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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This First Office action is in reply to the application filed on 23 January 2025.
Original Claims 1-10 have been amended. New Claims 11-16 have been added.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 23 January 2025 has been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy is enclosed with this Office Action.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process for representative independent Claim 1:
Step 1: Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are not focused to statutory categories of invention. Although independent Claim 1 recites a “device” in the preamble, there are no further computer architecture components recited in the claim to fully support the claim limitations. The various “acquirer”; “searcher” are not fully supported and are considered software per se, and software is not a statutory category of invention. Independent Claim 9 is a “method” claim not having any computer architecture components to support the claim limitations and is considered a mental process such that a user could perform with pencil/pen to paper steps. Independent Claim 10 is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program has statutory support. Despite this failure to pass Step 1, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-16 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps for the current topography data acquirer, design topography data acquirer, and road end acquirer merely recite generic data receipt or data gathering steps as:
“a current topography data acquirer to acquire topography data indicating a current topography of a construction site;
a design topography data acquirer to acquire topography data indicating a design topography of a construction site;
a road end acquirer to acquire a plurality of two or more road ends that serves as a start point and an end point of a construction road;
a route searcher to search for a route between the plurality of road ends,
wherein the route searcher selects nodes existing between the plurality of road ends and calculates, for a plurality of routes that goes through the selected nodes and leads to the plurality of road ends, costs based on construction soil amounts of the construction road from topography data of the current topography and the design topography, and
selects a route that minimizes a calculated cost”
As detailed in the MPEP 2106 and commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, the 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter. The 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A, Prong One analysis focuses on whether a claim recites a judicial exception by evaluating if it falls into one of three specific groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity. Based on the provided steps above, the analysis for Step 2A Prong One is as follows:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. The calculations of construction soil amounts, cost metrics, and minimization functions (selecting the route that minimizes calculated costs).
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The logical evaluation of pathways, node selection, and route planning that a human planner could theoretically perform via pen and paper or mental mapping.
Standing alone or combined with the mathematical route selection, these data-gathering limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 1 because they function as generic data sources for the mathematical operation and mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. The dependent claims do not have any additional statutory support.
Prong Two: Claims 1-16: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 10 only recites an additional element directed to “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” (e.g., see Applicants’ un-published Specification ¶ 54). Therefore, the claim contains computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using a generally-recited computer component, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 not do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent Claim 10 only recites an additional element directed to “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” (e.g., see Applicants’ un-published Specification ¶ 54). Therefore, the claim contains computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using a generally-recited computer component, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. The limitations of the claim does not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using a generally-recited computer component, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible and do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception and are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). This additional element in the claim is recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 do not recited any computer architecture support for the claims.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). Independent Claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ un-published Specification ¶ 54) regarding using existing computer processors as well as a program product comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit data) and/or use a computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, this additional claim element does not provide a meaningful limitation that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 recite indefinite and non-functional and descriptive phrase limitations: “to acquire; acquirer; searcher” (emphasis added). Although independent Claim 1 recites a “device” in the preamble, there are no further computer architecture components recited in the claim to fully support the claim limitations. The various “acquirer(ing)”; “searcher” are not fully supported and are considered software per se, and software is not a statutory category of invention. Independent Claim 9 is a “method” claim not having any computer architecture components recited in at least within the body of this claim to support the claim limitations and is considered indefinite. Exactly what, how or why these indefinite phrases specifically defined for a specific degree of measurement that is consistently obtaining specific results for the claim limitations either preceding or following these indefinite phrase limitations? One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make clear, definite, and exact results from the recited claim limitations containing these indefinite phrase limitations. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claimed contents of Claims 1-9, 11-16 amount to non-functional descriptive material that do not functionally alter the claimed method. The recited method steps would be performed in the same manner regardless of what data is contained in the indefinite phrase limitations: “acquirer(ing)”; “searcher” (emphasis added). Thus, the prior art and the claimed invention have identical structure and the claimed descriptive material is insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2106.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanou et al. (Kanou) (US 2022/0403627).
With regard to Claims 1, 9, 10, Kanou teaches a construction (construction plan of the work machine) road route (travel path) design device/method (work machine) (see at least paragraphs 24-39) comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to (system 1; programs; processor 14; system) (see at least paragraphs 27-33):
a current topography data acquirer to acquire topography data indicating a current topography of a construction site (FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating a process executed by the system 1 for determining a construction plan of the work machine. The construction plan of the work machine includes a target travel path and a construction sequence of the work machine. As illustrated in FIG. 2, in step S101, the region data module 21 acquires actual topography data. The actual topography data is three-dimensional survey data which depicts the actual topography of the construction site. The actual topography data includes planar coordinates and heights of points on the actual topography. FIG. 3 is a top view illustrating an example of an actual topography 31) (see at least paragraphs 24-39);
a design topography data acquirer to acquire topography data indicating a design topography of a construction site (As illustrated in FIG. 2, in step S101, the region data module 21 acquires actual topography data. The actual topography data is three-dimensional survey data which depicts the actual topography of the construction site. The actual topography data includes planar coordinates and heights of points on the actual topography. FIG. 3 is a top view illustrating an example of an actual topography 31) (see at least paragraphs 24-39);
a road end acquirer to acquire a plurality of two or more road ends that serves as a start point and an end point of a construction road (The system 1 may determine starting points and/or ending points of the travel paths as deployment positions of predetermined work machines. For example, the system 1 may remotely automatically control the work machines to be deployed at each of the starting points to move to the starting points. The system 1 may remotely automatically control the work machines to be deployed at each of the ending points to move to the ending points) (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 71-73);
a route searcher to search for a route between the plurality of road ends ((The system 1 may determine starting points and/or ending points of the travel paths as deployment positions of predetermined work machines. For example, the system 1 may remotely automatically control the work machines to be deployed at each of the starting points to move to the starting points),
wherein the route searcher selects nodes existing between the plurality of road ends and calculates, for a plurality of routes that goes through the selected nodes and leads to the plurality of road ends, costs based on construction soil amounts of the construction road from topography data of the current topography and the design topography (The system 1 may determine starting points and/or ending points of the travel paths as deployment positions of predetermined work machines. For example, the system 1 may remotely automatically control the work machines to be deployed at each of the starting points to move to the starting points. The system 1 may remotely automatically control the work machines to be deployed at each of the ending points to move to the ending points) (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 71-73), and
selects a route that minimizes a calculated cost (the planning module 22 determines a plurality of travel paths that link the excavation regions and the embankment regions, and determines a combination of travel paths and a sequence for minimizing cost as the target travel paths and the construction sequence. The cost is defined based on the horizontal movement distance, the vertical movement distance, and the transported soil amounts. The horizontal movement distance is the distance in the horizontal direction between adjacent element regions F(p,q). The vertical movement distance is the elevation difference between adjacent element regions F(p,q). By including the horizontal movement distance and the vertical movement distance in the cost, the planning module 22 determines the target travel paths by taking into consideration the ease of passage due to the slopes and the movement distances) (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73).
With regard to Claim 2, Kanou teaches wherein the route searcher
calculates, for each of a link between each of the plurality of road ends and a node adjacent to each other and a link between each pair of nodes adjacent to each other in each route, a cost based on construction soil amount of the construction road, and
selects a route that minimizes a sum of calculated costs (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73).
With regard to Claim 3, Kanou teaches wherein the route searcher calculates, for each of a link between each of the plurality of road ends and a node adjacent to each other and a link between each pair of nodes adjacent to each other in each route, a cost based on construction soil amount of the construction road and a cost based on remaining distance to the end point, and selects a route that minimizes a sum of calculated costs based on construction soil amount of the construction road and calculated costs based on remaining distance to the end point (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73).
With regard to Claim 4, Kanou teaches wherein the construction soil amount includes a cutting amount and a filling amount (In step S103, the region data module 21 acquires construction conditional data. The construction conditional data includes the number of work machines that can be used during the construction at the construction site, and a construction capacity. The work machines include, for example, bulldozers, hydraulic excavators, or dump trucks. The construction capacity may be, for example, the amount of soil per unit of time that can be excavated by the bulldozers or the hydraulic excavators. The construction capacity may be the blade capacity of the bulldozers or the bucket capacity of the hydraulic excavators. The construction capacity may also be the amount of soil that can be transported by the dump trucks) (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73).
With regard to Claim 5, Kanou teaches wherein the construction soil amount further includes an overfill amount and an overcut amount (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73).
With regard to Claim 6, Kanou teaches wherein the construction soil amount further includes a difference between the cutting amount and the filling amount (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73).
With regard to Claim 7, Kanou teaches wherein when the road end acquirer acquires three or more road ends as the plurality of road ends, the route searcher calculates, for each branch point leading to each of the plurality of road ends, a cost based on construction soil amount of the construction road between the branch point and each of the plurality of road ends, and selects the branch point that minimizes a sum of calculated costs and a route that passes the branch point (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73) .
With regard to Claim 8, Kanou teaches wherein the route searcher, when determining that an additional branch point is required, calculates, with respect to each region including two road ends adjacent to each other among the plurality of road ends and the branch point, costs based on construction soil amount of the construction road between the additional branch point and each of the two road ends adjacent to each other and between the additional branch point and the branch point, and selects the additional branch point that minimizes a sum of calculated costs and a route that passes the additional branch point (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73).
With regard to Claims 11, 12, Kanou teaches wherein the construction soil amount includes a cutting amount and a filling amount (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73).
With regard to Claims 13, 15, Kanou teaches wherein the construction soil amount further includes an overfill amount and an overcut amount (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73).
With regard to Claims 14, 16, Kanou teaches wherein the construction soil amount further includes a difference between the cutting amount and the filling amount (see at least paragraphs 24-39, 58-64, 71-73).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Ready-Campbell et al. (US 10761537)
Akihisa et al. (JP 2019196630 A)
Hirayama et al. (JP 2019160093 A)
Kanou et al. (WO 201131864 A1)
Maeda et al. (AU 2023297524 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights