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 an amendment/argument submitted on 05/27/2026. The applicant does not amend the claims. The applicant submits a terminal disclaimer. The double patenting rejections are withdrawn. The section 103 rejection is withdrawn.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.
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 evaluation and/or observation without significantly more. The claims are evaluated under the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance and the MPEP. Example 40 is used as the reference for analysis of the claims.
STEP 1
The claims recite a computer implemented method and a system. The claims pass Step 1 by claiming one of the four statutory categories.
STEP 2A PRONG
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the abstract idea identified in italics and the pre/post solution activity in bold. The analysis of the claim is representative of the other independent claims.
Claim 1
A computer implemented method comprising:
determining, automatically by a processor, that a first transfer event of a first machine is correlated with a second transfer event of a second machine or container when the first and second transfer events have occurred, or are occurring, within a geometric intersection of projected material flow direction of the first machine, the first transfer event comprising one of a loading or an unloading of a first amount of a bulk material; and
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.
The independent claims and dependent claims inventive concept determined under 2106.07 is determining agricultural product transference. The independent claim contains the sole structure of a processor that performs operations that may be performed in the mind. The dependent claims 2, 3, and 9 contain generic components that perform operations that constitute pre solution activity that doesn't have any bearing on determining the transfer amount or rate of
material. Claims 4, 5, and 10 are also abstract ideas of evaluation and/or observation. Claims 6 - 8 are an abstract idea of mathematical operation. The other dependent claims are same and applied to their respective independent claims.
With respect to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) the operations may be performed in the mind as an observer watches the transfer of material. The claims do not identify what the data is used for and whether a control operation is executed based upon identifying what is observed.
With respect to 2019 Guidance example 40. The claims do not identify specific structures performing a specific operation to render a specific result. Therefore, the claims fail to identify what is evaluated and observed by the guidance requirements. Thus, 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 a new or improvement in the technology pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.04(d)(2). The claims contain generic structural features and broadly claimed operations that may be performed in the mind. The result of the operations does not identify results that satisfy the standards established in the MPEP. Therefore, the claims fail 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 fail to satisfy the MPEP 2106.05(a-h) and the 2019 Guidance. The claims do not identify the result of the operation or how the invention is new or an improvement in the technology area. Therefore, the claims fail Step 2B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant begins the argument by highlighting the analysis of examples 39 and 47 of the 2019 and 2024 examples. The applicant’s claims do not contain a feature of neural network as in example 39 or the specific feature used to train the neural network. The applicant’s claims do not contain artificial neural network as in example 47. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not applicable. Applicant argues the analysis of the office actions application 2019 guidance without identifying any features within the claims that satisfy the Prong 2A II. In addition, the applicant further argues what the specification doesn’t have to disclose.
The applicant argues on page 9 the purpose of the invention without identifying structure that senses whether a transfer is occurring. In addition, to failing to show how any of the claimed features satisfy the requirements of the 2019 Guidance or the MPEP.
Applicant argues the interpretation of law and regulations throughout pages 10 – 17. The analysis is not applied to any of the claimed features to show the determination may not be performed in the mind. The Applicant fails to show how the claim feature is too complicated to be performed as a mental concept. In addition, Applicant does not identify claimed features that require a special machine or computer to perform the analysis as prescribed in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Finally, Applicant does not show features that satisfy the requirements of MPEP 2106.05(a – h), which applicant entirely ignores by not identifying how the claims satisfy Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance.
The claims fail to identify features related to the inventive concept that would make the invention not an abstract idea. The claims do not identify any structure to identify the transfer of material. The claims do not identify what occurs once the transfer process initiates or how the transfer data is used. The claims do not identify whether trucks are repositioned for more efficient distribution of material throughout a loading area. The claims do not identify whether a driver is notified to stop the process if a container is full. Therefore, the claims fail to claim any use of identifying a transfer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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