DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 2/12/2026. Claims 1-12 and 18-25 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Meess with Burns, Graves, and Dahlinger due to significant differences in the uses and applications of these references (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 17) has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 2/12/2026, regarding the objection to claim 19 and the rejections of claims 1-12 and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no lack of clarity resulting from the use of a second colon, and the use of additional indentation on the paragraphs within the nested list more than sufficiently remedies any minor lack of clarity that may be considered to exist (Applicant’s remarks; pp. 12-13), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Multiple colons in the sentence make it unclear which semicolons correspond to which colons, and the indents do not label which semicolon applies to which colon. Further, it is grammatically incorrect. As an example, the claim structure renders it unclear whether the limitation “revising the safe operating spaces” recited in claims 1 and 19, lines 20-21 and 27-28, is performed by the vehicle coordination assembly. This ambiguity of the limitation is greater in amended claim 1 because line 20 appears to be incorrectly indented. See objections below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that a human mind cannot establish data communication with vehicle sensing systems, therefore, claim 1 is not directed to a mental process (Applicant’s remarks; p. 14), it is noted that the Examiner did not assert that establishing data communication is a mental process. The disclosure is devoid of a specific act that establishes data communication, although page 9, lines 9-11, appears to disclose merely operating the vehicle coordination assembly establishes data communications with vehicle sensing systems. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, establishing data communications includes the act of sending and receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that when taken as a whole, claim 1 provides a method for coordinating simultaneous loading between a plurality of vehicles to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions, which is performed in conjunction with the movement and actions (e.g., dumping) of these various vehicles (Applicant’s remarks; pp. 14-15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is directed to determining and sequentially updating working areas of loading vehicles by communicating with the vehicles using a vehicle coordination assembly. The data communications are generically recited and amount to merely sending and receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claim does not explicitly recite sending or receiving data from/to the haul trucks, loading vehicles, vehicle sensing systems, nor vehicle coordination assembly. The haul trucks and loading vehicles are generically claimed, and, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely vehicles that are capable of hauling or loading. The vehicle coordination assembly and vehicle sensing systems are also generically claimed computer components and sensors. Additionally, coordinating the movements of vehicles to reduce collisions is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. Therefore, the claim, when taken as a whole, does not integrate the abstract ideas related to the determining and assigning tasks and operating spaces into a practical application when considered against the guidance of MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant's argument that claim 1 is directed to a technical solution in the mining industry and is therefore not a conventional activity (Applicant’s remarks; p. 15), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., mining) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The haul trucks and loading vehicles are generically claimed, and, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely vehicles that are capable of hauling or loading.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the movement and actions (e.g., dumping) of the trucks/vehicles is integrated throughout every feature of the claim, including by data communications with the trucks/vehicles and reacting to the movement and actions of the trucks/vehicles (Applicant’s remarks; p. 16), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites establishing data communications with vehicle sensing systems and using data communications to determine load-ready haul trucks, however, claim 1 does not require the vehicle sensing systems to be used in the determination of load-readiness, nor does the claim explicitly recite sending or receiving data from/to the haul trucks, loading vehicles, or vehicle sensing systems. Additionally, claim 1 does not recite performing a dumping operation, merely that certain loading vehicles may perform a dumping operation at any one time, and the claim does not include how the completion of a dumping operation is determined. Therefore, the data communications and movements and actions do not appear to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas related to the determining and assigning tasks and operating spaces. See rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-12 and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant's argument that Graves fails to disclose an exclusionary sequencing of multiple loaders (Applicant’s remarks; p. 17), it is noted that Graves is not relied upon to disclose an exclusionary sequencing of multiple loaders. It is the combination of Brockhurst with Kaufmann that is relied upon to disclose an exclusionary sequencing of multiple loaders. It is further noted that the amended claims no longer appear to limit dumping to one loading vehicle at a time, nor setting/revising the safe operating spaces such that only one safe operating space for one loading vehicle is allowed to extend over a side of the haul truck at a time. For example, the amended claims appear to allow two loading vehicles dumping over the driver’s side of the haul truck’s bed (i.e., both safe operating spaces extend over the same side of the haul truck and fall short of all other side), or one loading vehicle dumping over the driver’s side and another loading vehicle dumping over the rear or the haul truck’s bed (i.e., both safe operating spaces extend over different sides of the haul truck and fall short of the passenger side).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 12/16/2025 and 1/20/2026 have been reviewed and considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 12/16/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document (e.g., AU 2020274212); each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 3/5/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed because citation number 22, (WO) International Preliminary Report on Patentability - App PCT/AU2022/051032, is grainy and blurry. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The listing of references in page 2 of the amendments to the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references PCT/AU2022/051032 (WO 2023/023804), PCT/AU2022/051026 (WO 2023/023798 A1), and PCT/AU2022/051018 (WO 2023/023790 A1) have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The amended drawing received on 2/12/2026 is acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the abstract and specification were received on 2/12/2026.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 12, line 10, discloses "Vehicle control system 30 includes sub-systems 34-47", however, figure 5 discloses several components (e.g., 36 and 40) with reference characters between 34-44 that are not shown within the boundary of vehicle control system 30, therefore, the scope of the vehicle control system is unclear.
In the amended paragraph beginning on page 13, line 30, of the specification, the meaning of the sentence “The pose data messages contain information such as a position coordinate, time at which the position, current orientation, current posture of components such as trays, arms and buckets, and information about when the message was generated from which machine actor.” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. It appears the sentence should read “The pose data messages contain information such as a position coordinate; times at which the position, orientation, and posture of components such as trays, arms and buckets, are measured; information about when the message was generated; and which machine actor generated the message.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 19 should each be limited to a single colon because using multiple colons in a single sentence is grammatically incorrect which makes it confusing to determine the hierarchical relationships between each limitation.
In claims 1 and 19, lines 17-18 and 24-25, respectively, “the loading task with a safe operating space extending over the side” should read “the loading task with the safe operating space extending over the side” to make it clear it is one of the safe operating spaces set in claim 1, lines 12-16, and claim 19, lines 19-23.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a vehicle coordination assembly to: establish data communications” in claim 1, lines 3-4, and “a vehicle coordination assembly in communication with said vehicle communication systems” in claim 19, lines 8-9. Pages 14-16 and figures 6-7 disclose the vehicle coordination assembly is a conventional computer with a main board, a CPU, and a LAN adaptor or a modem. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the vehicle coordination assembly will be assumed to be a computer and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 18-24 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, lines 9-11 and 16-18, respectively, the limitation “each … task specifying a respective safe operating space in which any one of two or more of the loading vehicles is restricted to operating” appears to be matter because there does not appear to disclosure of a safe operating space in which more than one loading vehicle is restricted to operating. Page 10, lines 2-4, disclose each task specifies a safe operating space for the assigned loader, and the safe operating space is a space in which a loading vehicle is restricted to operating. Figure 10 further discloses safe operating spaces 90 and 92 enclose one loader each.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, lines 17-19 and 24-26, the limitation “only the two or more loading vehicles assigned the loading task … perform a dumping operation at any one time” appears to be new matter because the disclosure appears to prevent more than one loading vehicle performing a dumping operation at any one time. Page 23, lines 6-10, disclose the loading system avoids simultaneous dumping into the haul truck at the same time.
Claims 2-12, 18 and 20-24 rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, lines 9-11 and 16-18, respectively, the limitation “each loading task specifying a respective safe operating space in which any one of two or more of the loading vehicles is restricted to operating” renders each claim indefinite because, as discussed above, it appears that each safe operating space applies to a specific loading vehicle, therefore, it is unclear how a loading task specifies a safe operating space in which any of the loading vehicles is restricted. Page 10, lines 2-4, disclose each task specifies a safe operating space for the assigned loader, and the safe operating space is a space in which a loading vehicle is restricted to operating. Figure 10 further discloses safe operating spaces 90 and 92 enclose a loader. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that each loading task assigned to a loading vehicle specifies a safe operating space in which the operation of the respective loading vehicle is restricted.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, lines 8-10 and 15-17, the limitation “assign a loading task to two or more of the loading vehicles for loading of the load-ready haul truck, each loading task specifying a respective safe operating space” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear if each loading vehicle receives the same loading task because, as discussed above, the safe operating spaces appear to be different for each vehicle. Page 10, lines 2-4, disclose each task specifies a safe operating space for the assigned loader, and the safe operating space is a space in which a loading vehicle is restricted to operating. Figure 10 further discloses safe operating spaces 90 and 92 enclose a loader. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that each loading vehicle receives a unique loading task that specifies a safe operating space in which the operation of the respective loading vehicle is restricted.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, lines 17-19 and 24-26, the limitation “only the two or more loading vehicles assigned the loading task … perform a dumping operation at any one time” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear how many loading vehicles perform a dumping operation at one time. Page 23, lines 6-10, disclose the loading system avoids simultaneous dumping into the haul truck at the same time, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that only one loading vehicle performs a dumping operation at any one time.
Regarding claim 1, lines 17-18, the limitation “a safe operating space extending over the side and the other side of the haul truck” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is directed to two safe operating spaces wherein only one of the safe operating spaces extends over any side of the haul truck, or one safe operating space that extends over more than one side of the haul truck. Page 22, lines 10-12, disclose the corridors (i.e., safe operating spaces, see p. 18, ll. 10-11) are retracted and extended so that corridors to each side of a haul truck do not extend over opposite sides of the haul truck at the same time, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to two safe operating spaces wherein only one of the safe operating spaces extends over any side of the haul truck at a time.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, lines 21-22 and 28-29, the limitation “allow a next loading vehicle to perform a dumping operation to the haul truck whilst preventing other loading vehicles from performing a dumping operation” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear how the next loading vehicle and other loading vehicles are related to the two or more loading vehicles that are assigned the loading task in claim 1, lines 8-9, and claim 19, lines 15-16. Page 19, lines 8-15, appear to disclose the loading tasks are assigned to a loading vehicle upon complete of a dumping operation, which may result in assigning a loading vehicle to a second haul truck before fully loading a first haul truck, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the revisions to the safe operating spaces are not restricted to the two or more loading vehicles that were assigned the loading task.
Claims 2-12, 18 and 20-24 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-12 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method to coordinate loading (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite 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). Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A method to coordinate loading of material in an operational area by machine actors, including haul trucks and loading vehicles, the method comprising:
operating a vehicle coordination assembly to:
establish data communications with vehicle sensing systems of the haul trucks and of the loading vehicles;
with reference to the data communications, determine load-ready haul trucks being haul trucks that are ready to be loaded [mental process/step];
for each load-ready haul truck, assign a loading task to two or more of the loading vehicles for loading of the load-ready haul truck, each loading task specifying a respective safe operating space in which any one of the two or more of the loading vehicles is restricted to operating [mental process/step]; and
set the safe operating space in respect of one of the two or more loading vehicles assigned the loading task to extend from a region of the material in the operational area over a side of the load-ready haul truck, whilst setting each safe operating space in respect of other of the two or more loading vehicles assigned the loading task to fall short of an other side of the haul truck, whereby only the assigned loading vehicles with a safe operating space extending over the side of the haul truck performs a dumping operation to the haul truck at any one time [mental process/step]; and
upon determining completion of the dumping operation [mental process/step], revising the safe operating spaces to allow a next loading vehicle to perform a dumping operation to the haul truck whilst preventing other loading vehicles from performing a dumping operation to the haul truck [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “…determine load-ready haul trucks…” and “…determining completion of the dumping operation” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing vehicles at a work site and forming simple judgements of their operating state. The limitations “…assign a loading task…”, “set the safe operating space…”, and “revising the safe operating spaces” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing a work site and determining areas where work trucks should be allowed to operate. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method to coordinate loading of material in an operational area by machine actors, including haul trucks and loading vehicles [generic vehicles], the method comprising:
operating a vehicle coordination assembly to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer]:
establish data communications with vehicle sensing systems of the haul trucks and of the loading vehicles [pre-solution activity (sending and receiving data)];
with reference to the data communications, determine load-ready haul trucks being haul trucks that are ready to be loaded;
for each load-ready haul truck, assign a loading task to two or more of the loading vehicles for loading of the load-ready haul truck, each loading task specifying a respective safe operating space in which any one of the two or more of the loading vehicles is restricted to operating; and
set the safe operating space in respect of one of the two or more loading vehicles assigned the loading task to extend from a region of the material in the operational area over a side of the load-ready haul truck, whilst setting each safe operating space in respect of other of the two or more loading vehicles assigned the loading task to fall short of an other side of the haul truck, whereby only the assigned loading vehicles with a safe operating space extending over the side of the haul truck performs a dumping operation to the haul truck at any one time; and
upon determining completion of the dumping operation, revising the safe operating spaces to allow a next loading vehicle to perform a dumping operation to the haul truck whilst preventing other loading vehicles from performing a dumping operation to the haul truck.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “establish data communications…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle coordination assembly) to perform the process. The data communications step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of exchanging information between the vehicle coordination assembly and work vehicles), and amounts to merely sending and receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “machine actors, including haul trucks and loading vehicles” is/are also recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of establishing data communications is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except it is drawn to a system to coordinate loading (i.e., a machine) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claims 5-6 and 21 include the additional limitation “send a move command” which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of sending information to a work vehicle), and amounts to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12, 18 and 20-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, 18 and 20-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejections of claims 1 and 19.
Therefore, claims 1-12 and 18-24 are is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 18-20 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockhurst (US 2021/0318666) in view of Graves (US 2020/0181881) and Kaufmann et al. (US 2019/0129446), hereinafter Kaufmann.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, as best understood, Brockhurst discloses a system to coordinate loading of material in an operational area by machine actors including haul trucks and loading vehicles, the system comprising: the haul trucks (Brockhurst; fig. 1: trucks 104); the loading vehicles for loading the haul trucks (Brockhurst; fig. 1: excavators 102); each haul truck and each loading vehicle having a vehicle sensing assembly in communication with a respective vehicle communication system (Brockhurst; para. 53: A machine 102-108 includes various sensors 402 and one or more computing device(s); para. 56: sensors 402 provide input to the computing device(s) 404. Additionally, and/or alternatively, the sensor(s) 402 send sensor data, via communication systems 416 and/or network(s)), the vehicle communication system arranged to transmit pose data of the haul trucks (Brockhurst; para. 34: control system 110 receives telemetry data from a truck 104 operating at the same proximate location as the excavator 102 and at the same proximate time. The telemetry data received from the truck 104 includes, for instance, the location (e.g., UPS coordinates) for the truck 104 at different times, position data (e.g., vehicle orientation, inclination of the dump body) at different times, and/or movement data and driving activities for the truck 104 (e.g., speed, acceleration, trajectory, gear, etc.) at different times) and of the loading vehicles (Brockhurst; para. 33: control system 110 receives telemetry data from an excavator 102 indicative of a number of dippers in which the excavator 102 emptied its bucket. The telemetry data includes, for each dipper performed by the excavator 102, a location (e.g., UPS coordinates) and a timestamp. In some cases, additional telemetry data is included for the dippers, such as the movement or orientation of the excavator); a vehicle coordination assembly in communication with said vehicle communication systems of the haul trucks and of the loading vehicles via a data network (Brockhurst; para. 24: control system 110 is implemented as a remote computing system, cloud-based computing system, or other computing systems configured to communicate with machines 102-108 via one or more networks), the vehicle coordination assembly configured to: establish data communications with vehicle sensing systems of the haul trucks and of the loading vehicles (Brockhurst; para. 25: control system 110 monitors and tracks the extraction, movement, and processing of materials, performed by the various machines 102-108 within the environment. For instance, the monitoring and analysis of machine sensor data, and data from additional sources, allow the control system 110 to track the attributes of the incoming material); with reference to the data communications, determine load-ready haul trucks being haul trucks that are ready to be loaded (Brockhurst; para. 92: At operation 902, the control system 110 receives sensor data from a machine 102-108 transporting a material load.; para. 94: the control system 110 at operation 908 determines operating instructions that will add a subsequent material load to the blend); for each load-ready haul truck, assign a loading task to two or more of the loading vehicles for loading of the load-ready haul truck (Brockhurst; para. 91: control system 110 provides the determined operating instructions to a second machine 102-108 (e.g., separate from a first machine 102-108 from which the first data was received in operation 802). As discussed above, the control system 110 determines dig locations and assigns excavators 102 to the dig locations, dispatches trucks 104 to particular excavators 102 and dig locations; para. 38: Based on the sensor data received from the excavators 102 and the truck 104, the control system 110 determines the number of dippers that were emptied into each truck 104 by each excavator); and upon determining completion of the dumping operation allowing a next loading vehicle to perform a dumping operation to the haul truck whilst preventing other loading vehicles from performing a dumping operation to the haul truck (Brockhurst; para. 90: control system 110 calculates the current levels of the different materials based on the previous loads added to the blend, and then determines that the target compositions of subsequent loads for the blend to maintain the percentages at the optimal or target blend levels. Using the target compositions for the subsequent loads, the control system 110 determines operating instructions for one or more machines 102-108, for controlling the machines 102-108 to extract and deliver the appropriate subsequent loads to maintain the target blend levels).
Brockhurst does not explicitly disclose each task specifying a respective safe operating space in which any one of the two or more loading vehicles is restricted to operating; and revising the safe operating spaces.
Kaufmann, in the same field of endeavor (construction site safety systems), discloses assigning tasks specifying a respective safe operating space in which any one of two or more loading vehicles is restricted to operating (Kaufmann; para. 89: processing unit 7 may automatically control and supervise movements on the site and interactively react on arising threats, e.g. by temporally creating/adapting restriction zones; para. 91: the oversized objects 1 … on the site may be adapted such that a determined threat level may cause an automatic intervention … e.g. an immediate stop of the object; para. 48: oversized movable objects 1 may be present in the mine, e.g. … heavy duty excavators); whilst setting each safe operating space in respect of the two or more loading vehicles assigned the loading task to fall short of a side of the haul truck (Kaufmann; fig. 2: restriction zone 11 does not overlap any sides of haul trucks); and revising the safe operating spaces (Kaufmann; para. 89: processing unit 7 may automatically control and supervise movements on the site and interactively react on arising threats, e.g. by temporally creating/adapting restriction zones; para. 91: the oversized objects 1 … on the site may be adapted such that a determined threat level may cause an automatic intervention … e.g. an immediate stop of the object; para. 48: oversized movable objects 1 may be present in the mine, e.g. … heavy duty excavators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the excavator assignments sent by the control system of Brockhurst to include dynamically updated restriction zones in which the excavators are restricted to operate, as disclosed by Kaufmann, with the motivation of preventing collisions that may cause severe damage thereby increasing the safety of the excavator and its operator (Kaufmann; para. 50).
Brockhurst, as modified, does not explicitly disclose setting the safe operating space in respect of one of the two or more loading vehicles assigned the loading task to extend from a region of the material in the operational area over a side of the haul truck, whereby only the two or more loading vehicles assigned the loading task with a safe operating space extending over the side of the haul truck perform a dumping operation to the haul truck at any one time.
Graves, in the same field of endeavor (construction machine collision avoidance), discloses setting a safe operating space in respect of a loading vehicle assigned a loading task to extend from a region of material in an operational area over a side of a haul truck (Graves; paras. 25-26: a type Z machine (e.g., an excavator) is associated with a body area (e.g., a circular area corresponding to a body of the excavator) and a work tool area (e.g., a circular area corresponding to possible positions of a bucket of the excavator) … when identifying one or more potential collisions between the first machine and any of the other N machines, the CAAS may ignore a work tool area (e.g., such that the work tool area of the first machine or another machine is not taken into consideration when identifying a possible collision); para. 28: when filtering a potential collision, the CAAS … would not perform a collision avoidance action (e.g., automatic braking, automatic steering, and/or the like) associated with avoiding the potential collision), whereby only the loading vehicle assigned the loading task with a safe operating space extending over the side of the haul truck performs a dumping operation to the haul truck at any one time (Graves; para. 4: a wheel loader may operate in close proximity to a haul truck (e.g., when the wheel loader is in the process of loading the haul truck)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified one of the restriction zones sent by the control system of Brockhurst to overlap a side of a haul truck, as disclosed by Graves, to yield the predictable result of allowing the excavator to load the haul truck without triggering a collision avoidance action.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses operating the vehicle coordination assembly to track all the machine actors (Brockhurst; para. 31: control system 110 performs time-based correlations between the positions of loading tools (e.g., excavators 102, wheel loaders 108, etc.) in the environment 100, and the positions of trucks 104 at loading times).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses operating the vehicle coordination assembly to facilitate collision avoidance (Kaufmann; para. 31: the event detector is configured for at least one of recognition of a threat level, particularly a risk of collision) whilst determining the respective safe operating space of each task (Kaufmann; para. 89: processing unit 7 may automatically control and supervise movements on the site and interactively react on arising threats, e.g. by temporally creating/adapting restriction zones 11 for a subset of tag IDs and/or anchor IDs) by taking into account poses of all of the machine actors (Kaufmann; para. 61: The site monitoring unit is configured for tracking movements of movable objects, i.e. wherein the movable objects also carry anchors and/or tags of the plurality of anchors and the plurality of tags, wherein the global positioning data and the local ranging data are provided to a processing unit 7, e.g. a central server and computation unit, as payload within the point-to-point radio ranging system.).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses the loading tasks specify respective safe operating spaces that are non-overlapping at any given time to effect the collision avoidance (Kaufmann; fig. 2: restriction zone 11 does not overlap any other restriction zone).
Regarding claims 6 and 21, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses operating the vehicle coordination assembly to send a move command to an unloaded haul truck to bring the unloaded haul truck to a position for loading by the two or more loading vehicles (Brockhurst; para. 91: At operation 810, control system 110 provides the determined operating instructions to a second machine 102-108 (e.g., separate from a first machine 102-108 from which the first data was received in operation 802). As discussed above, the control system 110 … dispatches trucks 104 to particular excavators 102 and dig locations, … providing instructions to partially or completely autonomous machines 102-108 includes directly controlling the operations of the machines 102-108 via remote controlling capabilities. In other examples, control system 110 transmits instructions to operators of the machines 102-108, recommending or instructing the operators to perform the target operations with the machines 102-108.).
Regarding claim 7 and 22, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses storing dimensions of the haul trucks and of the loading vehicles in a data storage assembly of the vehicle coordination assembly (Kaufmann; para. 22: the arrangement dataset comprises at least one of: geometrical information on the dimensions and shape of the machine).
Regarding claim 8 and 23, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses operating the vehicle coordination assembly to determine the safe operating spaces with reference to the dimensions of the haul trucks and loading vehicles (Kaufmann; para. 17: the system is configured to determine a current position of a reference point indicative of a position of a machine of the large machinery, to access an arrangement dataset indicative of a positional relationship between the reference point and a mounting location of at least one of the anchors on the machine, to determine a position of the at least one anchor based on the current position of the reference point and the arrangement dataset, and to provide the position of the at least one anchor to the position determining unit).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses wheel loaders dumping materials (Brockhurst; para. 19: wheel loaders 108 load material from a stockpile and dump the material directly into a crusher).
However, Brockhurst, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose the haul truck loading vehicles comprise front-end loaders.
Graves discloses haul truck loading vehicles comprise front-end loaders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the excavators of Brockhurst, as modified, to be wheel loaders, as disclosed by Graves, to yield the predictable result of allowing more than one type of common loading vehicle to load the haul truck.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
However, Brockhurst, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose the haul truck loading vehicles comprise one or more different types of loading vehicle.
Graves discloses haul truck loading vehicles comprise front-end loaders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified one of the excavators of Brockhurst, as modified, to be a wheel loader, as disclosed by Graves, to yield the predictable result of allowing more than one type of common loading vehicle to load the haul truck.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses operating the vehicle coordination assembly to track at least the two or more loading vehicles (Brockhurst; para. 31: control system 110 performs time-based correlations between the positions of loading tools (e.g., excavators 102, wheel loaders 108, etc.) in the environment 100, and the positions of trucks 104 at loading times) to avoid collision of a bucket of a first loading vehicle of the two or more loading vehicles with a bucket of a second loading vehicle of the two or more loading vehicles during implementation of each loading task (Kaufmann; para. 89: processing unit 7 may automatically control and supervise movements on the site and interactively react on arising threats, e.g. by temporally creating/adapting restriction zones; para. 91: the oversized objects 1 … on the site may be adapted such that a determined threat level may cause an automatic intervention … e.g. an immediate stop of the object [and its bucket]; para. 48: oversized movable objects 1 may be present in the mine, e.g. … heavy duty excavators).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses the vehicle sensing systems include LIDAR; and/or the vehicle sensing systems include radar; and/or the vehicle sensing systems include stereo vision cameras; and/or the vehicle sensing systems include joint encoders for ascertaining joint angles; and/or one or more of the loading vehicles are autonomous; and/or one or more of the haul trucks are autonomous (Brockhurst; para. 66: In examples in which the machine 102-108 is autonomous or semi-autonomous, the control system 110 sends an instruction for the computing device(s) 404 to control the machine 102-108 based on the operating instructions.).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses the haul trucks include Right Sized Autonomous Trucks (RSATs) (Brockhurst; para. 66: In examples in which the machine 102-108 is autonomous or semi-autonomous, the control system 110 sends an instruction for the computing device(s) 404 to control the machine 102-108 based on the operating instructions.).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses the vehicle coordination assembly is configured to track the at least the two or more loading vehicles to avoid collision of a bucket of a first loading vehicle of the two or more loading vehicles with a bucket of a second loading vehicle of the two or more loading vehicles during implementation of each loading task.
Brockhurst does not appear to explicitly disclose the two or more haul truck loading vehicles comprise front end loaders.
Graves discloses haul truck loading vehicles comprise front-end loaders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the excavators of Brockhurst, as modified, to be wheel loaders, as disclosed by Graves, to yield the predictable result of allowing more than one type of common loading vehicle to load the haul truck.
Claim(s) 5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockhurst in view of Graves and Kaufmann as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Halder et al. (US 2020/0150687), hereinafter Halder.
Regarding claims 5 and 21, as best understood, Brockhurst, as modified, discloses operating the vehicle coordination assembly to send a move command to the haul truck (Brockhurst; para. 91: At operation 810, control system 110 provides the determined operating instructions to a second machine 102-108 (e.g., separate from a first machine 102-108 from which the first data was received in operation 802). As discussed above, the control system 110 … dispatches trucks 104 to particular excavators 102 and dig locations, … providing instructions to partially or completely autonomous machines 102-108 includes directly controlling the operations of the machines 102-108 via remote controlling capabilities. In other examples, control system 110 transmits instructions to operators of the machines 102-108, recommending or instructing the operators to perform the target operations with the machines 102-108.; para. 94: the control system 110 at operation 908 determines operating instructions that will add a subsequent material load to the blend) upon determining that the haul truck has been loaded.
Brockhurst, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose sending the move command when the haul truck is fully loaded.
Halder, in the same field of endeavor (work vehicle fleet management), discloses determining that a haul truck has been fully loaded (Halder; para. 73: receiving a communication from the dozer upon completion of the loading subtask so that the truck is now ready to perform the transporting subtask).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the instructions sent to the haul truck by the control system of Brockhurst, as modified, to be sent after the truck is fully loaded, as disclosed by Halder, to yield the predictable result of maximizing the amount of material removed from the worksite.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 25, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious, for each of first and second loading vehicles, assigning first and second loading tasks to transfer material into a haul truck, the first and second loading tasks progressing from loading buckets of the first and second loading vehicles to dumping loads from the buckets into the haul truck, wherein the first and second loading tasks specify respective safe operating spaces for the first and second vehicles to cause the first and second loading vehicles to dump from opposite sides of the haul truck at separate times, in combination with the other elements required by the claim.
Samaraweera, in US 2018/0173221, discloses multiple loading machines that load a truck that is within range to receive a broadcast loading spot location. Although Samaraweera discloses the loading spot locations may be on either side of either loading vehicle, Samaraweera does not disclose causing the loading vehicles to dump from opposite sides of the haul truck. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the haul truck may make more than one trip to the same loading machines which may result in using loading spot locations on opposite sides of the haul truck, however, it would not have been obvious to specify the safe operating spaces to cause the loading vehicles to dump from opposite sides of the haul truck during subsequent trips (i.e., at separate times).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights