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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 23 March 2026 has been entered. Claim 16 has been canceled and claim 21 has been entered. Claims 1-15, and 17-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every Objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 31 December 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the Applicant's claimed invention provides advantages such as improving” and “thus includes meaningful limitations that integrate any judicial exception into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the §102/103 rejection are believed to be addressed in the rejection as outlined below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 unit for determining a remaining utilization capacity” in claim 1.
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 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 § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) determining and displaying a remaining utilization of an energy source. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional data types and/or steps (mathematical calculations, and mental processes) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The concept described in claims 1-20 is/are not meaningfully different than those methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-20 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components that perform the generic functions of [e.g. "transmitting information", "generating information"] common to electronics and computer systems does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (i.e. mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system).
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-15, 17-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amitani et. al. (US Patent Publication 2025/0108703) in view of Romero et. al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0113279).
Regarding claim 1, Amitani discloses a unit for determining a remaining utilization capacity of at least one energy supply source] connected to at least one electrical consumer (any implement attached to or towed by the work vehicle and configured to receive power from the PTO) used on a road construction machine wherein the unit is adapted for (¶28, 36, 68)
indicating the remaining utilization capacity determined on the basis of a current charging state of the at least one energy supply source] as a remaining utilization duration, a remaining utilization range and/or a remaining utilization area for the at least one electrical consumer. (¶107, 114, 119)
Amitani discloses a battery pack controlled by CPU and that the SOC is calculated to be displayed (¶80, 84, 119) the specific examples in Amitani however described fuel levels.
Romero however teaches managing battery utilization. (abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Amitani with battery as taught by Romero with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 2, Amitani further discloses wherein the unit is adapted for indicating a target utilization capacity required for a planned work measure by the at least one electrical consumer as target utilization duration, target utilization range and/or target utilization area. (Fig 9A, 9B, 12-13; ¶121, 126-129)
Regarding claim 3, Amaitani further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on current operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer, the current operation conditions comprising a current and/or averaged energy demand of the at least one electrical consumer. (¶104, 114, 126-129)
Regarding claim 4, Amaitani further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on current operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer, the current operation conditions comprising a current or averaged energy demand of the at least one electrical consumer. (¶104, 114, 126-129)
Regarding claim 5, Amaitani further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on current working conditions of the at least one battery, the current working conditions comprising a current working temperature of the at least one battery or a uniform or fluctuating load. (¶77, 117, 119)
Regarding claim 6, Amaitani further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on a comparison of the current operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer with target operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer or the current working conditions of the at least one battery with the target working conditions of the at least one battery. (¶104, 114, 126-129)
Regarding claim 7, Amaitani further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on a comparison of the current operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer with target operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer and/or the current working conditions of the at least one battery with the target working conditions of the at least one battery. (¶104, 114, 126-129)
Regarding claims 8-9, Amaitani further discloses wherein the unit is configured for correcting the determined remaining utilization capacity based on the result of the comparison to determine a corrected remaining utilization capacity. (¶104, 114, 126-129)
Regarding claim 10, Amaitani further discloses wherein the unit has at least one adjustable display field, by which the remaining utilization capacity or the corrected remaining utilization capacity may be displayed, or the unit is configured to output a signal if the remaining utilization capacity or the corrected remaining utilization capacity is less than a predetermined percentage of the target utilization capacity. (Fig 9A, 9B, 12-13; ¶121, 126-129)
Regarding claim 11, Amaitani further discloses a road construction machine, having at least one unit according to claim 1. (¶28)
Regarding claim 12, Amaitani further discloses wherein the unit is configured for transmitting a remaining utilization capacity or a corrected remaining utilization capacity to at least one remote receiver. (¶95)
Regarding claims 13-14, Romero teaches wherein the road construction machine is a road paver, a feeder for a road paver, a roller vehicle or a milling vehicle. (¶22, 28)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Amitani with a road paver, a feeder for a road paver, a roller vehicle or a milling vehicle as taught by Romero with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 15, Amaitani further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on a current outside temperature of the road construction machine and/or a current driving speed of the road construction machine, or a current paving material temperature, and wherein a driving speed of the road construction machine or a paving material temperature is controlled based on the remaining utilization duration, the remaining utilization range, or the remaining utilization area for the at least one electrical consumer. (¶114)
Regarding claim 17, Amitani further discloses wherein the at least one electrical consumer is an electrically operated heating device or the at least one electrical consumer is an electrically operated electro-hydraulic unit or the at least one electrical consumer is an electrically operated longitudinal conveyor device or the at least one electrical consumer is an electrically operated transverse conveyor device or an electrically operated undercarriage drive of the road construction machine. (¶33)
Regarding claim 18, Romero teaches a paving train comprising at least one road construction machine according to claim 10, wherein a remaining utilization capacity comprising a remaining utilization area, is transmittable from the road paver or feeder to the roller vehicle. (¶22, 28)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Amitani with teaches a paving train comprising at least one road construction machine according to claim 10, wherein a remaining utilization capacity comprising a remaining utilization area, is transmittable from the road paver and/or feeder to the roller vehicle as taught by Romero with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 19, Amitani discloses a method for determining a remaining utilization capacity of at least one battery connected to at least one electrical consumer used on a road construction machine, the method comprising (¶28, 36, 68)
indicating the remaining utilization capacity as a remaining utilization duration, a remaining utilization range or a remaining utilization area for the at least one electrical consumer on the basis of a detected, current charging state of the at least one battery. (¶107, 114, 119)
Regarding claim 20, Amitani further discloses wherein by the unit, a target utilization capacity required for a planned work measure by the at least one electrical consumer is indicated as target utilization duration, target utilization range or target utilization area. (Fig 9A, 9B, 12-13; ¶121, 126-129)
Regarding claim 21, Amitani further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on a current outside temperature of the road construction machine, a current driving speed of the road construction machine, or a current paving material temperature, and further comprising controlling a driving speed of the road construction machine or a paving material temperature based on the remaining utilization duration, the remaining utilization range, or the remaining utilization area for the at least one electrical consumer. (¶114)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights