicle to a local network; and
a controller configured to:
establish the local network between the connectivity module of the vehicle and a second vehicle;
receive, via the local network communicably coupled to the vehicle, a first document associated with the vehicle;
store the first document locally in a first memory on the vehicle, the first document being a first vehicle operation manual including user instructions for operating at least one of the prime mover or the implement;
compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second memory of the second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network, the second document being a second vehicle operation manual including user instructions for operating at least one of the prime mover or the implement;
store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document; and
receive, via a user interface of the vehicle, a request for the second document; and
display the second document stored locally on the vehicle on the user interface to facilitate operation of the implement based on the second document.
(underlining indicating added text). The amendments to claim 1 specify that the vehicle includes a “connectivity module” so that the controller “establish[es] the local network between the connectivity module of the vehicle and a second vehicle.” And the amendments to claim 1 specify that the controller is configured to “display the second document stored locally on the vehicle on the user interface to facilitate operation of the implement based on the second document.” Applicant respectfully submits that not only are the connectivity module, the user interface, and the implement tangible physical components, but that the amendments to claim 1 link the controller's “establish the local network step” to the tangible, physical “connectivity module.” Therefore, the amendments to claim 1 amount to significantly more than a mental process or an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites that the controller stores the first document “locally in a first memory on the vehicle,” and compares the first document with a second document “stored locally on a second memory” of a second vehicle. Applicant respectfully submits that such vehicle memories are tangible physical components. And the controller's store and compare steps for storing the second vehicle operation manual onboard the vehicle are linked with the vehicle's “prime mover” and the “implement,” which are both clearly tangible physical components of a vehicle. Therefore, the amended claim 1 amounts to significantly more than a mental process or an abstract idea.
Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” Memorandum from Charles Kim, Deputy Commission for Patents, “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101” 2-3 (August 4, 2025), uspto.gov. Here, the claim recites a specific technical solution to a real-world problem: ensuring that vehicles operating in the field have access to the most current operation manuals without requiring continuous connectivity to a central server. The claimed invention achieves this by establishing a local mesh network between vehicles and automatically synchronizing documentation based on recency comparisons. This is not merely “applying” an abstract idea using generic computer components; rather, it is a particular technological solution that improves how fleet vehicles manage and distribute critical operational documentation
.
Furthermore, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office Action's characterization of claim 1 as a mental process and submits that claim 1 does not recite a mental process because claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The MPEP states that “[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations.” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Additionally, the USPTO provides the following guidance for evaluating claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101: “The mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind,” and “Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis).” Memorandum from Charles Kim, pages 2-3.
Contrary to the USPTO guidance, the current rejection of claim 1 expands the mental process grouping to encompass claim 1, which cannot practically be performed in the human mind. When amended claim 1 is read in its entirety, the human mind is not equipped to:
establish the local network between the connectivity module of the vehicle and a second vehicle;
receive, via the local network communicably coupled to the vehicle, a first document associated with the vehicle;
store the first document locally in a first memory on the vehicle, the first document being a first vehicle operation manual including user instructions for operating at least one of the prime mover or the implement;
compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second memory of the second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network, the second document being a second vehicle operation manual including user instructions for operating at least one of the prime mover or the implement;
store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document; and
receive, via a user interface of the vehicle, a request for the second document; and
display the second document stored locally on the vehicle on the user interface to facilitate operation of the implement based on the second document. (Emphasis added).
Therefore, amended claim 1 is not a mental process, as the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations recited in amended claim 1…”
Applicant argues that connectivity module, user interface, and implement make claim 1 eligible because they are linked to controller steps for establishing networks and displaying documents. Specification paragraphs, [0041], and [0052] describe these as general-purpose processors, memory devices, and connectivity modules without specialized structural modifications. A connectivity module performs standard data transmissions. A user interface is conventional input. An implement provides a field-of-use context. The claim text recites broad functional goals such as establishing networks and comparing documents but without capturing any narrow, specialized structural hardware configurations. Because the claim relies on generic computer components performing routine networking, storage, and display operations, it does not provide a patent-eligible restriction.
Applicant argues that because vehicle memories, the prime mover, and the implement are tangible physical components, linking the controller's “store” and “compare” data steps to these onboard physical structures ensures that claim 1 amounts to significantly more than a mental process. However, a mere recitation of physical vehicle elements does not alter the underlying abstract nature of the mental process. Specification paragraphs [0037] and [0041] define the onboard memories as basic, generic storage media. Storing data on a memory chip is a routine computer function. The claim lacks any direct impact between the abstract document comparison step and the physical hardware. The controller merely evaluates a version timestamp of a manual. It does not dynamically adjust engine timing, modify power of the implement. Restricting an abstract concept to a vehicle does not create an inventive concept if the underlying computer steps remain routine.
Applicant states the claim achieves a particular technological solution by establishing a local mesh network and automatically synchronizing documentation based on recency comparisons. However, Step 2A prong 2 requires the claim to change or improve the underlying technical field or machine infrastructure. The claim language sets forth a broad operational goal – storing updated document files—at a high level of functional generality. Establishing a local network and comparing electronic timestamps utilizes standard wireless hardware and conventional comparing logic. Because these steps using conventional mechanisms without altering the physical or mechanical operations of the vehicle itself, they fail to integrate the abstract exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant argues that the claim cannot be a mental process because a human mind cannot build a mesh network, and the claim merely involves an exception. Here, the claim explicitly commands the controller to “compare the first document with a second document...” - a logical comparison step is a mental process. This mental process is executed inside a vehicle controller and network module does not change the fact that the exception is explicitly recited. The human mind is fully capable of comparing two documents side-by-side to determine which is more recent; executing this process through automated computer components does not remove the core limitation from the abstract category.
The Applicant argues that the claim solves a technical problem by technical means, but fails to point to any specific, narrow structural limitations within the claim text—or even any specific paragraph disclosures in the specification—that define a specialized computational rule. The argument relies entirely on high-level functional concepts.
Pg. 11- 21, Applicant argues that “ Claim 21, which is directed to a "vehicle," has been amended to recite, among other elements:
a sensor configured to detect one or more states of the vehicle; anda controller configured to:
receive, via a local network communicably coupled to the vehicle, a first document associated with the vehicle;
store the first document locally on the vehicle, the first document being a first vehicle operation manual;
compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network;
index the second document to a plurality of vehicle states;
store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document; andreceive, via the sensor, sensor data indicative of one or more of the plurality of vehicle states;
determine, based on the sensor data, that the vehicle is in a first vehicle state of the plurality of vehicle states; and
display at least a portion of the second document related to the first vehicle state to a user interface based on determining that the vehicle is in the first vehicle state, the second document stored locally on the vehicle.
(underlining indicating added text). The amendments to claim 21 specify that the controller "index[es] the second document to a plurality of vehicle states," "receive[s], via the sensor, sensor data indicative of one or more of the plurality of vehicle states" "determine[s], based on the sensor data, that the vehicle is in a first vehicle state of the plurality of vehicle states," and "display[s] at least a portion of the second document related to the first vehicle state to a user interface based on determining that the vehicle is in the first vehicle state." The amendments to claim 21 link the controller's indexing and determining steps to the sensor data received from the tangible, physical sensors onboard the vehicle. And said sensor data is indicative of vehicle states, where the detecting of vehicle states cannot be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the amendments to claim 21 amount to significantly more than a mental process or an abstract idea.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 21 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Amended claim 21 recites a specific, technological solution in which the controller indexes the document to vehicle states, receives real-time sensor data, determines the current vehicle state, and displays the portion of the document relevant to that state. This is not abstract information organization but a context- aware documentation system that dynamically provides relevant operational guidance based on what the vehicle is actually doing at any given moment.
This integration of sensor-derived vehicle state data with indexed documentation provides a practical improvement with real-world benefits in which an operator receives the specific instructions they need precisely when they need them, based on the vehicle's current operating condition. Such a system may reduce operator error, improve safety, and enhance the efficiency of vehicle operation. Accordingly, amended claim 21 is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a practical application that improves vehicle operation through intelligent, state-aware documentation delivery.
And as similarly discussed above with respect to independent claim 1, the current rejection of claim 21 expands the mental process grouping to encompass claim 21, which cannot practically be performed in the human mind, contrary to the USPTO guidance. When amended claim 21 is read in its entirety, the human mind is not equipped to:
receive, via a local network communicably coupled to the vehicle, a first document associated with the vehicle;
store the first document locally on the vehicle, the first document being a first vehicle operation manual;
compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network;
index the second document to a plurality of vehicle states;
store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document; and receive, via the sensor, sensor data indicative of one or more of the plurality of vehicle states;
determine, based on the sensor data, that the vehicle is in a first vehicle state of the plurality of vehicle states; and
display at least a portion of the second document related to the first vehicle state to a user interface based on determining that the vehicle is in the first vehicle state, the second document stored locally on the vehicle. (Emphasis added).
Therefore, amended claim 21 is not a mental process, as the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations recited in amended claim 21.
Applicant argues that linking the controller's steps to physical sensors makes the claim eligible because a human mind cannot physically detect mechanical vehicle states. Physical sensors are generic hardware components configured to perform routine data acquisition. While the physical sensors themselves collect data from the machine environment, the underlying operations performed on that data, comparing document timestamps, indexing files, evaluating status information to determine a vehicle state, and retrieving a specific manual section to display on a screen, are logical data processing steps that fall within the mental process. Restricting the execution of these mental processes to data collected by standard onboard sensors and a conventional user interface does not provide an inventive concept or transform the ordinary, everyday computer functions into a patent-eligible invention.
Applicant states that the claim achieves a practical application by creating a context-aware system that matches instructions to sensor-detected vehicle states. However, the MPEP § 2106.05 requires the claim to change or improve the underlying technical field or machine infrastructure. The claim language sets forth a broad operational outcome - displaying a text portion relevant to a machine status - at a high level of functional generality. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0037] and [0041], this workflow does not improve the physical or mechanical operations of the prime mover or implement. The claim fails to integrate the abstract exceptions into a practical application.
Applicant argues that claim 21 cannot be a mental process because the human mind cannot execute network, storage, sensor, and display functions. A claim recites an exception when the judicial exception is explicitly set forth within the claim limitations. Here, the claim explicitly tells the controller to "compare the first document with a second document...", "index the second document to a plurality of vehicle states," "determine... that the vehicle is in a first vehicle state," and "display at least a portion of the second document." These document comparison, date checking, status matching, and text retrieval steps are mental processes. The fact that these abstract concepts are executed by a vehicle controller and network module does not change the exception is explicitly recited. A person is able to read two manuals to see which is newer, matching a document to a status list, evaluating status information to match a vehicle condition, and selecting a specific text portion to read. Executing this process through computer components does not remove the core limitations from the abstract category. The additional elements for network communication, memory, sensor reading, and user interface delivery are broad functional goals. As detailed in specification paragraphs, [0041], and [0052], these hardware elements are conventional computing structures that perform routine input, output, and data routing tasks. The claim fails to integrate the exception because it does not provide technically improvements to the physical or mechanical operation of the machine itself.
Independent Claim 12 and dependent Claims 2–11 and 13–17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dynamic Fault Monitoring and Fault-Based Decision Making in Vehicle Health Management Systems, 2017, Tagliente discloses Vehicle Health Management Systems (VHMS) are used throughout commercial, military, and aerospace platforms to assess the current operational status of individual assets and entire fleets. One of the most common functions within most VHMS implementations is the collection and reporting of fault conditions and trouble codes. The management of this fault data, particularly its representation to a user, has become more complex as built-in-test (BIT) and fault detection sophistication have continued to grow. Often times, multiple fault indications or diagnostic trouble codes may exist simultaneously as the result of the failure of a single line replaceable unit (LRU). This can result in operator confusion that is compounded by the appearance of nuisance faults, which may appear even though no failure is present. This paper describes a dynamic subscription-based method for simplifying the presentation of fault data as implemented on the Diagnostics And System Health (DASH) VHMS. The implementation described provides an efficient solution for dynamic fault monitoring and fault-based decision making, which can identify and mask nuisance and secondary fault conditions. By analyzing reported faults, LRU data, and platform events, DASH can automatically filter a fault list to display high priority and primary fault conditions, thus assisting maintenance personnel in quickly identifying the primary failure mode in an environment where multiple fault indications exist simultaneously. The DASH system further expands on this capability by automatically isolating certain failure modes to reduce their ambiguity groups to a single failed LRU. DASH can also reduce operator confusion by limiting the appearance of nuisance fault codes to situations in which the fault condition they represent has been confirmed. This results in more efficient diagnostic troubleshooting and more focused maintenance activity, thus reducing a system's mean time to repair (MTTR).
U.S. Patent 11669804 – Foster discloses a method includes storing in non-volatile memory a library of equipment configuration code files, each equipment configuration code file including configuration code for configuration and control of a work vehicle, for configuration and control of an attachment to be carried or towed by the work vehicle, or for combined configuration and control of both the work vehicle and the attachment in combination, receiving an altered version of at least one equipment configuration code file, the altered version including OEM data provided by or altered by an original equipment manufacturer of the work vehicle or the attachment, dealer or distributor data provided by or altered by a dealer or distributor of the work vehicle or the attachment, and user data provided by or altered by a user of the work vehicle or attachment, and storing the altered version in the non-volatile memory of the library.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
