DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed on December 5th, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “a computer program product comprising program code for performing” which under a broadest reasonable interpretation can be interpreted as software (software per se). The court has found that software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment, does not fall within any statutory category. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 10 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process (method) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Regarding claim 1
A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain vehicle data of a specific vehicle;
obtain map data of a confined off-road area;
determine drivable area data for the specific vehicle within the confined off-road
area based on the vehicle data and the map data; and
provide the drivable area data for routing of the specific vehicle within the confined
off-road area
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of obtaining vehicle data and determining drivable area data from a generic computer system. This is equivalent to a driver looking at a map and the dimensions of their vehicle and determining if they can fit on a specific path. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations for the use of the data in controlling the vehicle in a specific manner.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Regarding claim 1
A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain vehicle data of a specific vehicle;
obtain map data of a confined off-road area;
determine drivable area data for the specific vehicle within the confined off-road
area based on the vehicle data and the map data; and
provide the drivable area data for routing of the specific vehicle within the confined off-road area.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the step of “providing” is performed by a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Obtaining and determining and providing data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by computers.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 10 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stratton et al. (US 2016/0282878).
Regarding claim 1, Stratton teaches a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain vehicle data of a specific vehicle (Para. [0010]… the controller is configured to receive a plurality of machine parameters relating to an operation of the respective machine as the respective machine travels along the terrain from a plurality of sensors located on each respective machine, the plurality of sensors are in electronic communication with the controller of each respective machine and including a steering sensor, a ground speed sensing means, and a payload sensor);
obtain map data of a confined off-road area (Para. [0030]… The controller 140 may use this position information to determine the machine 20 position and map the terrain of the work site);
determine drivable area data for the specific vehicle within the confined off-road
area based on the vehicle data and the map data (Para. [0075]… the path may be selected based on which path has better efficiency and/or productivity values for the first machine 102. The selected path may also be displayed to the operator. The autonomous operation module 152 may operate the first machine 102 to travel along a selected path in a future operation); and
provide the drivable area data for routing of the specific vehicle within the confined
off-road area (Para. [0079]… The off-board system 200 may evaluate paths for autonomously operating machines 20 based on a number of factors..)
Regarding claim 2, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain mission data for the specific vehicle, the mission data comprising an
indication of a loading location and/or an unloading location within the confined
off road area (Para. [0061]… the machine controller 140 may also use other actions to determine start and end points, such as when the first machine 102 loads or unloads material, or performs other operations);
determine one or more permitted routing trajectories for the specific vehicle to travel
to/from the loading location and/or an unloading location based on the drivable
area data and the mission data (Para. [0028]… a payload may be loaded onto the hauling machine 18, the hauling machine 18 may travel along its assigned path A, B,
or C from the mine to the processing region, where the payload may be unloaded from the hauling machine 18, and then the hauling machine 18 may travel along its assigned path A,
B, or C back to the mine from the processing region…); and
select one of the one or more permitted routing trajectories as a routing trajectory for
routing of the specific vehicle (Para. [0028]…each hauling machine 18 may be assigned to a specific path A, B, or C for a particular day, week, or other period of time, or until a particular haulage operation is completed).
Regarding claim 3, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
select the routing trajectory based on an energy consumption indicator and/or a
vehicle component wear indicator for the specific vehicle to complete the
permitted routing trajectories (Para. [0067]… the machine controller 140 may evaluate efficiency and/or productivity of the first machine 102 for one or more paths (steps 334 and 338). The efficiency and productivity of the first machine 102 may be determined in various ways. For example, the efficiency may indicate a fuel efficiency determined based on the amount of fuel used to travel the particular path.)
Regarding claim 4, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 2, wherein the mission data further comprises load weight data indicating a weight of goods to be loaded at the loading location and/or unloaded at the unloading location (Para. [0044]… The payload sensor 134 may be configured to detect a weight of the payload carried by the machine.)
Regarding claim 5, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle data comprises weight data for the specific vehicle (Para. [0059]… The machine controller 140 may also receive a machine mass from the machine information database 1), the map data comprises surface condition data for the confined offroad area (Para. [0037]… The digital site map 210 may include information on the terrain of the work site 10…information on conditions of the terrain on the worksite), and the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine the drivable area data based on the weight data and the surface condition
data (Para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine the permitted routing trajectories further based on a weigh profile for the
specific vehicle for traveling to/from the loading location and/or the unloading
location, wherein the weight profile is determined based on the weight data of the
specific vehicle and the load weight data (Para. [0078]… The off-board system 200 may
compare efficiency characteristics and productivity characteristics of the first machine 102 and the second machine 104 (steps 308D-31 OD), and may take machine information ( such
as weight, horse power, etc.) into account in the comparison.)
Regarding claim 8, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 7, wherein the traction capability comprises one or more of a wheel base, a ground clearance, traction functionality or an available drive torque of the specific vehicle (Para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle data further comprises travel data of the specific vehicle (Para. [0042]… the ground speed sensing means 130 may be configured to sense a speed of the machine 20 relative to a surface of the terrain and generate a signal indicative of the sensed ground speed), and the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the drivable area data further based on the travel data of the specific vehicle (Para. [0060]…. the machine controller 140 may determine the trajectory of the first machine 102 based on the steering parameter, the ground speed, and/or the acceleration of the first machine 102).
Regarding claim 10, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 9, wherein the travel data indicate at least one of a maximum speed, a minimum speed or a preferred travel speed (Para. [0042]…The ground speed sensing means 130 may be configured to sense a speed of the machine 20 relative to a surface of the terrain and generate a signal indicative of the sensed ground speed.)
Regarding claim 11, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain an indication of an update of the vehicle data and/or the map data (Para. [0069]… the machine controller 140 may create or update the digital site map 148 with efficiency and productivity characteristics associated with the paths the first machine 102); determine updated drivable area data for the specific vehicle within the confined off-road area based on updated vehicle data and/or updated map data (Para. [0069]); and provide the updated drivable area data for routing of the specific vehicle within the confined off-road area (Para. [0069]… the updated digital site map 148 may be used to choose a path for a future operation.)
Regarding claim 12, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain an indication of an update of the mission data (Para. [0028]) ; and determine one or more updated permitted routing trajectories for the specific vehicle to travel to/from the loading location and/or an unloading location based on the drivable area data and the updated mission data (Para. [0028]… in an exemplary haulage cycle, a payload may be loaded onto the hauling machine 18, the hauling machine 18 may travel along its assigned path A, B, or C from the mine to the processing region, where the payload may be unloaded from the hauling machine 18, and then the hauling machine 18 may travel along its assigned path A, B, or C back to the mine from the processing region. Each hauling machine 18 may be assigned to a specific path A, B, or C for a particular day, week, or other period of time, or until a particular haulage operation is completed.)
Regarding claim 13, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain an indication of a proposed change of the map data (Para. [0073]… based on the digital site map 148 and the efficiencies and/or productivities, the machine controller 140
may identify and record…..a change in the trajectory or average grade for one or more paths over a period of time); and determine proposed drivable area data for the specific vehicle within the confined off-road area based on the proposed updated map data (Para. [0073]); and provide the proposed drivable area data and the drivable area data as decision data
for determining if the confined off-road area is to be modified in line with the proposed change of the map data or not (Para. [0073]).
Regarding claim 16, Stratton teaches a site management system for a confined off-road area comprising the computer system of claim 1 (please refer to the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Stratton teaches the site management system of claim 16, wherein the off-road area is a quarry or a mine (Para. [0027]… the worksite may be, for example, an open pit mine operation.)
Regarding claim 18, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, which is commensurate in scope.
Regarding claim 19, please refer to the rejection of claim 18, which is commensurate in scope.
Regarding claim 20, please refer to the rejection of claim 18, which is commensurate in scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratton et al. (US 2016/0282878) in view of Yang et al. (US 2023/0305572).
Regarding claim 7, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle data further comprises a traction capability of the specific vehicle (Para. [0042]… the machine controller 140 may calculate the ground speed based on the sensed speed, a dimension of the traction device of the machine), and the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine the drivable area data further based on the obstacle data and the traction
capability of the specific vehicle (Para. [0042]… the machine controller 140 may calculate the ground speed based on the sensed speed, a dimension of the traction device of the machine 20
( e.g., the radius of the wheels), and a gear ratio indicated from the transmission gear signal received from the operator input device 126)
Yang further teaches the map data comprises obstacle data indicating one
or more obstacles of the confined off-road data (Yang, Para. [0169]… obstacle information is processed according to the drivable area detection information in step 1 and the grid map established in step 2-1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for mapping terrain as taught by Stratton with the method for drivable area was taught by Yang to improve particle swarm path planning and provide safe autonomous obstacle avoidance of the unmanned auxiliary haulage vehicle (Yang, Para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Stratton teaches the computer system of claim 13, Yang further teaches wherein the map data comprises obstacle data indicating one or more obstacles of the confined off-road data and the proposed change of the map data comprises modification of at least one obstacle (Yang, Para. [0160]…to ensure the real-time performance of autonomous obstacle avoidance, maps with an appropriate length needs to be continuously intercepted for planning so as to update an autonomous obstacle avoidance path during vehicle driving.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for mapping terrain as taught by Stratton with the method for drivable area was taught by Yang to improve particle swarm path planning and provide safe autonomous obstacle avoidance of the unmanned auxiliary haulage vehicle (Yang, Para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, please refer to the rejection of claims 2-8 and 13-14 which are commensurate in scope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI M JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JODI JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights