DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-7 of application 18/723,950, filed on 12-December-2024, are presented for examination. The IDSs received on 25-June-2024 and 17-November-2025 have been considered.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
2.1 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2.2 Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7: A control method for controlling a loading machine including working equipment having a bucket [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h)], the control method comprising:
calculating a traction force of the loading machine [mental process/step] during excavation work of excavating an object to be excavated with the bucket [generic/generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (2106.05 (h))];
calculating a load height representing a height of the object to be excavated inside the bucket [mental process/step] during the excavation work [generic/generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (2106.05 (h))]; and
calculating an earth pressure coefficient of the object to be excavated based on the traction force and the load height [mental process/step].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. Therefore, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories [see MPEP 2106.03].
101 Analysis – Step 2A/Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
In Step 2A/Prong 1 of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites 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)].
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of mental processes because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a traction force of the loading machine;
calculating a load height representing a height of the object to be excavated inside the bucket; and
calculating an earth pressure coefficient of the object to be excavated based on the traction force and the load height.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A/Prong 2: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A/Prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: (1) Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (2106.05(f)); (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (2106.05 (g)); and/or (3) generic/generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (2106.05 (h)), do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.]
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of during excavation work of excavating an object to be excavated with the bucket and during the excavation work. The “during the excavation work” steps merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose control environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of calculating the earth pressure coefficient of the object to be excavated.
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim [see MPEP 2106.05].
As discussed with respect to Step 2A/Prong 2, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception as a general means of calculating the earth pressure coefficient of the object to be excavated. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claim 1 (a control system) is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as detailed above in regard to claim 7.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 4-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Dependent claim 3 recites limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. The limitations of this dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the limitations for “wherein the loading machine excavates the object to be excavated with the bucket while moving forward”. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is patent eligible, but is rejected here for being dependent on a rejected ineligible base claim.
Therefore, claims 1-7 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
3.1 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3.2 Claims 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyodo et al, USP Publication 2021/0189690.
3.3 Hyodo discloses:
Claims 1 and 7: A control system for controlling a loading machine including working equipment having a bucket [¶0007; 0082 (it is specified that the vehicle body is traveling in a state of not performing the lifting operation of the work device corresponds to the case where the bucket is pushed into the natural ground or the case where the dozing operation (soil pushing operation) for pushing the road surface to level the natural ground by using the work device (bucket) is performed.)], the control system comprising:
a controller [0071-0075], the controller being configured to
calculate a traction force of the loading machine during excavation work of excavating an object to be excavated with the bucket [0007; 0086 (during the excavation operation, when the digging force of the work device is 70% of the vehicle weight, the maximum traction force of the wheel loader is set to 50% to 70% of the vehicle weight as the second set value. That is, the maximum traction force of the wheel loader during the excavation operation is set greater than the maximum traction force of the wheel loader at the time of pushing the bucket into the natural ground or performing the dozing work. This is because, by performing the lifting operation of the lift arm at the time of excavation, the digging force of the lift arm acts against the wheels in addition to its own weight (vehicle weight).); 0100; 0106],
calculate a load height representing a height of the object to be excavated inside the bucket during the excavation work [0002 (When the traction force is too great against the digging force of the work device, at the time of operating a lift arm to lift a bucket in the upward direction after pushing the bucket into an object to be excavated, slippage of wheels occurs. As a result of the slippage, the traction force becomes rather small, and thus loads such as earth and sand are hardly to be inserted onto the bucket); 0003 (at the time of pushing the bucket into the natural ground as an object to be excavated so as to insert the loads onto the bucket, by setting the maximum tilt of an HST motor to an upper limit value, the traction force is made to exhibit its maximum force to the upper limit value, thereby allowing the loads to be inserted sufficiently onto the bucket.)], and
calculate an earth pressure coefficient of the object to be excavated based on the traction force and the load height [0007; 0084-0086 (in the case where the wheel loader works on a slippery road surface of which the static frictional coefficient µ with the wheels is 0.4 to 0.5 (µ=0.4 to 0.5), at the time of pushing the bucket into the natural ground or performing the dozing operation, the maximum traction force of the wheel loader is set to 40% to 50% of the vehicle weight as the first set value.); 0107].
Claim 6: A loading machine comprising: the control system according to claim 1 [0075].
Claim Objections
4. In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections noted above, claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
5. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of documents A-G on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Document A defines a document of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone.
Documents B-G define the general state of the art which is not considered to be of particular relevance.
Prior Art of Record
6. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. [SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123].
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966)]. Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference [See In re Freda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963)]. Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973)]. Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references [See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)].
Response Guidelines
7.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed [see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133]. Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned [see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)].
7.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (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.
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.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661