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
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim recites a system, and thus passes step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One, Judicial Exception (Abstract Idea):
In summary, Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
- A memory to store information indicating a load collapse detection range adjacent to the automated guided vehicle, and information indicating an obstacle detection range in a periphery of the load collapse detection range, within the detection range implemented by the object detection sensor;
- A computer to acquire a result of detection performed by the object detection sensor while the automated guided vehicle is travelling;
- a computer to monitor whether the object detection sensor detects an object in the load collapse detection range and an object in the obstacle detection range; and
- When the object in the load collapse detection range is detected, the computer determines whether the object has been detected in the obstacle detection range before being detected in the load collapse detection range, and determines that the object has fallen due to load collapse when the object has not been detected in the obstacle detection range before being detected in the load collapse detection range.
These limitations, when considered at a high level, are simply mental processes performed on a computer (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C). A person could observe the area around a vehicle (implement a detection range), note whether an object is in front (in the object detection range) or behind the vehicle (in the load collapse detection range), determine if an object is a load collapse. Such observations are simply mental processes which are identified as abstract ideas under the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility.
The inclusion of doing such steps on a computer with a memory does not render the claim patent eligible. “A computer” and “a memory” are simply a generic computer used as a tool to perform a mental process. As discussed above, all limitations in this claim could be done as simple mental processes.
Thus, this is an abstract idea and does not render the claim patent-eligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration Into a Practical Application
Claim 1 further recites
A load collapse detection device
An automated guided vehicle
A memory
An object detection sensor
A load collapse detection range
An object collapse detection range
A computer
The load collapse detection device, automated guided vehicle, object detection sensor, and ranges comprise essentially a high level recitation of an automated vehicle detection system. Due to the high level of abstraction (there are no further details claimed of the vehicle, sensor, or how the two ranges are determined), this simply links the abstract idea into a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and is insufficient to overcome the judicial exception.
Further, the limitations of “a memory” and “a computer” provide no specifics as to how the computer or memory are configured or function to carry out the claimed abstract idea, and are thus also simply linking to a technological environment, and is also insufficient to overcome the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept Analysis
The additional elements discussed above do not provide any inventive concept. The automated vehicle and detection system is here described broadly enough as to not transform the abstract idea into patentable subject matter.
Thus, Claim 1 is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 2:
Claim 2 is rejected for the reasons above. Claim 2 adds “updating the load collapse detection range.” This fails to add anything to overcome the judicial exception, as “updating” is a mental process performed by a computer. This could be done as a purely mental process, as it is simply observing the area around the vehicle. There are no additional elements claimed.
Claim 3:
Step 1: Statutory Category: The claim recites a process, and thus passes step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One, Judicial Exception (Abstract Idea):
In summary, Claim 3 recites the following limitations:
- Storing information indicating a load collapse detection range adjacent to the automated guided vehicle, and information indicating an obstacle detection range in a periphery of the load collapse detection range, within the detection range implemented by the object detection sensor;
- Acquiring a result of detection performed by the object detection sensor while the automated guided vehicle is travelling;
- Monitoring whether the object detection sensor detects an object in the load collapse detection range and an object in the obstacle detection range; and
- When the object in the load collapse detection range is detected, determining whether the object has been detected in the obstacle detection range before being detected in the load collapse detection range, and determining that the object has fallen due to load collapse when the object has not been detected in the obstacle detection range before being detected in the load collapse detection range.
These limitations, when considered at a high level, are simply mental processes performed on a computer (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C). A person could observe the area around a vehicle (implement a detection range), note whether an object is in front (in the object detection range) or behind the vehicle (in the load collapse detection range), determine if an object is a load collapse. Such observations are simply mental processes which are identified as abstract ideas under the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility.
Thus, this is an abstract idea and does not render the claim patent-eligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration Into a Practical Application
Claim 3 additionally recites
An automated guided vehicle
A load collapse detection range
An object detection range
An object detection sensor
This is essentially a high level recitation of an automated vehicle detection system. Due to the high level of abstraction (there are no further details claimed of the vehicle, sensor, or how the two ranges are determined), this simply links the abstract idea into a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and is insufficient to overcome the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept Analysis
The additional elements discussed above do not provide any inventive concept. The automated vehicle and detection system is here described broadly enough as to not transform the abstract idea into patentable subject matter.
Thus, Claim 3 is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites device which can detect if a load has fallen off a vehicle by detecting object(s) in an object detection range (in front of the vehicle) and a load collapse detection range (behind the vehicle). If the object is detected in both, it is an obstacle, if it’s only detected in the load collapse detection range, it’s determined to be something that fell off the vehicle.
Singh (US 20220051026 A1) teaches a method of determining if an object has moved between two detection zones (Fig. 4). However Singh doesn’t teach using the two zones to determine if the object is an obstacle or something that fell off the vehicle.
This was the closest prior art found.
Claim 2 would be allowed due to claim dependency.
Claim 3 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, the reasoning above applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights