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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 and 5/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Revised Guidance, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to an apparatus with a controller circuit, claim 11 is directed to a road paving system comprising a processing apparatus, claims 12-13 are directed toward a road paving machine, and claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for a computer to execute. Therefore, claims 1-14 are within at least one of the four statutory categories (apparatus).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below). Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller circuit configured to:
specify an area to be excluded from a road surface to be constructed by a road paving machine according to a change in a shape of an edge of the road surface to be constructed by the road paving machine, based on information on an operating speed of the road paving machine; and
correct an area of the road surface to be constructed, based on the area to be excluded.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations above constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine areas that are to be excluded whilst paving and adjust a boundary.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 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 idea 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 (mental process). 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 instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller circuit configured to:
specify an area to be excluded from a road surface to be constructed by a road paving machine according to a change in a shape of an edge of the road surface to be constructed by the road paving machine, based on information on an operating speed of the road paving machine; and
correct an area of the road surface to be constructed, based on the area to be excluded.
The recitation of “information processing apparatus” and “controller circuit” are provided at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements recited fail to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim and merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. No other action or limitation is recited to cause a control of the road paving machine or cause an action to be completed as a result of the abstract idea. The additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and must be further examined under Step 2B.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
In the instant application, 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, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and is ineligible for similar reasons. Specifically regarding claim 14, the recitation of “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium,” “program,” and “computer” are also provided at a high level of generality and also merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “correct the area of the road surface…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify a boundary based on design data and an area that is to be excluded. The additional element “acquire design data” is considered “mere data gathering” which has been ruled by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)) and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 3, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “correct the area of the road surface…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify a boundary based on the shape of the road, design data, and an area that is to be excluded. The additional element “acquire a detection result” is considered “mere data gathering” which has been ruled by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)) and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 4, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “correct the area of the road surface…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify a boundary based on the shape of the road and an area that is to be excluded. The additional element “acquire a detection result” is considered “mere data gathering” which has been ruled by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)) and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 5, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “specify the area to be excluded” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine an area of avoidance or an outer boundary perimeter based on the shape of a road, machine speed, reach of screed, and shape of screed. The additional element “screed” is provided at a high level of generality, merely stating what a screed does, thus merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 6, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “determine a position” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine where to start using the screed based on the determined perimeter. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 7 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “display” is also provided at a high level of generality and merely amounts to the application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. The limitation “display on a display device…” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 8 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. The limitation “display a map…” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 9 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “portable information terminal” is also provided at a high level of generality and merely amounts to the application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. The limitation “displays design data” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 10 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “storage” is also provided at a high level of generality and merely amounts to the application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. The limitation “store… design data…” is equivalent to storing information in a memory which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marsolek et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0030672 A1; hereinafter Marsolek).
Regarding claim 1, Marsolek discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller circuit configured to (controller 52 may be associated with circuitry, see at least [0025]):
specify an area to be excluded from a road surface to be constructed by a road paving machine according to a change in a shape of an edge of the road surface to be constructed by the road paving machine (identify obstacles in the way of the road paver to automatically control the road paver to avoid the identified obstacle, see at least [0013]), based on information on an operating speed of the road paving machine (controller determines edge line to follow and desired travel speed and other operating parameters of road paver, see at least [0036]); and
correct an area of the road surface to be constructed, based on the area to be excluded (automatically operating road paver to pave around determined obstacle in way of the road paver such as manhole, see at least [0038] and Fig. 2B)
Regarding claim 4, Marsolek discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the controller circuit is further configured to acquire a detection result of detecting the shape of the edge of the road surface, and the controller circuit is configured to correct the area of the road surface to be constructed, based on the area to be excluded and the detection result (controller uses object recognition process techniques for identifying edge line and other objects, see at least [0033])
Regarding claim 7, Marsolek discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the controller circuit is further configured to display on a display device (interface may include display device 27 for outputting information to the operator, see at least [0016]) design data indicating a corrected area of the road surface to be constructed (controller may display identified edge line as detected by camera system, see at least [0036])
Regarding claim 8, Marsolek discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the controller circuit is configured to display a map indicating the area to be excluded at the corrected area of the road surface to be constructed corrected (controller may display identified edge line as detected by camera system, see at least [0036]) *Examiner sets forth the image shown is considered “map” because it is a diagram of the areas that are to be paved
Regarding claim 11, Marsolek discloses:
A road surface paving system comprising a road paving machine (road paver 10, see at least [0014]) and an information processing apparatus that communicate with each other via a network (controller is communicatively coupled with external computer system and has communication circuitry, see at least [0025]), wherein the information processing apparatus includes a controller circuit configured to (controller 52 may be associated with circuitry, see at least [0025]):
specify an area to be excluded from a road surface to be constructed by the road paving machine according to a change in a shape of an edge of the road surface to be constructed by the road paving machine (identify obstacles in the way of the road paver to automatically control the road paver to avoid the identified obstacle, see at least [0013]), based on information on an operating speed of the road paving machine (controller determines edge line to follow and desired travel speed and other operating parameters of road paver, see at least [0036]); and
correct an area of the road surface to be constructed, based on the area to be excluded, and the road paving machine is configured to perform construction on a corrected area of the road surface to be constructed (automatically operating road paver to pave around determined obstacle in way of the road paver such as manhole, see at least [0038] and Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 12, Marsolek discloses:
A road paving machine (road paver 10, see at least [0014]) comprising a controller circuit (controller 52 may be associated with circuitry, see at least [0025]) configured to:
specify an area to be excluded from a road surface to be constructed by the road paving machine according to a change in a shape of an edge of the road surface to be constructed by the road paving machine (identify obstacles in the way of the road paver to automatically control the road paver to avoid the identified obstacle, see at least [0013]),, based on information on an operating speed of the road paving machine (controller determines edge line to follow and desired travel speed and other operating parameters of road paver, see at least [0036]); and
correct an area of the road surface to be constructed, based on the area to be excluded, wherein the road paving machine is configured to perform construction on a corrected area of the road surface to be constructed (automatically operating road paver to pave around determined obstacle in way of the road paver such as manhole, see at least [0038] and Fig. 2B)
Regarding claim 13, Marsolek discloses the elements above and further discloses:
having a function of automatically paving the corrected area of the road surface to be constructed (based on identified edge line, controller may automatically operate road paver 10 to pave along the edge line, see at least [0035])
Regarding claim 14, Marsolek discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing (storage, see at least [0024]) a program for causing a computer to execute (controller 52 includes memory and processor such as central processing unit for accomplishing task of disclosure, see at least [0024]):
specifying an area to be excluded from a road surface to be constructed by a road paving machine according to a change in a shape of an edge of the road surface to be constructed by the road paving machine (identify obstacles in the way of the road paver to automatically control the road paver to avoid the identified obstacle, see at least [0013]), based on information on an operating speed of the road paving machine (controller determines edge line to follow and desired travel speed and other operating parameters of road paver, see at least [0036]); and correcting an area of the road surface to be constructed, based on the area to be excluded (automatically operating road paver to pave around determined obstacle in way of the road paver such as manhole, see at least [0038] and Fig. 2B)
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Hagiwara et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0002953 A1; hereinafter Hagiwara).
Regarding claim 2, Marsolek discloses the elements above but does not explicitly disclose:
Design data
However, Hagiwara teaches:
the controller circuit is further configured to acquire design data indicating the area of the road surface to be constructed, and the controller circuit is configured to correct the area of the road surface to be constructed indicated in the design data, based on the area to be excluded specified (information on pavement target area is road design data that includes information regarding width and shape of the target area, see at least [0085])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control of a road paver disclosed by Marsolek by adding the road design data taught by Hagiwara with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to obtain information on the area to be paved (see [0085]). Furthermore, it is well known to those having ordinary skill in the art to use a design plan to pave a road.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Marsolek and Hagiwara teaches the elements above and Marsolek further discloses:
the controller circuit is configured to acquire a detection result of detecting the shape of the edge of the road surface, and the controller circuit is configured to correct the area of the road surface to be constructed indicated in the design data, based on the area to be excluded and the detection result (controller uses object recognition process techniques for identifying edge line or other objects, see at least [0033]; automatically operating road paver to pave around determined obstacle in way of the road paver such as manhole, see at least [0038] and Fig. 2B)
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Munz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0091278 A1; hereinafter Munz).
Regarding claim 5, Marsolek discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the road paving machine includes a screed that spreads evenly a pavement material spread on the road surface and is extendable and retractable in a vehicle width direction (screed assembly 18 spreads and compact paving material into a mat having desired shape, thickness, texture, width, density and smoothness, see at least [0015]; screed assembly 18 may include screed extension to left and right for retracted and extended positions of varying widths, see at least [0020]), and
the controller circuit is configured to specify the area to be excluded, based on the shape of the edge of the road surface, a traveling speed of the road paving machine, and a shape of the screed (controller uses object recognition process techniques for identifying edge line or other objects, see at least [0033]; automatically operating road paver to pave around determined obstacle in way of the road paver such as manhole, see at least [0038] and Fig. 2B; controller determines edge line to follow and desired travel speed and other operating parameters of road paver, see at least [0036]; controller may automatically accelerate or slow down the road paver and automatically extend and retract the screed assembly to pave along the identified edge line, see at least [0035])
Marsolek does not explicitly disclose:
an extension and retraction speed of the screed
However, Munz teaches:
an extension and retraction speed of the screed (change the moving speed of each extendable screed to adapt it to certain laying parameters, see at least [0012])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the extending and retracting of a screed to maneuver around an obstacle as disclosed by Marsolek by adding the speed of screed taught by Munz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “results in a high quality of laid pavements even under difficult laying conditions” (see [0012]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Marsolek and Munz teaches the elements above and Marsolek further discloses:
the controller circuit is configured to determine a position where extension or retraction of the screed starts based on the area to be excluded (screed is controlled to maintain position until it reaches the manhole position where the screed is retracted and extended to follow the profile of the arcuate section, see at least [0048] and Fig. 2B)
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Marsolek et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0106846 A1; hereinafter Marsolek 2).
Regarding claim 9, Marsolek discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the controller circuit displays design data indicating the corrected area of the road surface to be constructed on the display device (controller may display identified edge line as detected by camera system, see at least [0036]).
Marsolek does not explicitly disclose:
a portable information terminal
However, Marsolek 2 teaches:
the controller circuit displays design data indicating the corrected area of the road surface to be constructed on the display device of a portable information terminal (compaction boundary map may be displayed on display 61 of control station 60, see at least [0031] and Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display disclosed by Marsolek by adding the display of control station taught by Marsolek 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow an operator to view the map whilst not on the machine and from a control station (see at least [0031]).
Regarding claim 10, Marsolek discloses the elements above but does not explicitly disclose:
the controller circuit is further configured to store, in a storage, design data indicating a corrected area of the road surface to be constructed
However, Marsolek 2 teaches:
the controller circuit is further configured to store, in a storage, design data indicating a corrected area of the road surface to be constructed (compaction boundary map may be stored in memory for access by operator or control system, see at least [0036]; information contained in compaction boundary map may be stored in memory, see at least [0032]; memory may store information gathered by various components of system such as sensors, see at least [0019])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control of paver based on an edge line to avoid obstacles as disclosed by Marsolek by adding the storing of information and boundary map taught by Marsolek 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow an operator to allow automatic control of a machine in “a desired work area while avoiding certain other areas” (see [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0016074 A1) teaches creating an edge for a work area of a work vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662