DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-15 are pending examination.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to judicial exception involving abstract ideas, mental concepts without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-13 are directed to an apparatus.
Claim 14 is directed to a method claim.
Claim 15 is computer program claim.
Therefore, claims 1-14 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
However, claim 15 does not fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
Step 2A, Prong I of the 2019 Patent Examiner’s Guide (PEG) analyzes the claims to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls into one of the following groups of abstract ideas:
a) mathematical concepts
[Symbol font/0xB7] mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations
b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or
[Symbol font/0xB7] fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
[Symbol font/0xB7] commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
[Symbol font/0xB7] managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
c) mental processes.
[Symbol font/0xB7] concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The following claims include limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used to represent additional claims that merely elaborate on the recited abstract ideas for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
A control apparatus arranged for controlling a state of at least one operation zone of at least one mobile mining vehicle, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
store information on a first state parameter value indicating that an operation zone is reserved for at least one mobile mining vehicle operating in a first mode of operation;
detect an activation point associated with the operation zone for determining that a mobile mining vehicle is arriving at the operation zone, the activation point being located outside the operation zone;
determine that a position of a mobile mining vehicle operating in a second mode of operation corresponds to the activation point; and
activate a vehicle arrival sequence for releasing the reserved operation zone for the mobile mining vehicle operating in the second mode of operation, the vehicle arrival sequence including replacing the first state parameter value with a second state parameter value indicating that the operation zone is reserved for at least one mobile mining vehicle operating in the second mode of operation, wherein the first mode of operation and the second mode of operation are different modes of operation.
Claim 14 recites similar abstract ideas.
Regarding Claims 1, 14 and 15:
The claim recites (1) keeping a record of who a zone is reserved for (2) noticing when a vehicle reaches a checkpoint and (3) swapping the reservation record to the new vehicle type. This is the same logical structure as a dispatcher’s logbook or a valet parking check-in board, a human attendant tracks which parking bay is reserved for which type of car, watches for the car arriving at the entrance and updates a whiteboard when a different car type is now permitted in which is a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claims 2-13 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in Claim 1.
Accordingly Claims 1-15 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
Step 2A, Prong II of the 2019 PEG analyzes the claims to determine whether the claim recites any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The following claims recite additional limitations:
Claim 1, 14 and 15 recites the following additional limitations: “A control apparatus arranged for controlling a state of at least one operation zone of at least one mobile mining vehicle, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to” These elements are generic processor and memory and none of these is described or claimed with any technical implementation detail. The examiner submits that the recited limitations, emphasized above, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding Claims 1, 14 and 15, the additional limitation of “A control apparatus arranged for controlling a state of at least one operation zone of at least one mobile mining vehicle, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to” are examples of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the additional limitations of claims 11 and 20 are recited at a high level of generality, defined by function, such that the machine is not an integral part of the claim (MPEP § 2106.04(d).I.). The additional limitations do not:
• Reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – (MPEP § 2106.05(a))
• Apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
• Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – (MPEP § 2106.05(b))
• Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – (MPEP § 2106.05(c))
• Apply or use 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 – (MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Dependent claims 2-13 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in claim 1, but do not provide additional elements, and so do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-15 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claims 1-15 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplishes execution of the abstract ideas.
Further, the additional limitation of processor and memory in claim 1, 14 and 15 does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim).
Therefore, the additional limitations of claims 1-15 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, claims 1-15 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Similarly Claims 2-4 recite similar abstract idea of passage control, camera and remote operator confirmation.
Similarly Claim 5 recite similar abstract idea of detecting a deactivation point outside the operation zone.
Similarly Claim 6 recite similar abstract idea of reserving the operation zone.
Similarly Claims 7-10 recite similar abstract idea of parallel departure-sequence limitations and add only insignificant extra solution.
Similarly Claim 11 recite similar abstract idea of replacing the value.
Similarly, claim 12 recites is non limiting field of use choice which is considered abstract idea.
Similarly, claim 13 recites very broadly predefined position or a request mechanism which is considered abstract idea.
In Claim 15, 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 Claim 15 recites “A computer program comprising instructions for causing an apparatus to perform at least the following…” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer readable medium”. In this instance, the specification provides no special definition with respect to the “computer readable device” limiting the broadest reasonable interpretation to non-transitory media. Although claim 8 does recite that the instructions are “tangible”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “tangible” encompasses light and sound in that both are perceivable by the senses. As a result, claim 8 encompasses within its scope signals per se and is thus not statutory. See In re. Nuijten, 500 F.3rd 1346, 1356-57.
The applicant is advised to change the claim into a non-transitory computer readable medium in regards to claim 15 in order to fall into one of statutory class.
Hence Claims 1-15 are rejected under 101.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruokojarvi et al. (US2021/0232155) in view of Hendeberg et al. (WO2022055404A1) and herein after will be referred as Ruokojarvi and Hendeberg.
Regarding Claim 1, Ruokojarvi teaches a control apparatus arranged for controlling a state of at least one operation zone of at least one mobile mining vehicle, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (Para [0023] Fig 1 and Fig.6: “FIG. 1 illustrates an example of an underground work site 1 provided with a system for zone passage control in tunnels of the work site. The system comprises passage control units (PCU) 2 a, 2 b, 2 c, 2 d, 2 e, 2 f separating operation zones 4 a, 4 b, 4 c, 4 d, 4 e, and 4 f. For example, PCU 2 b is associated with zones 4 a and 4 b, wherein in the zone 4 b there may be an autonomously operating mobile vehicle 3. Below a reference sign 4 may be used as a general reference sign for operation zone(s) 4 a, 4 b, 4 c, 4 d, 4 e, and 4 f unless a particular operation zone 4 a, 4 b, 4 c, 4 d, 4 e, and 4 f is referred to. Similarly, PCU may be used as a general reference sign for passage control unit(s) 2 a, 2 b, 2 c, 2 d, 2 e, 2 f, unless a particular passage control unit is referred to.”):
store information on a first state parameter value indicating that an operation zone is reserved for at least one mobile mining vehicle operating in a first mode of operation (Para [0054]: “The state parameter of the first zone may be updated in block 35 or as an additional block after block 35 into a second state parameter value indicating manual operation in response to the demerging 35.”);
detect an activation point associated with the operation zone for determining that a mobile mining vehicle is arriving at the operation zone, the activation point being located outside the operation zone (Para [0024] : “The passage control system and associated PCUs may be configured to allow movement of one or more mobile vehicles between zones 4. For example, the mobile vehicle 3 may be configured to autonomously travel a route in zones 4 b, 4 c, and 4 d, wherein zone 4 d may comprise a dump point at the end of the tunnel. It is to be appreciated that besides the entities illustrated in simplified FIG. 1, there may be further units, sub-systems or elements, such as a specific passage station as described in EP 1616077.” and [0028]: “When the detection unit 21 detects a mobile object, the detection unit may provide a corresponding signal to the controller 20. The detection unit 21 may be an optoelectronic guard detector, such as a guard detector based on the use a light curtain or photocells. Alternatively other kind of devices such as laser scanning devices and safety mats, for instance, or any other applicable device to detect a presence of the mobile object. The detection unit 21 may be configured to detect the direction of motion of the mobile object and may also provide the direction information to the controller 20.”);
determine that a position of a mobile mining vehicle operating in a second mode of operation corresponds to the activation point (Para [0029]: “The system may further comprise identification units 22. The identification unit 22 may be comprised by the PCU and may be configured to identify the mobile object entering or exiting the zone. The identification of the mobile objects may include the identification of the type of the mobile object, in some embodiments if the mobile object is an automated mobile vehicle, an unmanned remotely controllable mobile vehicle or a manned mining vehicle, or a human being. The identification of the mobile object may also include also the identification of a particular vehicle person. When the identification unit 22 has identified the mobile object, the identification unit 22 provides a signal comprising associated identification information to the controller 20.”);
Ruokojarvi does not expressly teaches activate a vehicle arrival sequence for releasing the reserved operation zone for the mobile mining vehicle operating in the second mode of operation, the vehicle arrival sequence comprising including replacing the first state parameter value with a second state parameter value indicating that the operation zone is reserved for at least one mobile mining vehicle operating in the second mode of operation, wherein the first mode of operation and the second mode of operation are different modes of operation.
Hendeberg teaches activate a vehicle arrival sequence for releasing the reserved operation zone for the mobile mining vehicle operating in the second mode of operation, the vehicle arrival sequence comprising including replacing the first state parameter value with a second state parameter value indicating that the operation zone is reserved for at least one mobile mining vehicle operating in the second mode of operation, wherein the first mode of operation and the second mode of operation are different modes of operation (Page 8 L26-Page 9 L6: “The safety system may be configured to, when checking-in or checking out a vehicle, comprise signal receiving means for receiving an identity of the vehicle, e.g. through RFID or other wireless communication. This allows facilitated, and e.g. automatic check-in and check-out of vehicles. Signals being received by the receiving means may e.g. be communicated by barrier sensor circuitry or other suitable means to the main control unit. Each entrance and/or exit, i.e. barrier, may be provided with at least a first and a second barrier sensor for detecting presence of an object, the first and second barrier sensors being located at a distance from each other, so as to, by successively detecting an object by one of the first and second barrier sensors followed by detecting an object by the other of the first and the second barrier sensors, determine a direction of motion of the object. In this way, a vehicle may be automatically checked-in to, or checked-out from, a safety zone by detection of an identity of the machine, and by successive detection of presence by one of the at least a first and a second barrier sensor followed by detection of presence by the other of the at least a first and a second barrier sensor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ruokojarvi to incorporate the teachings of Hendeberg to include activate a vehicle arrival sequence for releasing the reserved operation zone for the mobile mining vehicle operating in the second mode of operation, the vehicle arrival sequence comprising including replacing the first state parameter value with a second state parameter value indicating that the operation zone is reserved for at least one mobile mining vehicle operating in the second mode of operation, wherein the first mode of operation and the second mode of operation are different modes of operation. Doing so would improve autonomous operations efficiency and reduce safety risk in mining operations.
Similarly Claims 14 and 15 are rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 2, Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg the apparatus according to claim 1.
Hendeberg teaches wherein the vehicle arrival sequence further comprises controlling a passage control unit controlling entry of a mobile mining vehicle to the operation zone (Page 8 Line 26- page 9 Line 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ruokojarvi teaches the vehicle arrival sequence further comprises activating a camera configured to monitor the operation zone (Para [0030]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ruokojarvi teaches the vehicle arrival sequence further comprises confirming, based on an input received from a remote operator, that entry of the mobile mining vehicle operating in the second mode of operation into the operation zone is allowed (Para [0039]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ruokojarvi teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to detect a deactivation point associated with the operation zone, the deactivation point being located outside the operation zone (Para [0039]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg the apparatus according to claim 5.
Ruokojarvi teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to reserve, in response to determining that the position of the mobile mining vehicle operating in the second mode of operation corresponds to the deactivation point, the operation zone for a mobile mining vehicle operating in the first mode of operation (para [0039]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ruokojarvi teaches the first mode of operation comprises manual operation and the second mode of operation comprises autonomous operation, or the first mode of operation comprises autonomous operation and the second mode operation comprises manual operation (Para [0024] and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ruokojarvi teaches the activation point comprises includes a predefined position on a route of the mobile mining vehicle or a mechanism for requesting entry of a mobile mining vehicle to the operation zone (Para [0024]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg and in further view of Ruokojarvi’853 (US10429853) and herein after will be referred as Ruokojarvi’853.
Regarding Claim 7, Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg the apparatus according to claim 6.
Ruokojarvi’853 wherein reserving the operation zone comprises includes activating a vehicle departure sequence (Col.9 Line 2-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ruokojarvi and Hendeberg to incorporate the teachings of Ruokojarvi’853to include reserving the operation zone comprises includes activating a vehicle departure sequence. Doing so would improve autonomous operations efficiency and reduce safety risk in mining operations.
Regarding Claim 8, Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg and in further view of Ruokojarvi’853 the apparatus according to claim 7.
Ruokojarvi’853 the vehicle departure sequence comprises controlling a passage control unit controlling exit of a mobile mining vehicle from the operation zone (Col. 9 Line 31-47).
Regarding Claim 9, Ruokojarvi in view of Hendeberg and in further view of Ruokojarvi’853 the apparatus according to claim 7.
Ruokojarvi teaches wherein the vehicle departure sequence further comprises activating a camera configured to monitor the operation zone (Para [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burns et al. (US6799100B2) discloses a supervisory safety-control system is implemented by dividing a mine's territory into zones of free operation (“permission zones”) wherein a vehicle is allowed to move according to predetermined permission parameters but unhindered by other system constraints. Traffic of autonomous vehicles in each permission zone is controlled by the supervisory system in conjunction with and in addition to conventional safety constraints associated with the guidance system that effects the vehicle's tracking of predetermined trajectories. Permission zones are assigned and activated using criteria that ensure the vehicle will remain entirely within active zones so long as the vehicle acts within such predetermined permission parameters. Each permission zone is also associated with a maximum velocity profile that overrides guidance-system safety controls, if necessary, and ensures stoppage of the vehicle at the end of the permission zone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights