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 . This office action is in response to RCE filed on 09/18/2026. The applicant does not submit an Information Disclosure Statement. The applicant amends claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, 16, 20, and 21.
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, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to transitory signals such as computer readable media or a set of instructions (such as a game or software per se) and are not included in the four-patent eligible subject matter categories, and needs to be amended to include "a non-transitory computer readable media" if covered by the specifications.
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 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental concept of observation and/or evaluation without significantly more. The claims are evaluated with respect to the MPEP and the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance, Examples 40 and 42 of the Guidance are
used as the reference for the analysis.
STEP 1
The claims recite a computer implemented method and system. The claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories and therefore passes Step 1.
STEP 2A PRONG I
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the abstract idea identified along with the pre or post solution activity.
Claim 1
A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, and storing in a memory coupled with a processor, data electronically communicated from a plurality of machines or containers remote from the processor indicative of the machine or container undergoing, or having undergone, a material transfer event comprising a transfer of an amount of a bulk material to or from that machine or container, and data indicative of a material flow direction thereto or therefrom, and not including data indicative of the other machine or container to or from which the bulk material is or was being transferred; (Mental concept)
determining, automatically by [[a]] the processor, that a first transfer event of a first machine of the plurality of machines or containers is correlated with a second transfer event of a second machine or container of the plurality of machines or containers when received data indicates that the first and second transfer events have occurred, or are occurring, within a geometric intersection of a projected material flow direction of the first machine derived, by the processor, from the data indicative of the material flow direction, the first transfer event comprising one of a loading or an unloading of a first amount of a bulk material; (Mental concept)
based on the determination, further determining by the processor, that the first machine is one of loading or unloading bulk material to/from the second machine or container and the amount of the bulk material transferred there between, a location of the bulk material transferred there between or a combination thereof; (Mental concept) and
storing, by the processor in a non-transitory memory coupled therewith, data indicative of the determination that the first machine is one of loading or unloading bulk material to/from the second machine or container and the amount of the bulk material transferred there between, a location of the bulk material transferred there between or a combination thereof. (Mental concept)
With respect to the MPEP 2106.07 the overall inventive concept is to identify and store within a memory the loading or offloading of material. With respect to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) the operations of receiving, determining, and storing may all be performed mentally with an observer witnessing the operation and the remembering what is observed. The claims do not identify any specific structure to collect the data, or to perform the operations. The claims do not identify in the dependent claims 2 – 10 any operations that are specific in data received that requires specific equipment.
With respect to the 2019 Guidance, example 40 states specific data observed and how the data is processed in unique manner. In this case, the claims do not identify specific structure to collect data to identify whether an onload or offload operation occurs. With respect to example 42, the claims do not identify specific data other than amount of bulk material. Therefore, the a human being is capable of observing loading and unloading and remember how much is observed.
Therefore, the claims fail Step 2A Prong I.
STEP 2A PRONG II
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to identify how the invention is new or improved manner of determining the loading or unloading of bulk material. The claims do not satisfy the MPEP 2106.04(d)(1,2) by failing to identify any unique or specific structure that is pertinent to the functions to the inventive concept. In addition, the claims fail to show how the invention is performing operations that are new or improved in the art of bulk loading or unloading. The operations may be performed by an observer watching the process. Dependent claims 3 and 13 do not identify how a mobile device is able to perform operations. The sensor of claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 do not identify how the data correlates to unloading or loading.
With respect to the 2019 Guidance, in example 40, the data is specific that the processing operations are performed on the data to render a desired result. In example 42, the memory stores specific data and processes in a specific manner to be used in real time by personnel using the data is real time. The claimed invention does not claim the operations as defined in the examples. Therefore, the claimed invention fails the standards of the MPEP and 2019 Guidance and fails Step 2A Prong II.
STEP 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not satisfy the requirements of showing the invention is more than a memory storing the status of loading or unloading of bulk material. With respect to MPEP 2106.05(a-h), the operations do not show what structure identifies whether loading or unloading is occurring. The claims do not identify the purpose of the mobile device with respect to the operations. The claims do not identify a display or warning associated with operation. With respect to the 2019 Guidance, the claims fail to satisfy the requirements of examples 40 and 42 by the specific filtering of data and hot it is performed. The claims do not identify real time access to the data through a display that may be used by personnel. Therefore, the claims fail Step 2B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant alleges the claims solve a technical problem of identifying the status of an operation when a person is unable to be present. The issue is the claims do not identify the sensor used to identify the operation or how the information is used by a user. If the claims contained a display that is in a vehicle or somewhere where a user can see the status as loading or unloading. The claims are generally directed to an operation of functions that are broadly defined, the applicant does not allege or show the features that are so specific that the operations may not be performed in the mind. Applicant cites the specification of features that are not in the claims. In addition, the applicant cites PTAB decisions without showing how the Courts decisions are satisfied based upon the breadth of the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER D PAIGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am - 6:00pm (mst).
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 5712703921. 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 D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights