DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5-10 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 10/16/2024 and 02/20/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Response to Arguments
5. Regarding 101 Rejection: Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 9 have not overcome the 101-rejection raised in the previous action. Reinforming learning based on reward/penalty is a mental step, as it is optimizing the excavation amount or travel time and not actually requires an excavation operation to be performed. This limitation does not recite a particular improvement to reinforcement learning, processor architecture, sensors or vehicle-control technology. The limitation is directed to what information to evaluate and what objective to optimize so that the system can select an excavation vehicle’s path and movement. This is why its characterized as an abstract idea (mental process) with the excavation specific use constituting extra solution activity rather than a technological improvement. Therefore, the 101 rejection is not withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system.
Claim 9 is directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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 claims 1 and 9 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below - bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The claim limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 1 recites,
A work vehicle path plan generation system configured to generate a path plan for a work vehicle including work equipment to perform an excavation work on a ground of a construction target area, the work vehicle path plan generation system comprising:
a position decector configured to detect a position of the work vehicle;
and a processor configured to: store (i) topographic shape information indicating a shape of a topography in the construction target area, (ii) a position of the work vehicle, and (iii) design surface information indicating a target shape in the construction target area,
generate a work equipment path plan indicating a movement path of the work equipment and a travel path plan indicating a travel path of the work vehicle, based on the topographic shape information, the position of the work vehicle, and the design surface information, (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a combination of effectors in which are capable of executing services based off collected data. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
wherein the processor is configured to perform reinforcement learning to generate an optimal travel path and an optimal movement path based on a reward and a penalty value, the reward being obtained by using at least one of (i) an excavation earth amount or (ii) a work time for which the work vehicle moves along a candidate travel path, and the penalty value being related to an excavation operation. (This limitation does not recite a particular improvement to reinforcement learning, processor architecture, sensors, or vehicle-control technology. It specifies what information to evaluate and what objective to optimize, and this is characterized as a mental process. A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally evaluate an optimal travel and movement path. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
Claim 9 has similar mental processes as claim 1. It also showcases generating steps in which can be shown above in the analysis for claim 1.
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 (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites,
A work vehicle path plan generation system configured to generate a path plan for a work vehicle including work equipment to perform an excavation work on a ground of a construction target area, the work vehicle path plan generation system comprising:
a position detector configured to detect a position of the work vehicle; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere data transmitting. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
and a processor configured to: store (i) topographic shape information indicating a shape of a topography in the construction target area, (ii) a position of the work vehicle, and (iii) design surface information indicating a target shape in the construction target area, (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere data transmitting. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
generate a work equipment path plan indicating a movement path of the work equipment and a travel path plan indicating a travel path of the work vehicle, based on the topographic shape information, the position of the work vehicle, and the design surface information,
wherein the processor is configured to perform reinforcement learning to generate an optimal travel path and an optimal movement path based on a reward and a penalty value, the reward being obtained by using at least one of (i) an excavation earth amount or (ii) a work time for which the work vehicle moves along a candidate travel path, and the penalty value being related to an excavation operation. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to a processor performing reinforcement learning. An optimal travel path and optimal movement path is being generated; however, these paths are not being used by the work machine. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
Claim 9 has similar extra-solution activity steps as claim 1.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) 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 to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, 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 limitation(s) do/does 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 10 and 15 do 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 discussed above, appears to be mere data gathering and transmitting of information which can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. And as discussed above, the additional limitations which are underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 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 additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely have additional steps in which are either mental processes or insignificant post solution activity. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible. Examiner recommends adding a controlling step where the work vehicle is being controlled based on generated path plan.
Claim(s) 1-10 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.
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:
“position detector” – in claim 1, 9
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.
The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specification for some of the above limitations:
“position detector” – not disclosed
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recites ““position detector”. The ““position detector” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be described, in sufficient detail, what the structure, material, or acts of the position detector is, or by what algorithm(s) or steps/procedure the detector is functioning. Therefore, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of any or all input device(s) may be covered/encompassed by the claim.
Claims 3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected for the same reason by their dependence on claim 1 and 9.
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 1-10 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 and 9 recites limitations “position detector” in which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “position detector” is recited in the claim as acquiring information regarding a position of the work vehicle. However, the specification 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 claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected for the same reason by their dependence on claim 1 and 9.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
For independent claim 1, the prior art on record does not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole and specifically “...generate a work equipment path plan indicating a movement path of the work equipment and a travel path plan indicating a travel path of the work vehicle, based on the topographic shape information, the position of the work vehicle, and the design surface information, wherein the processor is configured to perform reinforcement learning to generate an optimal travel path and an optimal movement path based on a reward and a penalty value, the reward being obtained by using at least one of (i) an excavation earth amount or (ii) a work time for which the work vehicle moves along a candidate travel path, and the penalty value being related to an excavation operation.”
For independent claim 9, the prior art on record does not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole and specifically “...generating, by the processor, a work equipment path plan indicating a movement path of the work equipment and a travel path plan indicating a travel path of the work vehicle, based on the topographic shape information, the position of the work vehicle, and the design surface information, wherein generating the work equipment path plan comprises performing reinforcement learning to generate an optimal travel path and an optimal movement path based on a reward and a penalty value, the reward being obtained by using at least one of (i) an excavation earth amount or (ii) a work time for which the work vehicle moves along a candidate travel path, and the penalty value being related to an excavation operation.”
The dependent claims are allowable at least based on their dependence from the now allowable independent claims.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180170393 – Provides a fleet management system for receiving vehicle capacity, a pick up schedule, location data and the vehicle’s battery charge state.
US 20210146785 – Provides a method for monitoring when a vehicle needs to be recharged and selecting vehicles to drive to destinations with the knowledge of the vehicle’s battery status.
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 NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights