DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to an amendment/argument submitted on 12/11/2025. The applicant amends claims 1, 6, 16, and 19. Claims 4, 5, and 10 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 - 9, and 11 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental concept of evaluation and/or observation without significantly more. The claims are evaluated under the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance and the MPEP. Example 42 is used as the reference.
Step 1
The claims recite an equipment identification system, a method of identifying equipment, and an equipment identification system. The claims recite one of the four statutory categories and pass the first step.
Step 2A Prong I
The independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the abstract idea denoted in italics and the pre/post solution activity denoted in bold.
Claim 1
An equipment identification system, the equipment in the form of a truck, the system comprising:
a sensor located on the truck, the sensor configured to sense movement of the truck and generate movement data associated with the truck;
a transmitter configured to transmit truck identification data associated with the truck and the movement data;
a receiver in communication with the transmitter, the receiver configured to receive the truck identification data and the movement data from the transmitter; and
a management system in communication with the receiver, the management system configured to identify the truck and also determine whether the truck is currently being loaded by an excavator based on the truck identification data and the movement data, wherein the management system is further configured to receive data associated with the behaviour of the excavator and is able to determine the current stage the excavator is in in the dig/dump cycle,
wherein the management system is in communication with a datastore that contains payload information of a tray of the truck associated with the truck identification data and wherein the payload information includes payload capacity of the tray of the truck.
With respect to the MPEP 2106.05 the overall inventive concept is the determination of the state of loading a truck by an excavator based upon the details of the specification and the claims. The claims may be performed mentally with respect to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as the claims do not identify new or improved structure to identify the operations. Thus, an observer may watch the operations of the equipment and memorize the result.
With respect to the dependent claims the sensor of an accelerometer to identify the status of a truck is still generic in features that an observer may witness the operations. Dependent claims 14 and 15 state saving the data sensed. The operations that are performed may be stored in the human mind and observed.
With respect to the 2019 Guidance, example 42 is directed to the organization of human activity unlike the claimed invention. However, the operations of storing data is a system is the functional equivalent. The generic structural components claimed and the overall invention directed to storing data makes the example relevant. Example 39, directed toward the programming a neural network, isn’t applicable as the claims are not directed to programming the neural network. Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the example of stating a unique manner of data processing or real time access by a user through a terminal.
Therefore, pursuant to the MPEP and the 2019 Guidance the claims fail Step 2A Prong I.
Step 2A Prong II
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not identify how the stored data is used. The claims fail to show a unique manner for storing the data like example 42. With respect to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B), the invention may be performed by a human mentally with or without a physical aid. A human may observe the amount of material in a truck and estimate the total if they know the capacity of the truck and/or the capacity of loading machine.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims as a whole do not identify how the data stored is used. The claims do not identify a display or applied to in a new or proved manner. With respect to MPEP 2106.05 (a- h), the claims do not satisfy any of the categories. Therefore, the claims fail Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 9, 11 – 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sherlock US 11,131,082.
As per claim 1, An equipment identification system, the equipment in the form of a truck, the system comprising:
a sensor located on the truck, the sensor configured to sense movement of the truck and generate movement data associated with the truck; (Sherlock Col 2 lines 6 – 11)
a transmitter configured to transmit truck identification data associated with the truck and the movement data; (Sherlock Col 6 lines 30 – 33) lines
a receiver in communication with the transmitter, the receiver configured to receive the truck identification data and the movement data from the transmitter; (Sherlock Col 1 lines 60 – 67, Col 1 line 1) and
a management system in communication with the receiver, the management system configured to identify the truck and also determine whether the truck is currently being loaded by an excavator based on the truck identification data and the movement data, wherein the management system is further configured to receive data associated with the behaviour of the excavator and is able to determine the current stage the excavator is in in the dig/dump cycle, (Sherlock Col 6 lines 59 – 67, and Col 7 lines 1 – 4)
wherein the management system is in communication with a datastore that contains payload information of a tray of the truck associated with the truck identification data and wherein the payload information includes payload capacity of the tray of the truck. (Sherlock Col 6 lines 37 – 44) and (Sherlock Col 6 lines 45 – 55, Sherlock 7 lines 35 – 44 64 – 67, Col 8 lines 1, 2, and Col 15 lines 45 - 52)
As per claim 2, The equipment identification system of claim 1, the sensor is in the form of an accelerometer and the movement data is in the form of acceleration, deceleration and vibration data observed by the accelerometer. (Sherlock Col 5 lines 7 – 13)
As per claim 3, The equipment identification system of claim 1, wherein the receiver and management system are located on the excavator. (Sherlock Col 5 lines 44 – 52, Col 13 lines 61 – 64)
As per claim 6, The equipment identification system of claim 1, wherein payload information of [[a]] the tray of the truck associated with the truck identification data is transmitted by the transmitter. (Sherlock Col 7 lines 64 – 67, Col 8 lines 1, 2)
As per claim 7, The equipment management system of claim 6, wherein the payload information includes payload capacity of the tray of the truck. (Sherlock Col 4 lines 17 – 26 and Col 7 lines 35 – 44)
As per claim 8, The equipment management system of claim 1, wherein the sensor and the transmitter are located on a tray of the truck. (Sherlock Col 4 lines 55 – 59)
As per claim 9, The equipment management system of claim 1, wherein the management system includes a payload management system able to calculate the payload carried in a bucket of the excavator. (Sherlock Col 2 lines 13 – 15, lines 33 – 38, and Col 4 lines 55 – 59)
As per claim 11, The equipment management system of claim 1, wherein the management system is configured to identify the truck and also determine whether the truck is currently being loaded by an excavator based on the truck identification data and the movement data during each dig/dump cycle. (Sherlock Col 6 lines 59 – 67 and Col 7 lines 1 – 4)
As per claim 12, The equipment management system of claim 1, wherein the management system calculates the strength of a signal that is communicated from the transmitter and received at the receiver carrying the truck identification data and the movement data. (Sherlock Col 11 lines 19 – 31)
As per claim 13, The equipment management system of claim 12, wherein the management system is configured to identify the truck and also determine whether the truck is currently being loaded by an excavator based on the truck identification data, the movement data and the strength of the signal communicated from the transmitter to the receiver. (Sherlock Col 5 lines 33 – 38 and Col 7 lines 57 – 64)
As per claim 14, The equipment management system of claim 1, wherein the management system stores the movement data of each truck in association with the truck identification data of the truck together with time data associated with the time the movement data was captured by the sensor on the truck. (Sherlock Col 16 lines 21 – 25)
As per claim 15, The equipment management system of claim 1, wherein the management system is in communication with a datastore and is configured to store in the data store the received movement data in association with the truck identification data. (Sherlock Col 16 lines 21 – 25)
As per claim 16, A method of identifying equipment, the equipment in the form a truck, the method including the steps of: (Sherlock Col 5 lines 55 – 59)
receiving truck identification data associated with a truck and movement data associated with the truck; (Sherlock Col 1 lines 60 – 67, Col 2 line 1)
identifying the truck based on the truck identification data; (Sherlock Col 6 lines 37 – 44)
determining whether the truck is currently being loaded by an excavator based on the movement data; (Sherlock Col 6 lines 59 – 67 and Col 7 lines 1 – 4) and
determining the current stage in which the excavator is in the dig/dump cycle, (Sherlock 5 lines 33 – 38)
wherein the management system is in communication with a datastore that contains payload information of a tray of the truck associated with the truck identification data and wherein the payload information includes payload capacity of the tray of the truck. (Sherlock Col 6 lines 37 – 44) and (Sherlock Col 6 lines 45 – 55, Sherlock 7 lines 35 – 44 64 – 67, Col 8 lines 1, 2, and Col 15 lines 45 - 52)
As per claim 17, The method of claim 16, wherein the movement data is in the form of acceleration, deceleration and/or vibration data and/or changes in angular rates of movement to determine rotation observed by a sensor located on the truck and/or a tray of the truck. (Sherlock Col 5 lines 7 – 13)
As per claim 18, The method of claim 16, further including the step of validating that a truck that has been previously determined to be a truck being loaded by the excavator is still the truck currently being loaded, and if so, undertaking the determination step again on a subsequent dig/dump pass by the excavator. (Sherlock Col 15 lines 53 – 58)
As per claim 19, An equipment identification system, the system comprising:
a sensor located on the equipment, the sensor configured to sense movement of the equipment and generate movement data associated with the equipment; (Sherlock Col 2 lines 6 – 11)
a transmitter configured to transmit equipment identification data associated with the equipment and the movement data; (Sherlock Col 6 lines 30 – 33)
a receiver in communication with the transmitter, the receiver configured to receive the equipment identification data and the movement data from the transmitter; (Sherlock Col 1 lines 60 – 67, Col 1 line 1) and
a management system in communication with the receiver, the management system configured to identify the equipment and determine a current status of the equipment based upon the movement data, wherein the management system is further configured to receive data associated with the behaviour of an excavator responsible for loading the equipment with payload and is able to determine the current stage the excavator is in in the dig/dump cycle, (Sherlock Col 6 lines 59 – 67, and Col 7 lines 1 – 4)
wherein the management system is in communication with a datastore that contains payload information of a tray of the truck associated with the truck identification data and wherein the payload information includes payload capacity of the tray of the truck. (Sherlock Col 6 lines 37 – 44) and (Sherlock Col 6 lines 45 – 55, Sherlock 7 lines 35 – 44 64 – 67, Col 8 lines 1, 2, and Col 15 lines 45 - 52)
As per claim 22, The equipment management system of claim 1, wherein the management system is in communication with a datastore that contains prior movement data of the truck associated with the truck identification data, the movement data indicating an indication as to whether each item of movement data correlates to when the truck is being loaded and also when the truck is not being loaded, and the management system utilises statistical data analysis techniques to integrate the movement data in the data store and the received movement data to determine whether the truck is being loaded by the excavator. (Sherlock Col 2 lines 13 – 15, lines 33 – 38, and Col 4 lines 55 – 59)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 20 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherlock US 11,131,082 in view of Collins US 10,311,657.
As per claim 20, The equipment management system of claim 1, wherein the management system is in communication with a datastore that contains prior movement data of the truck associated with the truck identification data and the management system utilises a neural network to assess the prior movement data to determine whether the truck is being loaded by the excavator. (Collins Col 8 lines 40 – 53)
Sherlock discloses a work vehicle with a payload tracking system. Sherlock does not a neural network used a evaluate the status of payload tracking. Collins teaches of a neural network used to evaluate the status of payload tracking. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Collins et.al. into the invention of Sherlock. Such incorporation is motivated the need to ensure faster determination of the status.
As per claim 21, The equipment management system of claim 1, wherein the neural network has been trained using a training set of movement data associated with the truck identifier. (Collins Col 8 lines 40 – 53) and (Sherlock Col 2 lines 6 – 11)
Sherlock discloses a work vehicle with a payload tracking system. Sherlock does not a neural network used a evaluate the status of payload tracking. Collins teaches of a neural network used to evaluate the status of payload tracking. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Collins et.al. into the invention of Sherlock. Such incorporation is motivated the need to ensure faster determination of the status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the section 101 rejection. The applicant does not amend the claims in a way that satisfies the MPEP section 2106.05(a- h) criteria. In addition, the applicant does not amend the claims to satisfy the MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) where the functional operations may not be performed in the mind. Finally, the applicant does not amend the claims to satisfy the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the applicant arguments regarding the section 102 rejection. The art of record discloses the unique identifier feature in Sherlock Col 6 lines 37 – 44. With respect to the management system, the art of record refers to the feature a remote processing system that performs the same operations, which is discloses the feature in Sherlock Col 6 lines 45 – 55. The applicant does not claim a unique structural feature that is new or an improvement of the disclosed feature. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER D PAIGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am - 6:00pm (mst).
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 5712703921. 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.
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664