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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 4, 2024 and January 30, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, “... determining an actual site model that is a representation of the site at a current time or at a previous time, the actual site model being based on the work site data; determining a desired site model that is a representation of the site at a future time; comparing the actual site model to the desired site model to determine a difference model that includes a safety zone in which a machine speed, a machine type, or a quantity of machines, is limited or prohibited, the safety zone being determined based on a material characteristic associated with material that corresponds to the safety zone, the material characteristic being represented in the material characteristic data, one or more areas outside of the safety zone having a different material characteristic; and determining a work plan based on the difference model, the work plan including the safety zone.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0071]-[0078], for instance, the determining and comparing limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “receiving work site data representing points of a site in which work is to be performed; receiving material characteristic data, the material characteristic data corresponding to the points of the site represented by the work site data”.
The receiving limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitations amount to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In accord with MPEP 2105(g), “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The receiving limitations are functions that are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. For instance, KR 102170748B1 to Kang (“Kang”) describes in Page 7, first and second fifth paragraphs (“The modeling unit 127 produces a digital model and an orthogonal image map by performing coordinate correction processing on the data information obtained from the TIN generation unit 125, and models to generate 3D terrain information. The earthwork calculation means 130 calculates the amount of earthwork by integrating the three-dimensional terrain information generated by the image processing means 120 and field drawing data input from the outside.”) Page 7, third through fifth paragraphs of Kang provides (“The earthwork calculation means 130 analyzes and evaluates the accuracy immediately after calculating the amount of earthwork, and transmits the data to the smart integrated management unit 400 to continuously update the data. It is possible to contribute to the improvement of construction productivity through cost reduction, construction time reduction, and quality improvement from the calculation of accurate earthwork volume, establishment of optimal process plans, and periodic process management by using the actual 3D images and construction site drawing data captured as above. And, through smart high-precision 3D surveying and 3D data analysis of the construction site and 3D data analysis of the construction completion drawing, the construction scope, shape, and soil volume are closely identified, and construction conditions are entered to shorten the construction period as much as possible. It is possible to propose a variety of optimal processes. The smart quality management unit 200 is a construction that guides the driver to check the work progress in real time based on the construction plan and the work surface in the excavation work using heavy equipment in the construction site and to work on the target design value without error. Perform quality control functions.”) US Patent Publication No. 2021/0149369 A1 to Subramanian describes in Paragraph [0006] “The acts can also include receiving, from the one or more sensors, sensor data associated with the worksite, the sensor data comprising at least one of location data or image data, and based at least in part on the sensor data, generating a first signal indicating that the worksite has been visually inspected. The acts can also include receiving condition parameter data indicating that the at least one worksite condition parameter is satisfied. The acts can also include generating, for display on the computing device, a graphical user interface comprising a graphical representation of the worksite and a user interface element, and based on the first signal, the condition parameter data, and a user input indicative of a user interaction with the user interface element, generating a validation signal indicating that the worksite has been validated. The acts can also include transmitting the validation signal.” US Patent Publication No. 2019/0180433 A1 to Sasson et al. describes in Paragraph [0131] “Step 920 may comprise obtaining at least one electronic construction plan associated with the construction site, for example from construction plans 610. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining at least one electronic as-built model associated with the construction site, for example from as-built models 615. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining at least one electronic project schedule associated with the construction site, for example from project schedules 620. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining at least one electronic financial record associated with the construction site, for example from financial records 625. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining at least one electronic progress record associated with the construction site, for example from progress records 630. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining information related to at least one safety issue associated with the construction site, for example from safety records 635. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining information related to at least one construction error associated with the construction site, for example from construction errors 640.”
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-9, these claims are also directed to further defining the abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. There are no additional limitations in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 2-9 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites “causing display of the safety zone via a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of the site”. Such claim does not integrate the invention into a practical application because the limitation is a post-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and it is an insignificant extra-solution activity of simply displaying information. MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the claim also does not amount to significantly more because the recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US Patent Publication No. 2021/0149369 A1 to Subramanian in Paragraph [0006]; US Patent Publication No. 2019/0180433 A1 to Sasson et al. in Paragraph [0020]; and KR 20210060354A to Jang in the Abstract. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 recites, “... determining an actual site model that is a representation, in three dimensions, of the site at a current time or at a previous time, the actual site model being based on the work site data; determining a desired site model that is a representation, in three dimensions, of the site at a future time; based on the actual site model and the desired site model, determining a safety zone in which a machine type or a quantity of machines is limited or prohibited, the safety zone being determined based on a material characteristic associated with material that corresponds to the safety zone, the material characteristic being represented in the material characteristic data, one or more areas outside of the safety zone having a different material characteristic...”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0071]-[0078], for instance, the determining limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “one or more processors; and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving work site data representing points of a site in which work is to be performed; receiving material characteristic data, the material characteristic data corresponding to the points of the site represented by the work site data;… and causing display of a representation of the safety zone on the site”.
The features including “one or more processors; and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations …”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used as recited in claim 11, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The receiving limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitations amount to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In accord with MPEP 2105(g), “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The limitation of “causing display of a representation of the safety zone on the site” does not integrate the invention into a practical application because the limitation is a post-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and it is an insignificant extra-solution activity of simply displaying information. MPEP 2106.05(g).
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The features including “one or more processors; and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations …”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim 11, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The receiving limitations are functions that are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. For instance, KR 102170748B1 to Kang (“Kang”) describes in Page 7, first and second fifth paragraphs (“The modeling unit 127 produces a digital model and an orthogonal image map by performing coordinate correction processing on the data information obtained from the TIN generation unit 125, and models to generate 3D terrain information. The earthwork calculation means 130 calculates the amount of earthwork by integrating the three-dimensional terrain information generated by the image processing means 120 and field drawing data input from the outside.”) Page 7, third through fifth paragraphs of Kang provides (“The earthwork calculation means 130 analyzes and evaluates the accuracy immediately after calculating the amount of earthwork, and transmits the data to the smart integrated management unit 400 to continuously update the data. It is possible to contribute to the improvement of construction productivity through cost reduction, construction time reduction, and quality improvement from the calculation of accurate earthwork volume, establishment of optimal process plans, and periodic process management by using the actual 3D images and construction site drawing data captured as above. And, through smart high-precision 3D surveying and 3D data analysis of the construction site and 3D data analysis of the construction completion drawing, the construction scope, shape, and soil volume are closely identified, and construction conditions are entered to shorten the construction period as much as possible. It is possible to propose a variety of optimal processes. The smart quality management unit 200 is a construction that guides the driver to check the work progress in real time based on the construction plan and the work surface in the excavation work using heavy equipment in the construction site and to work on the target design value without error. Perform quality control functions.”) US Patent Publication No. 2021/0149369 A1 to Subramanian describes in Paragraph [0006] “The acts can also include receiving, from the one or more sensors, sensor data associated with the worksite, the sensor data comprising at least one of location data or image data, and based at least in part on the sensor data, generating a first signal indicating that the worksite has been visually inspected. The acts can also include receiving condition parameter data indicating that the at least one worksite condition parameter is satisfied. The acts can also include generating, for display on the computing device, a graphical user interface comprising a graphical representation of the worksite and a user interface element, and based on the first signal, the condition parameter data, and a user input indicative of a user interaction with the user interface element, generating a validation signal indicating that the worksite has been validated. The acts can also include transmitting the validation signal.” US Patent Publication No. 2019/0180433 A1 to Sasson et al. describes in Paragraph [0131] “Step 920 may comprise obtaining at least one electronic construction plan associated with the construction site, for example from construction plans 610. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining at least one electronic as-built model associated with the construction site, for example from as-built models 615. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining at least one electronic project schedule associated with the construction site, for example from project schedules 620. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining at least one electronic financial record associated with the construction site, for example from financial records 625. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining at least one electronic progress record associated with the construction site, for example from progress records 630. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining information related to at least one safety issue associated with the construction site, for example from safety records 635. In some examples, Step 920 may comprise obtaining information related to at least one construction error associated with the construction site, for example from construction errors 640.”
The limitation of “causing display of a representation of the safety zone on the site” does not amount to significantly more because the recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US Patent Publication No. 2021/0149369 A1 to Subramanian in Paragraph [0006]; US Patent Publication No. 2019/0180433 A1 to Sasson et al. in Paragraph [0020]; and KR 20210060354A to Jang in the Abstract.
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and independent claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 12-15, these claims are also directed to further defining the abstract idea as recited in independent claim 11. There are no additional limitations in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 12-15 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites “generating a recommendation for a site modification”. Such recitation is not integrating the abstract ideas of independent claim 11 into a practical application as a post-solution activity. The limitation amounts to necessary data outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 at 79 (2012); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). In addition, the claim also does not amount to significantly more because the recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US Patent Publication No. 2019/0180433 A1 to Sasson et al. in Paragraphs [0016] and [0183]; and US Patent Publication No. 2021/0149369 A1 to Subramanian in Paragraph [0046]. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 17, the functions of independent claim 17 are implemented by similar functions as those of the method of independent claim 1 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection applied to independent claim 1 above also applies to independent claim 17. Independent claim 17 is not deemed patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, this claim also directed to further defining the abstract idea as recited in independent claim 17. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim also does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites “generating a recommendation for modifying the site”. Such recitation is not integrating the abstract ideas of independent claim 17 into a practical application as a post-solution activity. The limitation amounts to necessary data outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 at 79 (2012); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). In addition, the claim also does not amount to significantly more because the recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US Patent Publication No. 2019/0180433 A1 to Sasson et al. in Paragraphs [0016] and [0183]; and US Patent Publication No. 2021/0149369 A1 to Subramanian in Paragraph [0046]. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites “causing display of a representation of the safety zone and the work zone sequence”. Such claim does not integrate the invention into a practical application because the limitation is a post-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and it is an insignificant extra-solution activity of simply displaying information. MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the claim also does not amount to significantly more because the recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US Patent Publication No. 2021/0149369 A1 to Subramanian in Paragraph [0006]; US Patent Publication No. 2019/0180433 A1 to Sasson et al. in Paragraph [0020]; and KR 20210060354A to Jang in the Abstract. Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Pending the non-statutory subject matter rejection previously presented, the subject matter of claims 1-20 are found to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Regarding independent claim 1, KR 102170748B1 to Kang (“Kang”) teaches the following A method for determining a safety zone, the method comprising: Kang: Abstract (“…IoT-based three-dimensional (3D) spatial information construction site management platform system for smart construction to efficiently manage site construction, quality, and safety based on 3D topologic information while integrally managing a plurality of construction equipment and workers in a construction site. According to the present invention, the system comprises: a smart construction management unit photographing an image while flying a path around the construction site to acquire image information and extracting 3D topologic data from the image information to generate 3D topologic information with a digital model and an orthoimage of topology of the construction site; a smart quality management unit mounted in heavy equipment inside the construction site and acquiring information for the location, posture, and working range of the construction equipment to guide construction data to an operator in real-time; a smart safety management unit installed in a dangerous area and the construction equipment inside the construction site and recognizing a pedestrian or worker who approaches the construction site to issue an alarm and control the heavy equipment; and a smart integrated management unit collecting information from the smart construction management unit, the smart quality management unit, and the smart safety management unit and integrally managing the heavy equipment and the worker inside the construction site in real-time based on the 3D topologic information.”)
receiving work site data representing points of a site in which work is to be performed; receiving material characteristic data, the material characteristic data corresponding to the points of the site represented by the work site data; Kang: Page 7, third through fifth paragraphs (“The earthwork calculation means 130 analyzes and evaluates the accuracy immediately after calculating the amount of earthwork, and transmits the data to the smart integrated management unit 400 to continuously update the data. It is possible to contribute to the improvement of construction productivity through cost reduction, construction time reduction, and quality improvement from the calculation of accurate earthwork volume, establishment of optimal process plans, and periodic process management by using the actual 3D images and construction site drawing data captured as above. And, through smart high-precision 3D surveying and 3D data analysis of the construction site and 3D data analysis of the construction completion drawing, the construction scope, shape, and soil volume are closely identified, and construction conditions are entered to shorten the construction period as much as possible. It is possible to propose a variety of optimal processes. The smart quality management unit 200 is a construction that guides the driver to check the work progress in real time based on the construction plan and the work surface in the excavation work using heavy equipment in the construction site and to work on the target design value without error. Perform quality control functions.”) [The construction scope and shape reads on “work site data”. The surveying of the soil volume reads on “material characteristic data”.]
determining an actual site model that is a representation of the site at a current time or at a previous time, the actual site model being based on the work site data; Kang: Page 7, first and second fifth paragraphs (“The modeling unit 127 produces a digital model and an orthogonal image map by performing coordinate correction processing on the data information obtained from the TIN generation unit 125, and models to generate 3D terrain information. The earthwork calculation means 130 calculates the amount of earthwork by integrating the three-dimensional terrain information generated by the image processing means 120 and field drawing data input from the outside.”) Kang: Page 8, third through fifth paragraphs (“The drawing generation unit 230 generates a plan surface and a work surface in the form of a three-dimensional drawing, and then outputs them to the user guide module 210. That is, the drawing generation unit 230 recognizes the design drawing in the form of a file, generates a plan in the form of a three-dimensional drawing to be output on the user guide module 210, and inputs it from the sensor measurement unit 220. Based on the coordinate data, the earthwork work situation is converted into a three-dimensional drawing form to create a work surface. When the drawing generator 230 generates the plan, the CAD drawing input from the outside is output and the plan drawing is output, but the data is converted into a structure in which an irregular triangular network is connected to the drawing of the plan and output. And, when the drawing generation unit 230 generates the work surface, an irregular triangular network for the earthwork work surface is generated based on the coordinate data input from the sensor measurement unit 220, and the sensor measurement unit ( 220) to generate and output an irregular triangular network of the earthwork work surface that is line-connected with the input coordinate data. The smart quality management unit 200 composes a work information calculation unit 250 that compares the plan surface generated by the drawing generation unit 230 and the work surface to calculate the volume according to the earthwork work and measure the measurement distance.”) [The composition of the plan surface and volume to generate a 3D terrain information reads on “determining an actual site model that is a representation of the site at a current time or at a previous time, the actual site model being based on the work site data”.]
determining a desired site model that is a representation of the site at a future time; Kang: Page 7, third through fifth paragraphs [As described above.] [The construction plan reads on “desired state model of the site at a future time”.]
Kang does not teach or suggest “comparing the actual site model to the desired site model to determine a difference model that includes a safety zone in which a machine speed, a machine type, or a quantity of machines, is limited or prohibited, the safety zone being determined based on a material characteristic associated with material that corresponds to the safety zone, the material characteristic being represented in the material characteristic data, one or more areas outside of the safety zone having a different material characteristic; and determining a work plan based on the difference model, the work plan including the safety zone.” However, Liu describes a method and an apparatus for path planning of an industrial-ground moving object in an intelligent construction site, a computer device, and a storage medium. Liu teaches:
…
the safety zone being determined based on a material characteristic associated with material that corresponds to the safety zone, the material characteristic being represented in the material characteristic data, one or more areas outside of the safety zone having a different material characteristic; and Liu: Page 8, fourth paragraph (“In particular, the worksite planning data may include a worksite planning map of a worksite system, which may include, in particular, data for a construction area, a work area distribution, etc. of the worksite. And constructing a construction site planning sub-map according to construction site planning data preset by the construction site system, wherein the construction site planning sub-map is generally fixed, namely generally not changed or updated. In a specific implementation, the site planning sub-map may be a two-dimensional map for visually displaying the area planning of the site system, such as the partition area, passage area, cargo storage area, and working area of each building.”) Liu: Page 5, thirteenth paragraph (“According to the path planning method, the device, the computer equipment and the storage medium of the construction site moving object in the intelligent construction site, based on the current construction site movable map obtained by carrying out area division on the current construction site map according to the construction site dangerous area identification result, the path planning is carried out by combining the current position and the moving destination of the construction site moving object, and the planned path of the construction site moving object is obtained. In the path planning processing of the building site moving object, the current building site map is subjected to region division according to a building site dangerous region identification result in the building site system, so that the path is planned in the obtained current building site movable map of the safe region, and the region with potential safety hazards in the building site system is filtered, so that the safety of the building site moving object path planning is improved.”) Liu: Page 8, first full paragraph (“According to the method for planning the path of the construction site moving object in the intelligent construction site, based on the construction site dangerous area identification result, the current construction site movable map obtained by carrying out area division on the current construction site map is combined with the current position and the moving destination of the construction site moving object to carry out path planning, and the planned path of the construction site moving object is obtained. In the path planning processing of the building site moving object, the current building site map is subjected to region division according to the identification result of the dangerous region of the building site in the building site system, so that the path is planned only in the safe region in the current building site map, and the region with potential safety hazard in the building site system is filtered, thereby improving the safety of the building site moving object planning path.”) Liu: Page 10, third paragraph (“In one embodiment, before obtaining the current worksite movable map, the method further comprises: detecting the construction site soil in the current construction site map to obtain a soil water content map; and determining a collapse dangerous area in the current construction site map according to the soil water content map, wherein the construction site dangerous area identification result comprises the collapse dangerous area.”) [The soil water content to determine or filter a dangerous area from the construction site including safe regions reads on “the material characteristic being represented in the material characteristic data, one or more areas outside of the safety zone having a different material characteristic”.]
However, the prior art (see KR 102170748B1 to Kang; CN 112257889A to Liu; KR 20210060354A to Jang; CN 114730439 A to Kano; US Patent Publication No. 2019/0180433 A1 to Sasson et al.; and US Patent Publication No. 2021/0149369 A1 to Subramanian), individually or combined, does not teach or suggest “comparing the actual site model to the desired site model to determine a difference model that includes a safety zone in which a machine speed, a machine type, or a quantity of machines, is limited or prohibited, … determining a work plan based on the difference model, the work plan including the safety zone”. It is this concept that defines the present application over the prior art of record.
In view of their dependencies to an allowed claim, claims 2-10 are allowable over prior art, pending the non-statutory subject matter rejection of claims 1-10.
Claim 11
Independent claim 11 includes similar limitations as independent claim 1. The prior art (see KR 102170748B1 to Kang; CN 112257889A to Liu; KR 20210060354A to Jang; CN 114730439 A to Kano; US Patent Publication No. 2019/0180433 A1 to Sasson et al.; US Patent Publication No. 2021/0149369 A1 to Subramanian), individually or combined, does not teach or suggest “based on the actual site model and the desired site model, determining a safety zone in which a machine type or a quantity of machines is limited or prohibited”. It is this concept that defines the present application over the prior art of record.
Claims 12-16 are dependent claims of independent claim 11. Independent claim 11 is allowable, and therefore, claims 12-16 are allowable, provided that the non-statutory subject matter rejection is overcome.
Claim 17
Independent claim 17 includes similar limitations and reasons for allowance over prior art as independent claim 1.
Claims 18-20 are dependent claims of independent claim 17. Independent claim 17 is allowable, and therefore, claims 15-19 are allowable, provided that the non-statutory subject matter rejection is overcome.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 114730439 A to Kano describes a system comprises a regional data module and a planning module. The area data module obtains soil cutting area data and soil piling area data. The soil cutting area data represents the positions of a plurality of soil cutting areas in the working site. The soil piling area data represents the positions of a plurality of soil piling areas in the working site. The planning module determines, as a construction plan, a target travel route including a combination of a plurality of travel routes connecting a soil cutting region and a soil stacking region, taking into account a change in the terrain of a work site, and a construction sequence.
US Patent Publication No. 2021/0149369 A1 to Subramanian describes in Paragraph [0027] (“In more detail, FIG. 1 schematically illustrates that the computing system(s) 120 may include a worksite plan 122, a worksite mapping component 124, and a worksite validation component 126. In examples described herein, the worksite plan 122 may be a plan to perform one or more tasks or operations in the environment 100. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the worksite plan 122 can include information including a worksite identification, task information, worksite physical conditions, worksite environmental conditions, an equipment identification, and/or equipment conditions. For instance, the worksite identification can be a location or region within the environment 100 at which a job or task is to be performed. In an example detailed below, for instance, the worksite identification can identify a perimeter of a worksite 128. The task information can include an identification of the job to be undertaken. For example, the task information can identify material to be excavated, hauled, moved, or the like, an amount of material to be excavated, hauled, moved, or the like, and/or other aspects of the task. The task information can also include locations from which the material is to be removed (e.g., within the worksite), locations to which material is to be moved (e.g., within or remote from the worksite). The worksite physical conditions can include information about physical parameters of the worksite. Such parameters can include ground and/or material conditions necessary for completing the task, an identification of obstacles (including physical obstacles, people, or the like) that would prohibit performing the task, and/or an identification of physical conditions that must be present to perform the task.”) Subramanian describes in Paragraph [0030] (“In some examples, a visual inspection may be crucial for ensuring that the worksite is prepared for the task(s) required by the worksite plan. For instance, the visual inspection can ensure the presence or absence of one or more conditions. As used herein, a “condition” may refer to an attribute, a state, or a fact about a machine, and/or personnel present at the worksite. Further, the condition may indicate attributes about the worksite such as environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, wind, precipitation), physical conditions (e.g., surface grade, surface composition), and/or information about objects at the site (e.g., objects that would prevent performing a task and/or that may be required for performing the task).”) Subramanian also describes in Paragraph [0035] (“In this example, the personnel 106 a may have a portable device that includes one or both of the communication component 112 and/or the sensing component 114. For instance, the sensing component 114 can include a GPS or other position sensor that sends position information, e.g., via the communication component 112, to the computing system(s) 120. Upon receiving the position information, for example, the worksite validation component 126 can determine that the personnel has traversed the worksite 128 e.g., by comparing the position information to one or more locations designated by the worksite mapping component 124. For example, such one or more locations may include positions along the perimeter of the worksite 128 and/or position(s) within the worksite 128.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. 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.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights