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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test 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.
Claims 1 and 9 are directed to systems (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 recites abstract limitations, which are emphasized (bolded) below:
[Claim 1] A loading machine comprising:
a vehicle body;
a working device attached to the vehicle body to perform loading operations of transported materials onto a hauling vehicle;
a communication device that communicates with the hauling vehicle directly or via a vehicle management device, and
a controller that determines the completion of loading of transported materials onto the hauling vehicle and outputs a start command to the hauling vehicle via the communication device;
wherein the controller is configured to
store or receive model data containing information indicating characteristics related to a transport operation of the hauling vehicle and
estimate a necessary start preparation time from when the hauling vehicle begins start preparation until it is in a state ready to start based on the model data;
estimate a remaining loading time required from the current time until a completion of loading of transported materials onto the hauling vehicle based on a loading machine-side operational status data, which is an operational status data of the loading machine;
calculate a difference time between the estimated remaining loading time and the necessary start preparation time; and
output a start preparation command to the hauling vehicle via the communication device when the calculated difference time falls below a preset set value.
[Claim 9] A vehicle management device being capable of communicating with a loading machine equipped with a vehicle body and a working device connected to the vehicle body, and a hauling vehicle onto which transported materials are loaded by the loading machine,
the vehicle management device is configured to
receive the loading machine-side operational status data, which is an operational status data of the loading machine, from the loading machine, and estimates a remaining loading time required from the current time until a completion of loading of transported materials onto the hauling vehicle based on the loading machine-side operational status data;
store or receive model data containing information indicating characteristics related to a transport operation of the hauling vehicle and estimate a necessary start preparation time from when the hauling vehicle begins start preparation until it is in a state ready to start based on the model data;
calculate a difference time between the estimated remaining loading time and the necessary start preparation time; and
output a start preparation command to the hauling vehicle when the calculated difference time falls below a preset set value.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a process for managing relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and are therefore a method of organizing human activity. More specifically, a human can receive and store information related to the operation of a vehicle, make estimations and calculations, and output a start command to a vehicle. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations, as drafted, also recite processes, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, that cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper (e.g., estimating, calculating, etc.), and therefore recite mental processes. The mere recitation of a generic computer (i.e. vehicle management device or controller) 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 in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim(s) recite additional elements of: which are emphasized (underlined) below:
[Claim 1] A loading machine comprising:
a vehicle body;
a working device attached to the vehicle body to perform loading operations of transported materials onto a hauling vehicle;
a communication device that communicates with the hauling vehicle directly or via a vehicle management device, and
a controller that determines the completion of loading of transported materials onto the hauling vehicle and outputs a start command to the hauling vehicle via the communication device;
wherein the controller is configured to
store or receive model data containing information indicating characteristics related to a transport operation of the hauling vehicle and
estimate a necessary start preparation time from when the hauling vehicle begins start preparation until it is in a state ready to start based on the model data;
estimate a remaining loading time required from the current time until a completion of loading of transported materials onto the hauling vehicle based on a loading machine-side operational status data, which is an operational status data of the loading machine;
calculate a difference time between the estimated remaining loading time and the necessary start preparation time; and
output a start preparation command to the hauling vehicle via the communication device when the calculated difference time falls below a preset set value.
[Claim 9] A vehicle management device being capable of communicating with a loading machine equipped with a vehicle body and a working device connected to the vehicle body, and a hauling vehicle onto which transported materials are loaded by the loading machine,
the vehicle management device is configured to
receive the loading machine-side operational status data, which is an operational status data of the loading machine, from the loading machine, and estimates a remaining loading time required from the current time until a completion of loading of transported materials onto the hauling vehicle based on the loading machine-side operational status data;
store or receive model data containing information indicating characteristics related to a transport operation of the hauling vehicle and estimate a necessary start preparation time from when the hauling vehicle begins start preparation until it is in a state ready to start based on the model data;
calculate a difference time between the estimated remaining loading time and the necessary start preparation time; and
output a start preparation command to the hauling vehicle when the calculated difference time falls below a preset set value.
The characterization of:
A loading machine comprising: a vehicle body; a working device attached to the vehicle body to perform loading operations of transported materials onto a hauling vehicle, a communication device that communicates with the hauling vehicle directly or via a vehicle management device, and a controller; and
A vehicle management device being capable of communicating with a loading machine equipped with a vehicle body and a working device connected to the vehicle body, and a hauling vehicle onto which transported materials are loaded by the loading machine, the vehicle management device is configured to…
amounts to indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In addition, the functions of these elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (i.e. are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea).
The characterization of:
… a working device attached to the vehicle body to perform loading operations of transported materials onto a hauling vehicle
attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.
The characterization of:
the vehicle management device receiving data from the loading machine
the vehicle management device outputting a command to the hauling machine
a controller that outputs commands to the hauling device via the communication device,
amounts to extra-solution (pre-solution and post-solution) activity, when recited at this level of breadth.
Examiner notes that the functions of the additional element(s) of:
wherein the controller (or the vehicle management device) is configured to: store or receive … data;
could additionally/alternatively be interpreted as forms of extra-solution activity (i.e. activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The functions (e.g. monitoring/receiving/transmitting/collecting/storage) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering and transmitting data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, 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).
As discussed above, the characterization of the components of the loading machine and vehicle management device, as discussed above, amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, with respect to the functions a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more.
Additionally/alternatively, with respect to the elements acting to store, retrieve, receive and transmit data, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collecting, receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, prior art Kronenberg (US 2010/0082179 A1), discloses that various combinations of sensors, detectors, processors, cameras, and other monitoring means known in the art can be used to monitor driving parameters of vehicles (see [0044]). (See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collecting, receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The Versata and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving data in memory is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).) Moreover, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2-4 act to further defining previously recited abstract ideas (e.g., further characterization of data processing, further characterization of user authorization for access to data, creation of derivative products and services) without reciting any further additional elements beyond those identified above with respect to the independent claims. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 acts to further characterize the loading machine structure, such as by reciting particular sensors that collect data (extra-solution data gathering and particular field of use, i.e, particular sensors), and the processing of collected data (further characterization of the previously identified abstract concepts).
Claim(s) 7-8; further recites limitation(s) which include(s) recitation of extra-solution activity (i.e. activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The monitoring/receiving/transmitting/displaying functions are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering and transmitting data), and amounts to mere data gathering and data display, which is a form of extra-solution activity (pre-solution and post-solution). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
(See The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collecting, receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).)
For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 currently stand rejected under 35 USC 101, but would otherwise be allowable should these rejections be overcome. Claims 6 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The problem to be solved by the present invention may be regarded as how to enhance performance of work machines operating in tandem to transport materials by providing a system configured to store or receive model data containing information indicating characteristics related to a transport operation of the hauling vehicle and estimate a necessary start preparation time from when the hauling vehicle begins start preparation until it is in a state ready to start based on the model data;
estimate a remaining loading time required from the current time until a completion of loading of transported materials onto the hauling vehicle based on a loading machine-side operational status data, which is an operational status data of the loading machine;
calculate a difference time between the estimated remaining loading time and the necessary start preparation time; and
output a start preparation command to the hauling vehicle via the communication device when the calculated difference time falls below a preset set value.
The closest available prior art at hand;
KVIST (US-20170191865-A1) discloses in a similar invention, a consideration for [0013] The present invention is based on the insight that automatically start-up of the engine when loading of the platform is almost completed will increase the productivity of the vehicle since the vehicle will be able to take off rather immediately after completion of the loading process. Hereby, the engine of the vehicle is started automatically, without the need of manual control from a vehicle operator, at a suitable time period before final completion of the loading. Hence, the driver of the vehicle does not need to take any action of his own, or does not have to judge whether it is suitable to start the engine or not, for starting up the engine. An advantage is thus that unnecessary delays due to time consuming start-ups are prevented. Also, another advantage is that the fuel consumption of the vehicle can be reduced since, compared to a situation where the driver is manually starting the engine, optimization of engine start up can be made such that the engine is started at a relatively optimum time period before completion of the loading at the loading position
[claim.1] … wherein the control unit is further configured to provide an engine start-up signal to the engine system of the vehicle if the received indicated weight of the load on the platform is above the predetermined threshold value
Misaki (US-11994397-B2) discloses in a similar invention, a consideration for [claim.14] The shovel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is configured to record loading completion time based on the time of the completion of the first loading of the transporter vehicle and loading start time based on the time of the start of the second loading of the transporter vehicle, and to estimate the required time based on the recorded loading completion time and the recorded loading start time.
Shike (US-20180218304-A1) discloses in a similar invention, a consideration for [0135] In addition, by calculating a construction plan using not only construction amount data, original unit data, and a construction pattern, but also transport condition data, simulation accuracy of construction is further enhanced. A work time varies depending on a transport condition of the transporter vehicle 5. Thus, by a transport condition of the transporter vehicle 5 being identified by transport condition data acquired by the transport condition data acquisition unit 30, the construction plan data calculation unit 20 can highly-accurately calculate a time and a cost required until the completion of a specific work, based on construction amount data, original unit data, a construction pattern, and transport condition data.
A solution to the problem detailed above as proposed in claim(s) 1 and 9 of the present application is neither distinctly disclosed in, nor render obvious by, the available prior art at hand, and appears therefor to involve an inventive step.
As such, it should be noted that while the combination of references discloses aspects of the claimed limitations, the disclosure fails to fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. As such, it is this examiner’s opinion that there lacks a sufficient nexus between the prior art and the instant application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JOHN MOSCOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights