DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/724,469 filed on 12/03/2024. Claims 4 and 7-8 are objected to as improper multiple dependent claims depending from multiple dependent claims. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 7-8 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). For purposes of this prosecution, these claims have been interpreted as depending on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1- 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A control system for controlling a loading machine including working equipment having a bucket, the control system comprising:
a controller, wherein the controller
calculates traction force of the loading machine during excavation work of excavating an object to be excavated with the bucket,
acquire a bucket angle representing an angle of the bucket with respect to a horizontal plane during the excavation work, and
calculate a weight of an excavated object, which is the object to be excavated, held by the bucket based on the traction force, the bucket angle, and bucket data indicating a shape and a dimension of the bucket."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Means-Plus-Function Language: The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“a controller, the controller being configured to calculate … acquire … calculate …”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“a controller, wherein the controller calculates … acquires … calculates …”
“an object to be excavated with the bucket”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Generally Unclear: The expression “calculate a weight of an excavated object, which is the object to be excavated” as used in the claim is vague and indefinite and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition and scope of the subject-matter of said claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear whether the object is excavated (i.e. past tense) or is intended to be excavated (i.e. future aspirational tense).
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A control system for controlling a loading machine including working equipment having a bucket, the control system comprising:
a controller, wherein the controller is intended to:
calculate a traction force of the loading machine during excavation work of excavating an object intended to be excavated with the bucket,
acquire a bucket angle representing an angle of the bucket with respect to a horizontal plane during the excavation work, and
calculate a weight of an
Claims 2, 5-6, and 8 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 2 recites: "The control system according to claim 1, wherein the controller
calculates a load height representing a height of the object to be excavated inside the bucket based on the traction force, and
calculates a weight of the excavated object based on the load height."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is [intended to:
calculate a load height representing a height of an object
calculate a weight of the excavated object based on the load height]."
Claim 3 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 3 recites: "The control system according to claim 2, wherein the controller
stores an earth pressure coefficient of the object to be excavated, and
calculates the load height based on the traction force and the earth pressure coefficient."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system according to claim 2, wherein the controller is [intended to:
store an earth pressure coefficient of an object
calculate the load height based on the traction force and the earth pressure coefficient]."
Claim 4 recites: "The control system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein
the loading machine excavates the object to be excavated with the bucket while moving forward,
a surface of the excavated object includes a first surface that slopes upwardly toward a front, and a second surface that is connected to a front end of the first surface and slopes downwardly toward the front, and
the controller
calculates a weight of the excavated object based on a near-side load angle representing an angle of the first surface with respect to a horizontal plane and a blade edge side load angle representing an angle of the second surface with respect to the horizontal plane."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Moreover, this language is further rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Inconsistent claim terms: The language of the claims use inconsistent and vague claim terms, such that it is unclear if two or more similarly worded terms, or in other cases, a specific term followed by a general term, are intended to refer to the same concept, or whether these terms are intended to be interpreted as distinct concepts. For example, it is unclear whether the terms “a front”, “a front end of the first surface” and “the front” are intended to describe a single claim element, or distinct claim elements. Moreover, the terms “a/the front” are vague and indefinite as they are adjectives, however, it is unclear what noun these adjectives are intended to characterize.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system according to claim 1, wherein
the loading machine excavates an object
a surface of the excavated object includes a first surface that slopes upwardly
the controller [is intended to:
calculate a weight of the excavated object based on a near-side load angle representing an angle of the first surface with respect to a horizontal plane and a blade edge side load angle representing an angle of the second surface with respect to the horizontal plane]."
Claims 5-6 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 5 recites: "The control system according to claim 4, wherein the controller
stores an angle of repose of the object to be excavated, and
the blade edge side load angle includes the angle of repose."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system according to claim 4, wherein the controller is [intended to:
store an angle of repose of an object ], and
the blade edge side load angle includes the angle of repose."
Claim is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 6 recites: "The control system according to claim 5, wherein the controller
calculates the angle of repose based on the excavated object held by the bucket, and
stores the calculated angle of repose."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system according to claim 5, wherein the controller is [intended to;
calculate the angle of repose based on the excavated object held by the bucket, and
store the calculated angle of repose]."
Claim 7 recites: “The control system according to any one of claims 1 to 6, wherein the controller controls a posture of the working equipment such that the weight calculated becomes a target weight.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Moreover this language is further rejected for at least the following reasons:
Generally Unclear: The language “[control] a posture of the working equipment such that the weight calculated becomes a target weight” as used in the claim is vague and indefinite and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition and scope of the subject-matter of said claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear how controlling the posture of the working equipment changes the weight (or calculated weight) of the excavated object, and in the alternative, whether this language is intended to imply that the working equipment is controlled to pick up a target amount (i.e. weight) of the excavated object.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
“The control system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is intended to: control
Claim 9 recites: "A control method for controlling a loading machine including working equipment having a bucket, the control method comprising:
calculating a traction force of the loading machine during excavation work of excavating an object to be excavated with the bucket;
calculating a bucket angle representing an angle of the bucket with respect to a horizontal plane during the excavation work; and
calculating a weight of an excavated object, which is the object to be excavated, held by the bucket based on the traction force, the bucket angle, and bucket data indicating a shape and a dimension of the bucket.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A control method for controlling a loading machine including working equipment having a bucket, the control method comprising:
calculating a traction force of the loading machine during excavation work of excavating an object [intended to be excavated with the bucket];
calculating a bucket angle representing an angle of the bucket with respect to a horizontal plane during the excavation work; and
calculating a weight of an
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, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 9 recites: “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 bucket angle representing an angle of the bucket with respect to a horizontal plane [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 a weight of an excavated object, which is the object to be excavated, held by the bucket based on the traction force, the bucket angle, and bucket data indicating a shape and a dimension of the bucket [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 bucket angle representing an angle of the bucket with respect to a horizontal plane; and
calculating a weight of an excavated object, which is the object to be excavated, held by the bucket based on the traction force, the bucket angle, and bucket data indicating a shape and a dimension of the bucket.
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 a weight of an excavated object. 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 9, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as detailed above in regard to claim 9.
Dependent claims 2 and 5-6 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 5-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daimon (EP 3719223 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Daimon discloses a control system for controlling a loading machine including working equipment having a bucket (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1, and related text), the control system comprising:
a controller (e.g. at least controller/processor 30, 70, microcomputer CPU, ¶ 44, 46, 106, Fig. 2, 10, and related text), wherein the controller is [intended to:
calculate a traction force of the loading machine during excavation work of excavating an object [intended to be excavated with the bucket] (see e.g. at least ¶ 54, 56, 61-62, 113-115, Fig. 2-3, 10, and related text, calculating traction pressure included in the boom pressure based on the information about the traction sensed by traction sensing units 32 to 34 and 51b),
acquire a bucket angle representing an angle of the bucket with respect to a horizontal plane during the excavation work (see e.g. at least ¶ 32-35, 56, Fig. 1-3, and related text, detecting boom angle θ and tilt angle of bucket 6), and
calculate a weight of an object held by the bucket based on the traction force, the bucket angle, and bucket data indicating a shape and a dimension of the bucket] (see e.g. at least ¶ 65, 72-73, Fig. 4-5, and related text, disclosing the load weight calculation unit 30C, calculating the load weight (or the instantaneous load) in bucket 6 based on the boom angle and the corrected pressure calculated by the boom pressure correction unit 30b).
Regarding claim 2, Daimon discloses that the controller is [intended to:
calculate a load height representing a height of an object inside the bucket based on the traction force (see e.g. at least¶ 64-73, Fig. 4-5, 10-11, 13, and related text), and
calculate a weight of the excavated object based on the load height] (id., illustrating determination of the load when the bucket 6 is empty, loaded half, or fully loaded).
Regarding claim 4, Daimon discloses that the loading machine excavates an object (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 10, 43, Fig. 1, 6, and related text),
a surface of the excavated object includes a first surface that slopes upwardly, and a second surface that is connected to a front end of the first surface and slopes downwardly (see e.g. at least Fig. 6, and related text), and
the controller [is intended to:
calculate a weight of the excavated object based on a near-side load angle representing an angle of the first surface with respect to a horizontal plane and a blade edge side load angle representing an angle of the second surface with respect to the horizontal plane] (see e.g. at least ¶ 35, 76, Fig. 1, 6, and related text).
Regarding claim 7, Daimon discloses that the controller is [intended to: control a posture of the working equipment] (see e.g. at least ¶ 3, 72-75, 81, Fig. 4-6, 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 8, Daimon discloses a loading machine comprising: the control system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Daimon discloses a control method for controlling a loading machine including working equipment having a bucket (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 8-9, and related text), the control method comprising:
calculating a traction force of the loading machine during excavation work of excavating an object [intended to be excavated with the bucket] (see e.g. at least ¶ 54, 56, 61-62, 113-115, Fig. 2-3, 10, and related text, calculating traction pressure included in the boom pressure based on the information about the traction sensed by traction sensing units 32 to 34 and 51b);
calculating a bucket angle representing an angle of the bucket with respect to a horizontal plane during the excavation work (see e.g. at least ¶ 32-35, 56, Fig. 1-3, and related text, detecting boom angle θ and tilt angle of bucket 6); and
calculating a weight of an object held by the bucket based on the traction force, the bucket angle, and bucket data indicating a shape and a dimension of the bucket (see e.g. at least ¶ 65, 72-73, Fig. 4-5, and related text, disclosing the load weight calculation unit 30C, calculating the load weight (or the instantaneous load) in bucket 6 based on the boom angle and the corrected pressure calculated by the boom pressure correction unit 30b).
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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimon (EP 3719223 A1) in view of Khosravi (Khosravi MH., et al. Theoretical Analysis of Earth Pressure Against Rigid Retaining Walls Under Translation Mode. Soils and Foundations (2016)).
Regarding claim 3, Khosravi teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Daimon including namely: storing an earth pressure coefficient of an object to be excavated, and calculating the load height based on the traction force and the earth pressure coefficient (see e.g. at least pg. 672, col. 2, ln. 1-25).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Daimon by storing an earth pressure coefficient of the object to be excavated, and calculates the load height based on the traction force and the earth pressure coefficient as taught by Khosvravi in order to improve safety of excavation operations and maintenance of soil structures through the efficient and accurate application of soil dynamics (Khosravi: pg. 666, col. 2, ln. 1-13).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimon (EP 3719223 A1) in view of Nakamura (US 2019/0003152 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Daimon including namely: that a controller is [intended to:
store an angle of repose of an object] (see e.g. at least ¶ 79-81, Fig. 10, and related text), and
the blade edge side load angle includes the angle of repose (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Daimon by configuring that the controller is further [intended to store an angle of repose of an object, and the blade edge side load angle includes the angle of repose] as taught by Nakamura in order to maintain high work efficiency by guiding a work machine to a stop position suited for keeping a work amount even when the work machine carries out work while being placed on an object to be excavated, and wherein a height of the object to be excavated changes (Nakamura: ¶ 7-9).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Daimon teaches that the controller is [intended to:
calculate the angle of repose based on the excavated object held by the bucket (Nakamura: see e.g. at least ¶ 79-81, Fig. 10, and related text), and
store the calculated angle of repose] (id.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights