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 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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a monitoring system for a work machine (i.e., machine) and claim 20 is directed to a method for monitoring a work machine (i.e., process). Therefore, claims 1 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
“a monitoring system for a work machine, comprising:
a measurement data acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine, the rotating member contacting the ground;
a boulder determination unit configured to determine presence or absence of a boulder on the ground in the measurement data; and
a warning control unit configured to output a warning from an output device based on the presence or absence of the boulder on the ground in a traveling direction of the rotating member.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The claimed “measurement data acquisition unit” and “boulder determination unit” is being interpreted to be equivalent in function to the human mind. For example, “a measurement data acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine, the rotating member contacting the ground; a boulder determination unit configured to determine presence or absence of a boulder on the ground in the measurement data” in the context of this claim encompasses that the operator may manually observe both the rotation of a rotating member that is contacting the ground and observe if there’s a boulder and subsequently, manually record the observations with a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows: “a monitoring system for a work machine, comprising, a warning control unit configured to output a warning from an output device based on the presence or absence of the boulder on the ground in a traveling direction of the rotating member.”
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a warning control unit configured to output a warning from an output device based on the presence or absence of the boulder on the ground in a traveling direction of the rotating member”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and as discussed above, the additional limitations of the “warning control unit configured to output a warning from an output device…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a warning control unit configured to output a warning from an output device based on the presence or absence of the boulder on the ground in a traveling direction of the rotating member,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the output device mounted on the work machine is demonstrated to be used in a well-known and conventional manner, and the specification does not provide any indication that the work machine output device is anything other than a conventional display within a work machine.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “outputting a warning…,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a warning control unit configured to output a warning from an output device based on the presence or absence of the boulder on the ground in a traveling direction of the rotating member amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 - 19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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 - 19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 20. Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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) are: measurement data acquisition unit, boulder determination unit, warning control unit, warning criteria setting unit, output device and driving state acquisition unit, in claims 1 - 19.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 12, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brubaker (Pub. No.: US 2018/0338422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brubaker discloses a monitoring system for a work machine (100, FIG. 1), comprising:
a measurement data acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine (sensors e.g., camera for monitoring images/data relating to obstacles, crops, fill levels or the like ¶ 19 and ground speed control system ¶ 28), the rotating member contacting the ground (114, FIG. 1);
a boulder determination unit (camera ¶ 19) configured to determine presence or absence of a boulder on the ground in the measurement data (obstacle detected like a rock in the agricultural field ¶ 21); and
a warning control unit (406, FIG. 4) configured to output a warning from an output device based on the presence or absence of the boulder on the ground in a traveling direction of the rotating member (Via display 406, FIG. 4: “Warning: Header raised due to small objects in path” Small object 301 e.g., rocks in path 110, FIG. 4. ¶ 43).
Regarding claim 2, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine, further comprising
a warning criteria setting unit configured to set a warning area in a part of the ground in the traveling direction (See arrow pointing in travel direction toward obstacle 301, FIG. 4), wherein the warning control unit outputs the warning (Warning, FIG. 4) when it is determined that the boulder exists in the warning area (sensors are configured to determine obstacles in an area surrounding the harvester which inherently has a limited range which is read on the claimed “warning area” ¶ 19).
Regarding claim 3, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the output device includes a display device that displays an area image indicating the
warning area (404, FIG. 4 and ¶ 46).
Regarding claim 4, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine wherein the display device displays a target image indicating the ground, the target image being generated based on the measurement data (301, FIG. 4), and
the warning control unit superimposes the area image on the target image to display the
target image on the display device (301, 406, FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the warning output device includes displaying, on the display device, a warning image indicating that the boulder exists (Warning: Header raised due to small objects (e.g., stone) in path, FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the output device includes a display device that displays a target image indicating the
ground, the target image being generated based on the measurement data, and
the warning output includes displaying, on the display device, a warning image indicating
that the boulder exists (Warning: Header raised due to small objects (e.g., stone) in path, FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine wherein the warning control unit displays the warning image such that the boulder is highlighted (301, FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the warning image includes a frame image displayed so as to surround the boulder (301, 404; FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine
Wherein the output device includes a sound generator that generates a warning sound, and
the warning output includes generating, from the sound generator, the warning sound
indicating that the boulder exists (audible alarm if the harvester approaches an obstacle detected ¶ 27).
Regarding claim 10, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the work machine includes a transmission that switches the traveling direction of the work machine, and the warning control unit outputs the warning when it is determined that the boulder exists on the ground in the traveling direction decided by the transmission (inputs for harvester control including steering, adjustment of the speed and/or direction of the harvester ¶ 18).
Regarding claim 11, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the measurement data acquisition unit acquires measurement data of the ground in front of the rotating member (monitor characteristic, e.g., density, of the crop in front of the harvester and obstacles around harvester in agricultural field ¶ 20 ¶ 36), and
the warning control unit outputs the warning when it is determined that the boulder exists on the ground in front of the rotating member in a state where the transmission is operated to move the work machine forward (¶¶ 18, 36).
Regarding claim 12, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine wherein the rotating member includes a front rotating member and a rear rotating member disposed behind the front rotating member (Front wheel and 114 rear wheel, FIG. 1),
the measurement data acquisition unit acquires measurement data of the ground in front of
the front rotating member, and the warning control unit outputs the warning when it is determined that the boulder exists on the ground in front of the front rotating member (301, FIG. 3) in a state where the transmission is operated to move the work machine forward (¶ 36).
Regarding claim 15, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine
further comprising a driving state acquisition unit configured to determine whether the work machine is traveling in the traveling direction, wherein the warning control unit outputs the warning when it is determined that the work machine is traveling in the traveling direction and the boulder exists on the ground in the traveling direction (301, FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Brubaker discloses a method for monitoring a work machine (500, FIG. 5), comprising:
acquiring measurement data of a ground on which the work machine travels by rotation of a rotating member included in the work machine (sensors e.g., camera for monitoring images/data relating to obstacles, crops, fill levels or the like ¶ 19 and ground speed control system ¶ 28), the rotating member contacting the ground (114, FIG. 1);
determining presence or absence of a boulder on the ground in the measurement data obstacle detected like a rock in the agricultural field ¶ 21); and
outputting a warning from an output device when it is determined that the boulder exists on the ground in a traveling direction of the rotating member (Via display 406, FIG. 4: “Warning: Header raised due to small objects in path” Small object 301 e.g., rocks in path 110, FIG. 4. ¶ 43).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker (Pub. No.: US 2018/0338422 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Onuma et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0222573 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Brubaker is silent to the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the measurement data acquisition unit acquires measurement data of the ground behind the rotating member, and the warning control unit outputs the warning when it is determined that the boulder exists on the ground behind the rotating member in a state where the transmission is operated to move the work machine backward.
In the same field of endeavor, Onuma teaches an obstacle detection device for a work machine, with rotating members 3e (FIG. 1), that detects obstacles around a working machine using a camera and calculates position of the detected obstacles and displays them on a display device (See Abstract and display 1300, FIG. 3). More specifically, the lower structure of the work machine may move in reverse and objects directly behind the machine maybe determined and displayed (See Reversing and objects 15ab in FIG. 12 and ¶ 97).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work machine controlling output of the warning control unit taught by Brubaker to determine that the boulder exists on the ground behind the rotating member in a state where the transmission is operated to move the work machine backward as taught by Onuma to enhance machine safety and improve work efficiency (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 14, Onuma teaches the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the rotating member includes a front rotating member and a rear rotating member disposed behind the front rotating member (3e, FIG. 1), the measurement data acquisition unit acquires measurement data of the ground behind the rear rotating member, and the warning control unit outputs the warning when it is determined that the boulder exists on the ground behind the rear rotating member in a state where the transmission is operated to move
the work machine backward (See Reversing and objects 15ab in FIG. 12 and ¶ 97).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work machine controlling output of the warning control unit taught by Brubaker to acquire measurement data of the ground behind the rear rotating member, and the warning control unit outputs the warning when it is determined that the boulder exists on the ground behind the rear rotating member in a state where the transmission is operated to move the work machine backward as taught by Onuma to enhance machine safety and improve work efficiency (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 16, Onuma teaches the monitoring system for the work machine
Wherein the work machine includes working equipment having a boom and a bucket (1ac, FIG. 1), and the boulder determination unit determines the presence or absence of the boulder in both states where the boom is rising and lowering (FIGS. 10 and 11).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work taught by Brubaker to wherein the work machine includes working equipment having a boom and a bucket, and the boulder determination unit determines the presence or absence of the boulder in both states where the boom is rising and lowering as taught by Onuma to enhance machine safety and improve work efficiency (¶ 4).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker (Pub. No.: US 2018/0338422 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yomogita et al. (Patent No.: US 8,070,334 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Brubaker teaches the monitoring system for the work machine,
a measuring device that is disposed in the housing and measures the ground (ground speed control system and object detection ¶ 28), and the measurement data acquisition unit acquires the measurement data from the measuring device (sensors that are disclosed may be on the harvester itself which is interpreted to include a housing ¶ 25). Brubaker is silent to the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the work machine includes a headlight, a housing that holds the headlight. However, Yomogita teaches a working machine with an operator’s cab, a first and second headlight with a housing that holds the lights (lighting assembly col. 5, lines 51-67; col. 6, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to modify Brubaker to include a headlight and a housing that holds the headlight as taught by Yomogita to enhance illumination while easily avoid obstruction to the front of the machine (col. 8, lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 19, Brubaker discloses the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the measuring device includes an imaging device (¶ 31), and the measurement data includes image data of the ground (¶ 28).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker (Pub. No.: US 2018/0338422 A1) in view of Yomogita et al. (Patent No.: US 8,070,334 B2) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Onuma et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0222573 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Onuma teaches the monitoring system for the work machine, wherein the measuring device is disposed on each of a left side and a right side of a center of the work machine in a vehicle width direction of the work machine (Left camera 13c and right camera 13b), the rotating member is disposed on each of the left side and the right side of the center of the work machine in the vehicle width direction of the work machine (left and right tracks and 3c), the measuring device on the left side measures the ground in the traveling direction of the rotating member on the left side (camera scanning left side of machine, FIG. 11), and the measuring device on the right side measures the ground in the traveling direction of the rotating member on the right side (Camera scanning right side, FIG. 10).
It would have been obvious to modify Brubaker and Yomogita to wherein the measuring device is disposed on each of a left side and a right side of a center of the work machine in a vehicle width direction of the work machine, the rotating member is disposed on each of the left side and the right side of the center of the work machine in the vehicle width direction of the work machine, the measuring device on the left side measures the ground in the traveling direction of the rotating member on the left side, and the measuring device on the right side measures the ground in the traveling direction of the rotating member on the right side as taught by Onuma to improve detection performance (¶ 52).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663