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
This action is in response to communications filed on 9/24/2025. Accordingly, claims 1- 6 are pending.
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- 6—in particular Independent claims 1 & 5- 6—are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite (as per exemplary claim 1) identifying, determining and varying data. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. But for the processing device and memory language, the claims encompass a user simply comparing the collected data to a predetermined/configurable threshold in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic bus, processor and memory does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the elements of identifying, determining and varying, and that a generic computer preform these steps. The identifying and determining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of identifying/transmitting and storing data for use in the varying steps), and as such they amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the identifying and determining steps is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the varying step. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the identifying, determining, varying and storing steps were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) 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). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claims 2-4 they all depend from claim 1 and as such have the same deficiencies as those presented above with respect to claim 1 above.
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 1-2 & 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimano et al. (US 2016/0258135 A1).
Shimano discloses:
1: A system for controlling a work machine including a work implement to which a work tool is attachable at a tip end, the system comprising:
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (see Shimano at least fig. 1-16 in particular fig. 1, 3 and Abstract; work implement controller, sensor controller, display controller):
identify a virtual wall being a surface that prohibits entry of the work implement (see Shimano at least fig. 1-16 in particular fig. 1, 3, 6, 8 & 12-13 and Abstract & Background & Summary; target design topography and distance between cutting edge and target design topography);
determine a revolution angular velocity of the work machine such that the virtual wall does not come into contact with the work machine (see Shimano at least fig. 1-16 in particular fig. 1, 3, 6, 8 & 12-13 and Abstract & Background & Summary; target design topography and distance between cutting edge and target design topography); and
vary the revolution angular velocity, depending on a main body weight of the work tool (see Shimano at least fig. 1-16 in particular fig. 1, 3, 6, 8 & 12-16 and Abstract & Background & Summary; obtaining weight data, weight specifying weight of bucket and adjusting/modifying speed).
2: wherein the processor is configured to: identify a position of the work tool attached to the work machine; identify an inertia moment of the work machine of the moment, based on the position of the attached work tool and the main body weight; and determine the revolution angular velocity, based on the inertia moment (see Shimano at least fig. 1-16 in particular fig. 1, 3, 6, 8 & 12-16 and Abstract & Background & Summary).
4: wherein the processor is configured to read[[s]] the main body weight of the work tool attached to the work machine from a storage device configured to store main body weights of a plurality of the work tools attachable to the work implement (see Shimano at least fig. 1-16 in particular fig. 1, 3, 6, 8 & 12-16 and Abstract & Background & Summary).
5: A method for controlling a work machine including a work implement to which a work tool is attachable at a tip end, the method comprising: identifying a virtual wall being a surface that prohibits entry of the work implement; and determining a revolution angular velocity of the work machine such that the virtual wall does not come into contact with the work machine, wherein in the determining of the revolution angular velocity, the revolution angular velocity is varied depending on a main body weight of the work tool (see Shimano at least fig. 1-16 in particular fig. 1, 3, 6, 8 & 12-16 and Abstract & Background & Summary; see claim 1 above).
6: A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program executable by a computer configured to control a work machine including a work implement to which a work tool is attachable at a tip end, the program causing the computer to execute: identifying a virtual wall being a surface that prohibits entry of the work implement; and determining a revolution angular velocity of the work machine such that the virtual wall does not come into contact with the work machine, wherein in the determining of the revolution angular velocity, the revolution angular velocity is varied depending on a main body weight of the work tool (see Shimano at least fig. 1-16 in particular fig. 1, 3, 6, 8 & 12-16 and Abstract & Background & Summary; see claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-9:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MACEEH . ANWARI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/MACEEH ANWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights