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 .
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system and claim 11 is directed towards a method.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
The claim(s) recite(s) abstract limitations including:
Claim 1: “determines whether or not there is a descending cliff in front of the work machine on a basis of the detection data of the sensor”
Claim 11: “determining whether or not there is a descending cliff in front of the work machine on a basis of the detection data of the sensor”
These limitations, as drafted, are abstract mental processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements and/or sensors does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “a detection data acquisition unit” , “a sensor”, “a determination unit”, “a traveling control unit”, and an “excavation blade”.
“a detection data acquisition unit”, “a determination unit” and “a traveling control unit” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception;
“a sensor” is considered insignificant extra solution activity; and
“excavation blade” is considered generally linking to a particular technological field of use.
Claim 11 includes the additional elements of:
“an excavation blade”, “a sensor”, and “traveling device”.
“excavation blade” and “traveling device” are considered generally linking to a particular technological field of use.
“sensor is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to the “a detection data acquisition unit”, “a determination unit” and a traveling control unit”, these elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the specification fails to disclose that these elements are anything other than generic computing elements and are even shown as black boxes on the figures. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “sensor” it is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitations do not amount to more than mere data gathering. The sensor is recited at high level of generality. Given the generality of the position of the sensor, the type of sensor, and the type of data collected by the senor, this limitation does not contain significantly more to provide a practical application. See MPE 2106.05(g).
The “excavation blade” and “traveling device” merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As it merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use it fails to add an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
The dependent claims 2-10 further limit the abstract idea and therefore are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 11-222882 (hereinafter JP’882).
With respect to claim 11, JP’882 disclose a control method for a work machine including a vehicle body (5), a traveling device (16) that travels while supporting the vehicle body, and an excavation blade (4a) of an excavation working equipment disposed in front of the vehicle body, the control method comprising: acquiring detection data (via 6) of a sensor (1) that detects surroundings of the work machine; determining whether or not there is a descending cliff in front of the work machine on a basis of the detection data of the sensor (via 7); and controlling the traveling device on a basis of a relative position between a forward stop position set behind the excavation blade and the descending cliff in a case where it is determined that there is the descending cliff (wherein this is contingent limitation and the claim requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent is not met – see MPEP 2114.04 (II). In the instant case, the controlling only needs to happen in a case where it is determined that there is a descending cliff so if there is no descending cliff no controlling step occurs).
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 11-222882 (hereinafter JP’882) in view of JP 48-094501 (hereinafter JP’501).
With respect to claim 1, JP’882 disclose a control system for a work machine (see figure 1) including a vehicle body (5), a traveling device (16) that travels while supporting the vehicle body, and an excavation blade (4a) of an excavation working equipment disposed in front of the vehicle body, the control system comprising: a detection data acquisition unit (6) that acquires detection data of a sensor (1) that detects surroundings of the work machine; a determination unit (7) that determines whether or not there is a descending cliff in front of the work machine on a basis of the detection data of the sensor; and a traveling control unit (11/13) that controls the traveling device in a case where it is determined that there is the descending cliff (see figure 3b). JP’882 discloses controlling on the basis of a position in front of the blade (see figure 1) but does not disclose the controlling on a basis of a relative position between a forward stop position set behind the excavation blade and the descending cliff. JP ‘501 disclose controlling on a basis of a relative position between a forward stop position set behind the excavation blade (where 5 is located at the front of the car) and the descending cliff (see figure 1) for detecting a cliff to automatically and suddenly stop the car body thus providing safety to the driver and car (see page 2). As both JP ‘882 and JP ‘501 including stop positions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the stop position of JP ‘882 with that of JP ‘501 for the predictable result of stopping the work machine before it falls off a cliff.
With respect to claim 2, JP’882 in view of JP’501 disclose wherein the forward stop position is set in front of a rear end portion of the vehicle body (see figure 1 of JP ’501).
With respect to claim 3, JP ‘882 in view of JP ‘501 disclose wherein the traveling control unit stops forward movement of the traveling device such that the forward stop position coincides with a start position of the descending cliff (see figure 1 of JP ‘501).
With respect to claim 4, JP ‘882 in view of JP ‘501 teach wherein the determination unit determines whether or not there is an ascending cliff (see paragraphs 29-32)) in front of the work machine on a basis of the detection data of the sensor, and in a case where it is determined that there is the ascending cliff, the traveling control unit stops forward movement of the traveling device on a basis of a relative position between the forward stop position set in front of the excavation blade and the ascending cliff (see figure 1, JP ‘882 teaches a forward stop position in front of the blade).
With respect to claim 5, JP ‘882 in view of JP ‘501 teach wherein the traveling control unit stops the forward movement of the traveling device such that the forward stop position coincides with a start position of the ascending cliff (see paragraph 36).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 6-10, the prior art does not disclose not would it be obvious to include “wherein the work machine includes a shank of a ripper working equipment disposed behind the vehicle body, the determination unit determines whether or not there is a descending cliff behind the work machine on a basis of the detection data of the sensor” in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE A COY whose telephone number is (571)272-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-3:30pm.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights