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 .
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.
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 loading platform detection unit” in claim 1; “a two-dimensional image detection unit; a three-dimensional information detection unit” in claim 4; “an attitude detection unit” in claim 7; “a position detection unit” in claim 8.
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 (i.e. a sensor/detector) 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 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.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 1, limitations of “a distance to the loading platform” render the claim indefinite. A distance from what to the loading platform? A distance from the loading platform detection unit to the loading platform? Hence, it is unclear.
As to claims 2-8, claims 2-8 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, and fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
As to claims 1-8:
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-8 are directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 1 recites a vehicle determination system that determines a type of a vehicle having a loading platform, the vehicle determination system comprising:
a loading platform detection unit that detects information including a distance to the loading platform (this is routine data sensing); and
a controller, wherein the controller calculates dimensional information about the loading platform based on the distance detected by the loading platform detection unit (this is directed to abstract limitations: the calculating step is a mental step (the calculating dimensional information about the loading platform can be in human mind));
stores a correspondence between the dimensional information about the loading platform and a type of the vehicle (this is routine data gathering and data storing necessary for the abstract limitations; gathering and storing data can be performed in human mind), and
determines the type of the vehicle based on the calculated dimensional information and the stored correspondence (this is directed to abstract limitations: the determining step is a mental step (the determining the type of the vehicle can be in human mind)).
Thus, claim 1 recites limitations that fall into mental process groups of abstract ideas. Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1. Claims 2-6, each recite at least all of the judicial exceptions of claim 1, and therefore also recite limitations that fall into the mental process groups of abstract ideas. Additionally, each of claims 2-9 recite nothing more than additional abstract ideas of mental processes (calculating a two-dimensional shape and three-dimensional shape of the loading platform can be in human mind) and recitation of routine components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas.
Applicant should note, with respect to the limitations regarding the data recited in claims 1-8, that because the device merely recites abstract ideas of data gathering, data calculating, data storing, (mental processes (determining the type of the vehicle can be in human mind), and not any particular structure or steps for data gathering, data calculating, data storing, the examiner, under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, does not consider any details about the data to be anything other than part of the abstract step of routine data generating and routine data collecting and data storing and mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements do not add to the mental processes something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance i.e. improvements to another technology or technical field, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Regarding claims 1-8, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities of mental processes cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claims 1-8 do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claims. For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 1-8, and claims 1-8 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Conclusion
Due to 101 and 112 issues presenting in claims 1-8, a rejection under prior art could not reasonably be made, and that once the 101 and 112 issues are absolved/corrected, another comparison with the prior art will again be made, based upon the Examiner's clearer understanding of the claimed invention.
Applicant is invited to review Translate_JP2012078114A of Yoshida, which teaches distance LR to loading surface 24 of loading platform 22 is measured (fig.1); an area of the loading surface of the loading platform can be registered in advance for each vehicle to be measured (page 3); shape of the loading platform (the shape of the loading surface of the loading platform) is determined for each vehicle or type of vehicle (page 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 12pm-8pm.
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, John Breene can be reached on (571) 272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights