DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-12 filed as preliminary amendment, are currently pending and have been considered below.
3. 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.
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 12 recites: transmitting a survey start command in order to set for setting a travel area where an unmanned dump truck can travel in a work site to a shovel that operates at the work site; receiving survey data indicating a position of a linear portion of the work site detected by the shovel based on a basis of the survey start command; and setting an edge line of the travel area based on a basis of the survey data, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically, a concept performed in the human mind of : transmitting a survey start command; receiving survey data and setting an edge line of the travel area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recites dump truck, shovel, etc. which are an electro-mechanical device or any device, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. Thus claim 12 recites a mental process.
Therefore Claim 12 is abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claim is abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims only recite the steps of: transmitting a survey start command; receiving survey data and setting an edge line of the travel area.
These steps amounts to mere data gathering, and setting an edge line of the travel area is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. At least the “setting” is considered to be extra-solution activity and it does not appear to be more than what is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (WURC). The MPEP provides support that the additional limitations in the claim are directed to well-understood routine and conventional steps:
MPEP 2106.05(d) II recites:
II. ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS
Because examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine activities, the following section provides examples of elements that have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields. It should be noted, however, that many of these examples failed to satisfy other Step 2B considerations (e.g., because they were recited at a high level of generality and thus were mere instructions to apply an exception, or were insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, examiners should carefully analyze additional elements in a claim with respect to all relevant Step 2B considerations, including this consideration, before making a conclusion as to whether they amount to an inventive concept.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The MPEP further recites with respect to claims directed to insignificant solution activity:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 12 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
6. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai et al. ( WO-2022/097688. However, “USP-2023/0324928” has been sued as English translation of WO-2022/097688) in view of OI et al. (USP2021/0254312).
As Per Claim 1, Kanai et al. ( Kanai) teaches, management system (via vehicle system 1) for a work site, (Fig.1) comprising: a first controller (via management control device 31, Fig.2) configured to transmit a survey start command in order to set a travel area where an unmanned dump truck (via dump truck 20) can travel in a work site (via management control section 312 of management control device 31 , generating in-area map information and generating in-area route for the unmanned vehicle 20 to the loading site) to a shovel ( via loading machine 10) that operates at the work site, ([0062], [0064] ,[0065-0070], Figs. 1-2, 5,7, 10-11) and receive survey data indicating a position of a linear portion of the work site ( via position 101 Fig.7) detected by the shovel (10) based on the survey start command; ([0071]-[0074]) and a second controller (via bucket tip position calculator 111 of loading machine information management device 11); configured to set the travel area based on the survey data (in-area map information data), ([0074-0075]). Figs. 1-2, 5,7, 10-11, 13)., also see [0091-0092]).
Examiner interprets “a survey start command” as ‘in-area map generation command’ And “a survey data” as ‘in-area map information data’.
However, Kanai does not explicitly teach, to set an edge line of the travel area.
In an analogous art, OI et al. ( OI) teaches, control device and control method for work machine, wherein, a loading machine 100 includes control unit 128, loading excavated earth to a transport vehicle 200 traveling on a road surface ( [0021-0022], Fig.1). wherein, to set an edge line of the travel area ( via processor 1110 of the vehicle control device 128 includes a boundary specification unit 1106. And “the boundary specification unit 1106 specifies a traveling road boundary line B1 which is a boundary line between the traveling road surface F that is a surface on which the transport vehicle 200 is capable of traveling and the excavation target L by the work equipment 130, in the terrain shown by the three-dimensional map.”, [0057], [0058],also see [0047-0048], [0050], Figs.2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kanai and OI before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kanai to include the teachings ( the processor 1100 including 1106) of OI and configure with the system of Kanai in order to set an edge line in dump truck traveling area between traveling road surface F and excavation target L. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, specifying boundary line B1 which is a boundary line between the traveling road surface F and the excavation target L by the work equipment 130 (i.e., an added safety feature to execute excavation process without loading vehicle bucket tip hitting the dump truck).
As per Claim 2, Kanai as modified by OI teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kanai in view of OI teaches, wherein the shovel (loading machine 10) includes working equipment including a bucket, (bucket 15c, Fig.7) and the survey data is detected by the bucket. [(0030], [0034], [0039-0041]).
As per Claim 3, Kanai as modified by OI teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kanai in view of OI teaches, wherein the second controller is configured to set travel stop line of the shovel based on the edge line. ([0065-0070], [0071-0074], Fig.7).
As per Claim 4, Kanai as modified by OI teaches the limitation of Claim 3. However, Kanai in view of OI teaches, wherein the second controller is configured to set the travel stop line at a position shifted from the edge line to an outside of the travel area by a predetermined distance (See OI Figs. 4-5 , [0057], [0058]) and (Kanai :[0065-0070], [0071-0074], Fig.7).
As per Claim 5, Kanai as modified by OI teaches the limitation of Claim 4. However, Kanai in view of OI teaches, an input device, ( instruction input device 15) , the predetermined distance being input from the input device to the second controller ([0065-0074], Fig.3).
As per Claim 7, Kanai as modified by OI teaches the limitation of Claim 3. However, Kanai in view of OI teaches, wherein an excavation portion of a work site outside the travel area is excavated by the shovel, and the second controller is configured to update the travel stop line based on an excavation state of the excavation portion. [0027], [0091-0092]).
As per Claim 8, Kanai as modified by OI teaches the limitation of Claim 7. However, Kanai in view of OI teaches, wherein the shovel includes working equipment including a bucket (bucket 15c, Fig.7), and the second controller is configured to determine an excavation state of the excavation portion based on a position of the
bucket. ([0027], [0091-0092], Figs.7,13).
As per Claim 9, Kanai as modified by OI teaches the limitation of Claim 7. However, Kanai in view of OI teaches, an input device, (instruction input device 15, Figs. 2-3), the second controller being configured to update the edge line based on input data from the input device. ([0065-0074], Fig.3).
As Per Claim 12, Kanai et al. ( Kanai) teaches, a management method (via performed by a vehicle system 1, Fig.1) for a work site (Fig.1), comprising:
transmitting a survey start command in order to set a travel area where an
unmanned dump truck (via dump truck 20) can travel in a work site (via management control section 312 of management control device 31 , generating in-area map information and generating in-area route for the unmanned vehicle 20 to the loading site) to a shovel (via loading machine 10) that operates at the work site; ( [0006], [0064], ([0065-0074], Figs. 1-2, 5,7 and 10-11); receiving survey data indicating a position of a linear portion of the work site (via position 101 Fig.7) detected by the shovel (10) based on a basis of the survey start command; ([0071]-[0074]) and setting the travel area based on the survey data. ([0074-0075]). Figs. 1-2, 5,7, 10-11, 13), also see [0091-0092]).
Examiner interprets “a survey start command” as ‘in-area map generation command’ And “a survey data” as ‘in-area map information data’
However, Kanai does not explicitly teach, to set an edge line of the travel area.
In an analogous art, OI et al. ( OI) teaches, control device and control method for work machine, wherein, a loading machine 100 includes control unit 128, loading excavated earth to a transport vehicle 200 traveling on a road surface ( [0021-0022], Fig.1). wherein, to set an edge line of the travel area ( via processor 1110 of the vehicle control device 128 includes a boundary specification unit 1106. And “the boundary specification unit 1106 specifies a traveling road boundary line B1 which is a boundary line between the traveling road surface F that is a surface on which the transport vehicle 200 is capable of traveling and the excavation target L by the work equipment 130, in the terrain shown by the three-dimensional map.”, [0057], [0058],also see [0047-0048], [0050], Figs.2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kanai and OI before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kanai to include the teachings ( the processor 1100 including 1106) of OI and configure with the system of Kanai in order to set an edge line in dump truck traveling area between traveling road surface F and excavation target L. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, specifying boundary line B1 line between the traveling road surface F and the excavation target L by the work equipment 130 (i.e., an added safety feature to execute excavation process without loading vehicle bucket tip hitting the dump truck).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 6, 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights