Caterpillar Inc.
[2024] APO 8
•19 February 2024
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Caterpillar Inc. [2024] APO 8
Patent Application: 2018274895
Title:System and method for detection of load and dump locations
Patent Applicant: Caterpillar Inc.
Delegate: Dr A. Lim
Decision Date: 19 February 2024
Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 22 November 2023
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner objection – whether the invention is a manner of manufacture – substance of claimed invention is a scheme to identify load locations and dump locations at a worksite – alleged invention not a manner of manufacture – no patentable subject matter identified in the specification – application refused
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: FPA Patent Attorneys Pty Ltd
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2018274895
Title:System and method for detection of load and dump locations
Patent Applicant: Caterpillar Inc.
Date of Decision: 19 February 2024
DECISION
The claimed invention is not for a manner of manufacture. I see no subject matter in the specification which could be made the subject of a valid claim to overcome this finding.
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Patent application 2018274895 (the present application) was filed by Caterpillar Inc. (the applicant) on 5 December 2018. The patent request claims the benefit of priority from US provisional application US 15/837,105 filed 11 December 2017.
Since the present application was filed after 15 April 2013, this application is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012. Accordingly, the standard of proof that applies to the examination of the present application is the balance of probabilities. I must accept the present application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act.[1] If I am not so satisfied, then I can refuse the application.[2]
[1] Section 49 of the Act as amended.
[2] Explanatory Memorandum to the Raising the Bar Bill, item 14.
The claims as originally filed were assessed as part of the first examination report which issued on 16 September 2022, and the Examiner raised an objection for lack of manner of manufacture for against all claims. The applicant proposed amendments to the description and claims on 10 February 2023, and filed a response arguing all the claims are to patentable subject matter. The amendments to the claims consisted of changing claim appendencies and formatting. In the second examination report which issued 20 February 2023, the Examiner maintained the lack of manner of manufacture objection. In response to the second examination report, the applicant filed further arguments but did not file further amendments to the specification. The Examiner issued a third report on 29 June 2023 and maintained the lack of manner of manufacture objection. The applicant requested to be heard on 24 August 2023.
On 22 November 2023 the applicant filed written submissions for the hearing and proposed further amendments to the description and claims of the present application. I will discuss the invention as disclosed in the specification in my decision shortly. Having compared the proposed amendments with the disclosure in the specification, I am satisfied that the proposed amendments meet the requirements of section 102(1) of the Act. In this decision I am considering the specification as proposed to be amended up to and including proposed amendment item 4 filed 22 November 2023. Whenever I refer to the specification, it is a reference to the specification as proposed to be amended.
While the final date of acceptance of the present invention was 16 September 2023, when the Commissioner decides in writing in relation to an Examiner’s report, the time of gaining acceptance is extended by 3 months from the date of the present decision (see regulation (reg) 13.4(1)(g)) or longer if appropriate (see reg 13.4(3)).
The invention as described in the specification
The specification describes the technical field of the invention as relating to a worksite monitoring system, and more specifically to a system and method for detecting load and dump locations at a worksite.[3]
[3] The specification at [0001].
The geography of a worksite, where machines such as loaders and haulers operate, may change on a regular basis. This may cause loading zones and dumping zones to change based on the variations in topography.[4] Therefore, it may be challenging to track and monitor changes in activities of all machines at the worksite. Consequently, it is difficult to accurately track the productivity of the machines.[5]
[4] The specification at [0002].
[5] The specification at [0003].
The specification states that the systems known at the priority date have many hardware components and require a lot of information to operate, making these systems difficult to install, cumbersome, and expensive.[6]
[6] Ibid.
The specification describes two aspects of the invention, and each aspect generally mirrors one of the two independent claims in the claim set of the present application. A first aspect is a system for detecting a load location and a dump location at a worksite. The second aspect is a method for detecting a load location and dump location at a worksite.[7]
[7] The specification at [0005]-[0006].
Figure 1 of the specification, reproduced below, illustrates an exemplary worksite 100 which is a mine worksite.
The specification describes several machines 102, 104 operate at the worksite 100. In the example, the machine 102 is a loading machine or loading tool 102 (herein referred to as machine 102 or loading tool 102) and the machine 104 is a hauler 104 (herein referred to as machine 104).[8] The machine 102 may be an excavator, a wheel loader, or other loading machine. The machine 104 may be an articulated dump truck, off-highway truck, or any other hauler. The machines 102, 104 at the worksite 100 may be directly controlled by human operators, remotely controlled by human operators, be autonomous machines capable of autonomously working and traversing the worksite 100, or be semi-autonomous machines configured to perform some functions autonomously and other functions under the control of an operator.[9]
[8] The specification uses the terms loading machine 102, loading tool 102 and machine 102 interchangeably. I have used machine 102 and loading machine 102 in this decision.
[9] The specification at [0011].
The worksite has several locations for designated purposes. Load location 104 is designated as a location at which the loading tool 102 or other resource operates to fill the hauler 104 with material.[10] I understand the specification to use the number 104 in Figure 1 to identify both a hauler and a location where a hauler can be filled. Dump location 106 is designated as a location where the hauler 104 discards collected material. Re-fuelling location 108 is designated as a location where a mobile machine can be refuelled. Maintenance location 110 is designated as a location where mobile machines can go for maintenance. The mobile machines can travel on designated roads or paths 112 which link various worksite locations.[11]
[10] The specification at [0012].
[11] Ibid.
Machines 102, 104 are assigned with various tasks directed at altering the geography of the worksite 100 and/or recovering material from the worksite. For example, the hauler 104 may be assigned the tasks of attending a load location 104, receiving a load of material from loading tool 102, attending the dump location 106, dumping the material received from loading tool 102, and repeating the process.[12]
[12] The specification at [0013].
Positions of the load and dump locations may change based on the tasks assigned to machines 102, 104. Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates a worksite monitoring system 200 for monitoring activities of the machines 102, 104 and can be used to determine the load and dump locations for a mixed fleet of machines.[13]
[13] The specification at [0014].
The worksite monitoring system 200 includes a position detection module 202 provided on each of the machines 102, 104. The position detection module 202 is configured to generate a position signal indicative of the position of the machine 102, 104 at the worksite. The position detection module may include a GPS unit or any other known device for detecting the position of the machine at the worksite 100.[14]
[14] The specification at [0015].
The worksite monitoring system 200 also includes a speed detection module 204 associated with each of machines 102, 104. The speed detection module 204 is configured to generate a speed signal indicative of the speed of the machine 102, 104 and may include any known sensor or module for determining the ground speed of the machine 102, 104. For example, the speed detection module 204 may include a speed sensor connected to the axle of the machine 102.[15]
[15] The specification at [0016].
The worksite monitoring system includes a controller 206 which is coupled to the position detection module 202 and the speed detection module 204. The controller 206 receives the position signal from the position detection module 202 and the speed signal from the speed detection module 204. Based on the data received from the position detection module 202 and speed detection module 204, the controller 206 builds a heuristic model to determine the load and dump locations at the worksite 100.[16]
[16] The specification at [0017].
For building the heuristic model, the controller 206 identifies a load location based on the relative distance between the loading tool 102 and the hauler 104. The specification describes that “[m]ore particularly, the controller 206 is configured to identify the type of machine as the loading tool 102 or the hauler 104 based on an identification code associated with the respective machine 102, 104.”[17] The identification code may be determined by the controller 206 based on a signal received from an electronic control module (ECM) of the respective machine 102, 104. I understand the identification of the type of machine based on an identification code is a preferred aspect of building a heuristic model which in a broadest form identifies a load location using the relative distance between any type of loading tool 102 and any type of hauler 104.
[17] The specification at [0018].
The controller 206 determines the distance between any given pair of the loading tool 102 and the hauler 104 for which both the machines 102, 104 have stopped for a predetermined time duration during which the hauler 104 may get filled with material. As an example, the controller 206 compares timestamps received from the loading tool 102 and the hauler 104 and checks for an overlap to determine if the two machines were at halt at the same time. The controller 206 may receive speed data from the machines at regular intervals, enabling the controller 206 to determine if the machines were at halt at the same time. The specification explains that the heuristic may compute two events as occurring simultaneously if the two events occur within a predetermined time, for example 60 seconds of each other. The predetermined time interval may vary based on sampling frequency of the data capture.[18]
[18] The specification at [0019].
The specification describes that since data points may not be sampled at the same second within a minute, the heuristic computes a difference between two timestamps in HH:MM:SS and not only consider matching minutes. The overlap duration can be decreased if the data sampling frequency is increased. However, increasing the overlap duration (e.g., for more than 60 seconds) may result in non-simultaneous events being incorrectly considered as happening at the same time. If the timestamp of the loading tool 102 is, for example, 18:06:44, and the timestamp of the hauler 104 is 18:07:14, the heuristic computes a difference of 30 seconds between two events and considers them “matching” or happening simultaneously.[19]
[19] The specification at [0020].
The specification also describes that the controller may determine the proximity of two machines in conjunction with the time duration for which the machines slowed down or stopped.[20]
[20] The specification at [0021].
Returning to Figure 2, the controller 206 is coupled to a database 208 which may be any known data storage medium, memory device, or data repository. The database 208 contains information such as a predetermined threshold distance between a hauler machine 104 and a loading tool 102, or a predetermined speed of a hauler machine 104 as the hauler machines 104 moves away from a load location.[21]
[21] The specification at [0022] and [0026].
An example described in the specification nominates a predetermined threshold distance between a hauler machine 104 and a loading tool 102 as approximately between 11m and 15m. The specification explains that if the heuristic picks too large a distance threshold, say greater than approximately between 11m and 15m, then haulers 104 that are queuing behind the actual hauler getting loaded may end up being within the predefined proximity. This will result in multiple machines 104 being reported as undergoing loading events, requiring additional post-processing to enforce a one-to-one logic between the loading tool 102 and the hauler 104 at any given instant. However, choosing a distance threshold that is too small will result in no loading events being detected as the hauler 104 and the loading tool 102 will never be close enough to satisfy the heuristic’s requirement.[22]
[22] The specification at [0022].
Since loading event can last from 60 seconds to around two to three minutes, the duration of a loading event may be user adjustable to match the correct operation time. Where there are multiple timestamps for a single loading event, the heuristic may consider events having the same loading tool 102 and the hauler 104 machine combination occurring within a certain time difference of one another, pick only the first timestamp from a series of multiple timestamps and reject the rest. The heuristic may apply a filter to recognise a different loading tool 102 and a hauler 104 combination occurring within a predetermined time threshold and count such events as unique.[23]
[23] The specification at [0023].
The controller 206 monitors the activities of multiple machines at the worksite 100 over a specified time to build confidence in the identification of a load location or load zone at the worksite 100 based on the identification of the loading event taking place at the respective load location. The controller 206 may gather data from multiple machines and several machine cycles to determine a load zone at the worksite such that the load zone is an area at the worksite 100 at which multiple loading operations take place. The controller 206 associates a confidence score with the given load location or load zone and builds confidence in this identification based on the monitored activities of the multiple machines.[24]
[24] The specification at [0024].
The controller 206 also monitors a velocity of the hauler 104 as the hauler 104 moves away from the identified load location. More specifically, the controller 206 determines all the locations at the worksite 100 where the hauler 104 stopped or was slow enough for a consecutive period of minutes long enough to be able to perform a potential dump event. Examples of parameters used to detect the dump event may be a speed threshold of approximately 5 miles per hour and a distance threshold of approximately 15m over the duration of time between the two consecutive timestamps. The specification explains that the person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate these values may vary. The values may be retrieved from the database 208 by the controller 206.[25]
[25] The specification at [0025].
I understand that the controller identifies multiple locations where the machine has stopped as being potential locations at which the machine dumps a load. The controller selects one of these stops as a dump location based on a distance between a selected stop and a load location, duration of stopping of the machine at the selected stop, and confidence score associated with the selected stop.[26]
[26] The specification as proposed to be amended (on 22 November 2023) at [0005].
While the loading tool 102 is proximate to the hauler 104 at the load location, this is not so at the dump location. The specification describes that it is “essential for the heuristic to consider only those points that are likely to be dump locations but are most certainly not load events.”[27] The specification also states that in a majority of load-haul applications, the minimum distance travelled by the hauler 104 is at least approximately 500 feet (160m) away from the identified load location or loading tool 102 location. Therefore, the heuristic computes the distance of all data points that pass the speed and/or distance threshold filter and computes the respective distance from the load location associated with the load event that occurred just prior to it.[28]
[27] The specification at [0028].
[28] Ibid.
All stops or dump location candidates that are within this predetermined distance threshold from the load location are not considered as some may be likely to be from queuing and/or slowing down prior to reaching the load zone. The selection of potential dump locations may vary from site to site. In one embodiment, the controller 206 selects the farthest stop away from the load location as the dump location and discards all subsequent stops made by the hauler 104. In other embodiments, the controller 206 associates a confidence score with the given dump location. The controller 206 gathers data from multiple machines operating at the worksite 100 and builds confidence in the identified dump location.[29]
[29] The specification at [0029].
The controller 206 may filter out repeating or duplicate potential dump locations or stops using any suitable combination of approaches: earliest or latest timestamp, farthest point from load location, stops with the slowest speed, and/or smallest distance covered from the load location.[30]
[30] The specification at [0030].
In one embodiment, the controller 206 may correlate several of the load locations and several of the dump locations for the hauler 104 to establish a 1:1 relationship for the haul route; that is, the heuristic correlates a single load event to its corresponding dump event. If there are multiple load events and a single dump event following the multiple load events, one-to-one correspondence can be achieved by the controller 206 by establishing a rule for filtering out duplicate or repeating load locations. In one case, the controller 206 may select the earliest load event, the last load event, or the median load event based on the recorded timestamps. Alternatively, if there are multiple dump events following a load event, the controller 206 may use any filtering criteria for maintaining the 1:1 relationship between the load locations and the dump locations.[31]
[31] The specification at [0031].
In another example, there may be multiple load locations and multiple dump locations associated with a single cycle. The heuristic may enforce a strict non-duplicate policy at the load determination step by selecting parameters such as proximity distance and time interval values for filtering duplicate or repeating stops that accurately matches up to the operation. Alternatively, the heuristic may run a number of parallel computations using different permutations of values for proximity detection and filtering events, allowing the user to select a result that most accurately resembles their operation. The heuristic nature of the model allows the model to improve accuracy over time thus improving user confidence unlike that in static models.[32]
[32] The specification at [0032].
The controller 206 is coupled to an output device 210 which may include a screen, monitor, touch screen, or any other known output unit. The controller 206 may provide a notification of the identified load and dump locations through the output device 210.[33]
[33] The specification at [0033].
The controller 206 may process the speed and position data on a real-time basis for dynamically identifying the load and dump locations. In another embodiment, the controller 206 may process the speed and position data that are logged or recorded by the system. The controller 206 may be present at any suitable off-site location and can process the speed and position data from multiple machines. In another embodiment, the logic and functionality of the controller 206 may reside on multiple machines at the worksite 100 such that the machines may communicate with each other to identify the load and dump locations.[34]
[34] Ibid.
The controller 206 may be a microprocessor or any other processor known in the art. There may be a single microprocessor or multiple microprocessors to perform the operations described above.[35]
[35] The specification at [0034].
The specification describes that the system disclosed in the present application can be used to detect the load and dump locations for a mixed fleet of machines. The system is stated to require basic information including the speed and position of the machine 102, 104 for detecting the load and dump locations. The heuristic model built by the controller 206 can be used to build confidence and accurately identify the load zone and the dump zone by monitoring activities of several of the machines 102, 104. The system is described to provide a cost-effective solution that can be easily deployed for accurately monitoring productivity of the machines 102, 104.[36]
[36] The specification at [0036].
The method for detecting load and dump locations at a worksite in accordance with the concepts disclosed in the specification is summarised in Figure 3 of the specification, reproduced below.
The invention as claimed
The specification as amended has 20 claims. The entire claims set is reproduced in Annex A to this decision. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is to a system for detecting a load location and a dump location at a worksite. Claim 11 is to a method for detecting a load location and a dump location at a worksite.
Claim 1
It is convenient to parse claim 1 as follows:
A system for detecting a load location and a dump location at a worksite, the system
comprising:[A] a position detection module associated with a machine, the position detection module configured to generate a position signal indicative of a position of the machine at the worksite;
[B] a speed detection module associated with the machine, the speed detection module is configured to generate a speed signal indicative of a speed of the machine; and
[C] a controller coupled to the position detection module and the speed detection module, the controller configured to:
[C1] receive the position signal indicative of the position of the machine;
[C2] receive the speed signal indicative of the speed of the machine;
[C3] identify a load location on the worksite based on a relative distance between the machine and a loading tool and the speed of the machine;
[C4] monitor a velocity of the machine as the machine moves away from the identified load location;
[C5] gather data related to a plurality of stops made by the machine; and
[C6] build a heuristic model and select one stop from the plurality of stops as a dump location based on a distance between the selected stop and the load location, a duration of stopping of the machine at the selected stop, and a confidence score associated with the selected stop.
The components of the system are simple to understand: a position detection module associated with a machine (Integer [A]), a speed detection module associated with the same machine (Integer [B]), and a controller (Integer [C]) connected to the position detection module and the speed detection module. From the plain meaning of the words, I interpret (a) the position detection module as a hardware device or a software module (e.g., GPS) that generates a position signal that indicates the physical location of the machine at a worksite, (b) the speed detection module as a hardware device or a software module (e.g., speed sensor) that generates a speed signal that indicates the speed at which the machine travels over the worksite, and (c) a controller, in a computing context, as a computer (e.g., microprocessor) that processes the data received from the position detection module and the speed detection module (see integers [C1] and [C2]) to identify a load location and a dump location at the worksite.
Using the plain meaning of words, I interpret a “loading tool” (see integer [C3]) to be a loading device. This interpretation is consistent with the language of the specification which uses “loading tool” and “loading machine” interchangeably. I interpret the controller functions to identify a location on a worksite where a loading event occurs (load location) using calculations based on the speed of the machine and a relative distance between the machine and a loading tool. For example, in the embodiments described in the specification, the controller determines the proximity between a loading tool (excavator) and a machine (hauler) while both machines have stopped during which time the hauler may be filled with material from the worksite.[37]
[37] The specification at [0019].
I interpret that the controller monitors (1) the speed of the machine using the data received from the speed detection module associated with the machine, and (2) the position of the machine as it moves away from an identified load location using the position detection module (see integers [C4], [C2], [C1]).
I also interpret that the controller gathers data associated with the multiple stops made by the machine based on the speed signal and position signal. For example, in an embodiment, the controller monitors the speed of the hauler as it moves away from a load location and records all locations where the hauler moves slower than 5 mph and covers less than 15m over a particular period as stops that may be considered as potential dump locations.[38] (see integer [C5]).
[38] The specification at [0026].
Using the plain meaning of the words, I understand that the controller builds a model (termed a heuristic model) derived from data about the worksite (received from the speed detection module and the position detection module) rather than using a rule-based algorithm (see integer [C6]). The controller identifies multiple locations where the machine has stopped as being potential locations at which the machine dumps a load. The controller selects one of these stops as a dump location based on three criteria, (1) distance between the selected stop and a load location, (2) duration of stopping of the machine at the selected stop, and (3) confidence score associated with the selected stop. I interpret a confidence score to be an indicator of the accuracy of identifying a dump location. This interpretation is consistent with the description in the specification that the controller builds confidence in the identification of load locations and dump location based on the monitored activities of multiple machines.[39]
Claims 2-10
[39] The specification at [0024], [0029], [0036].
Claim 2 is appended to claim 1. Claims 3-10 have multiple claim appendencies including being ultimately appended to claim 1. I consider the further features defined in claims 2-10 are relatively straightforward to understand using the plain meaning of the words, and do not require any further exposition here for the purposes of this decision.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is an independent claim to a method with steps that I would characterise as steps which the system of claim 1 performs for detecting a load location and a dump location at a worksite. My interpretation of claim 11 aligns with how I have interpreted claim 1, and there are no further terms to construe.
Claims 12-20
Claim 12 is appended to claim 11. Claims 13-20 have multiple appendencies including being ultimately appended to claim 11. I consider the further features defined in claims 12-20 are relatively straightforward to understand using the plain meaning of the words, and do not require any further exposition here for the purposes of this decision.
The Examiner’s objection
The Examiner characterised “the substance of the alleged invention is related to a scheme or mental process for determining with confidence, load and dump locations on mixed machinery worksites.”[40]
[40] The first Examination Report issued 16 September 2022, first paragraph.
The Examiner considered that the problem solved by the present invention is not of a technical nature. The Examiner stated:
“The present invention solves the problem of how to identify load and dump locations with reasonable accuracy on a worksite involving mixed fleet of machines so as to improve productivity at the worksite and to more efficiently manage/schedule loading/dumping tasks at the worksite. This is not a problem of technical nature.
The specification does mention monitoring position and velocity of machines, gathering position and velocity data and use the data to build a model, however I consider that these features correspond to generic utilisation and well-known functions of a computer. I do not consider that your application involves more than generic utilisation of the computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method. Consequently, as per Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 and Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177 the alleged invention is not a manner of manufacture.”[41]
and
“…As I have mentioned in my previous reports that the technical integers such as determining locations, distances, speed of a vehicle, training a model based on training data – amount to generic use of the computer; it is ubiquitous. The substance of the applicant’s invention is related to the series of steps involved in processing the collected data i.e., determining determining [sic] stops of the vehicle, distances between stops, duration of stoppage etc. I consider these series of steps as no more than algorithm or a mental process and the subject matter as such is not patentable. As discussed before that a mental process does not become patentable by virtue of automation. It is settled in law that algorithms or mathematical calculations themselves are not patentable – unless the underlying solution involving these algorithms are patentable.”[42]
[41] The first Examination Report issued 16 September 2022, third and fourth paragraphs, page 2.
[42] The third Examination Report issued 29 June 2023, fifth paragraph, page 3.
The Examiner’s view was that automating the process of identifying load and dump locations did not make the problem addressed by the present application a technical problem. The Examiner stated:
“…the applicant has somewhat differently identified the problem as “problem of how to automatically identify and continually update the load and dump locations of a worksite using machines as they perform their normal operations on the worksite”. Here, the applicant seems to be suggesting that automating the identification process makes it a technical problem. I respectfully disagree with the applicant that automating a mental process or a scheme over a computer makes it patentable.”[43] (underlining in original)
[43] The third Examination Report issued 29 June 2023, end of page 2 to top of page 3.
In regard to whether the present invention has a useful result, the Examiner stated:
“Regarding additional functionality or useful result, I agree with the applicant that the process of determining load and dump locations may have been improved with the involvement of a computer – after all that is what a computer does i.e., bringing efficiency and innovation to a manual work process. However, an alleged invention does not become patentable for that reason alone. I would like to point out that technological innovation is distinct from business innovation. I disagree that there is a technological innovation in the present case. The computing device involved in the claimed invention and making determinations is operating normally. The results produced by the computer are not surprising.”[44]
[44] The third Examination Report issued 29 June 2023, sixth paragraph, page 3.
The applicant’s submissions
The applicant’s submissions, summarised below, are helpfully framed around considerations which assist in the identification of the substance of the invention. These considerations include:
·How does the invention work?
·What problem does the claimed invention address and what are the advantages?
·What does the invention add to the state of the art as of the priority date?
The applicant’s submissions regarding how the invention works
The applicant submits that, in seeking to identify the substance of the invention, the examiner did not give any weight to the specific combination of steps recited in the claim and, therefore, did not fully consider how the invention works:
“In seeking to identify the substance of the invention, the Examiner appears to have excluded known features from claim 1 and, therefore, not given any weight to the specific combination of steps recited in claim 1. This understanding appears to be supported by the following allegation made by the Examiner in the first examination report:
The specification does mention monitoring position and velocity of machines, gathering position and velocity data and use the data to build a model, however I consider that these features correspond to generic utilisation and well-known functions of a computer. I do not consider that your application involves more than generic utilisation of the computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the
method.Although not explicitly stated, the above allegation also appears to be the Examiner’s answer to ‘How does the claimed invention work?’ However, the Examiner’s above statement is more akin to a claim feature summary than an enquiry into how the claimed invention works. This summary significantly omits the specific steps of how the position, speed, and velocity data are processed in order to automatically identify the load and dump locations at the worksite.”[45] (italics in original)
The applicant’s submissions regarding the problem addressed by the claimed invention
[45] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023 at 6.1.
The applicant submits that the problems addressed by the claimed invention are technical in nature:
“The solution provided by the claimed invention results in a new system and method of automatically identifying load and dump locations at a worksite. The system and method of the invention uses machines that are performing tasks on the worksite (tasks that that [sic] are unrelated to identifying the load and dump locations). The controller automatically identifies the load and dump locations at a worksite using physical operational data (e.g. position and speed data) of machines operating on the worksite. Furthermore, the controller can continuously obtain physical operational data from the machines as they continue to operate on the worksite to update the load and dump locations as the geography of the worksite changes due to the machines performing tasks on the worksite.
Implementations of the claimed invention therefore obtain specific data relating to physical operational characteristics of machines operating on a worksite. This data is processed in a specific manner to automatically identify load and dump locations at the worksite. The claimed invention therefore uses machines already operating on the worksite to maintain an accurate and up to date record of the load and dump locations at the worksite. This may also reduce the need for further machines, complex systems, and/or personnel on the worksite tasked with identifying and updating the load and dump locations at the worksite.
In light of the above, problems addressed by the claimed invention include:
· How to automatically identify the load and dump locations at the worksite using machines performing tasks on the worksite that are unrelated to identifying load and dump locations; and
· How to automatically update the load and dump locations using those machines as the geography of the worksite changes due to the machines performing tasks on the worksite.
The Applicant submits that these problems are technical in nature.
The Applicant therefore submits that the contribution of the claimed invention, provided by the specific steps identified above, provides a technical solution (e.g. automatically identifying load and dump locations at a worksite using machines as they perform tasks on the worksite unrelated to identifying load and dump locations at a worksite) to the above technical problems.”[46]
The applicant’s submissions regarding what the invention adds to the state of the art at the priority date
[46] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023 at 6.2.
The applicant submits:
“Section 5.6.8.4 of the Manual states (emphasis added):
The High Court in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252; (1961) RPC 134 (NRDC), citing with approval the view expressed by Lindley LJ in Lane Fox v Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Company (1892) 3 Ch.424, stated:
‘.....a man who discovers that a known machine (his Lordship might equally have said a known substance) can produce effects which no one before him knew could be produced by it has made a discovery, but has not made a patentable invention unless he so uses his knowledge and ingenuity as to produce either a new and useful thing or result, or a new and useful method of producing an old thing or result.’
(see also Hayasibara Co.'s Patent [1977] FSR 582 at page 590 and Reynolds v Herbert Smith (1903) 20 RPC 123 at page 126).
However, no general definition can be given as to what constitutes a discovery as opposed to an invention. The Court in NRDC (supra) stated:
‘The truth is that the distinction between discovery and invention is not precise enough to be other than misleading in this area of discussion. There may indeed be a discovery without invention - either because the discovery is some piece of abstract information without any suggestion of a practical application of it to a useful end, or because its application lies outside the realm of 'manufacture'.’
Accordingly, an invention will constitute patentable subject matter if it provides a practical application of a discovery to produce a new and useful thing or result, or a new useful method of producing an old thing or result. The claimed invention provides a practical application of the knowledge that machines have particular physical operational characteristics when they are being loaded at a load location and when they are dumping a load at a dump location to automatically identify the load and dump locations at a worksite (i.e. a useful result). In particular, the claimed invention defines a new and useful system and method of automatically identifying the load and dump locations at a worksite by obtaining specific physical operational data (i.e. position and speed) from machines operating on the worksite and processing that data in a specific manner.
As discussed above, implementations of the claimed invention allow a controller to use data from machines (e.g. dump trucks) that are already operating on a worksite to automatically identify the load and dump locations at the worksite. This provides additional functionality by utilising those machines as they perform their normal operations on the worksite to automatically identify the load and dump locations at a worksite. This additional functionality may increase the technical capabilities associated with the machines by allowing tasks that could not be [sic] previously be performed using those machines to be performed.
…..
The Applicant submits that the person skilled in the art would understand the contribution to include a new and useful system and method of automatically identifying and updating load and dump locations at a worksite by obtaining and processing specific physical operational characteristics of machines operating on the worksite that are performing tasks unrelated to automatically identifying the load and dump locations at a worksite. Further, the Applicant submits that the state of the art does not include knowledge that physical operational characteristics of machines may be used to automatically identify load and dump locations at a worksite. ”[47]
The applicant’s additional submissions
[47] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023 at 6.3.
The applicant submits that the automatic identification and updates of the load and dump locations at a worksite by the claimed invention of the present application addresses a technical problem outside of a computer and has a material effect outside of the computer. The applicant refers to Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. [2018] APO 24 and section 5.6.8.6 of the Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure and submits:
“…because the claimed invention addresses technical problems outside the computer and the material effect of the claimed invention is outside the computer, it is not necessary to consider whether the claimed invention solves a technical problem within the computer and none of the considerations in Research Affiliates and RPL Central apply for the present invention.”[48]
[48] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023, page 9, at 7.
For completeness the applicant also submits that the classes of innovation that were identified in Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd[49] as not being patentable subject matter do not apply to the present invention. The applicant submits:
“…the claimed invention is not merely a scheme or plan but represents an improvement in the technological environment itself – subject matter that is considered patentable subject matter.”[50] (underlining added)
“The claims recite specific steps for carrying out the method for automatically identifying and updating load and dump locations at a worksite. For at least this reason, the Applicant submits that the claimed invention is not a mere idea.”[51] (underlining added)
“…automatically identifying and updating the load and dump locations cannot be considered to be information of a purely intellectual or visual character. For at least these reasons, the Applicant submits that the claimed invention cannot be considered to be directed to mere information.”[52] (underlining added)
“…it is clear that the claimed invention is not directed to an algorithm in the abstract sense because it provides the useful result of automatically identifying and updating the load and dump locations at a worksite.”[53] (underlining added)
“The claimed invention cannot be considered a mental process.
…..…the claims recite physical features that remove the claimed invention from being a mental process. In particular, claim 1 recites the physical features of a position detection module and a speed detection module. These features are not gratuitous or superfluous – they are a fundamental part of the substance of the claimed invention.”[54] (underlining added)[49] [2015] FCAFC 177; 115 IPR 461 (RPL Central).
[50] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023, page 9, at 7.2.1. The page number and paragraph number are cited as there appears to be typographical errors in the applicant’s numbering of some of the paragraphs.
[51] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023, page 10, at 7.2.2.
[52] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023, page 10, at 7.2.3.
[53] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023, page 11, at 7.2.
[54] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023, page 11, at 7.3.
The law on manner of manufacture
Section 18(1) of the Act relevantly reads:
Subject to subsection (2), an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim:
(a) is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies;
The concept of manner of manufacture has developed over time and is not readily reduced to a simple formula. The classic definition of manner of manufacture is set out in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents:[55]
“The inquiry which the definition demands is an inquiry into the scope of the permissible subject matter of letters patent and grants of privilege protected by the section. It is an inquiry not into the meaning of a word so much as into the breadth of the concept which the law has developed by its consideration of the text and purpose of the Statute of Monopolies.... The right question is: ‘Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?’”[56]
[55] [1959] HCA 67; 102 CLR 252 (NRDC).
[56] NRDC at 269, [14].
The High Court then went on to set out a test in terms relevant to the facts of that case:
“a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statute of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art … that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour.”[57]
and
“The effect produced by the appellant's method exhibits the two essential qualities upon which ‘product’ and ‘vendible’ seem designed to insist. It is a ‘product’ because it consists in an artificially created state of affairs, discernible by observing over a period the growth of weeds and crops respectively on sown land on which the method has been put into practice. And the significance of the product is economic; for it provides a remarkable advantage, indeed to the lay mind a sensational advantage, for one of the most elemental activities by which man has served his material needs, the cultivation of the soil for the production of its fruits.”[58]
[57] NRDC at 275, [22].
[58] NRDC at 277, [25].
In Grant v Commissioner of Patents[59] the Full Court of the Federal Court considered whether a physical effect was required:
“A physical effect in the sense of a concrete effect or phenomenon or manifestation or transformation is required. In NRDC, an artificial effect was physically created on the land. In Catuity and CCOM as in State Street and AT&T, there was a component that was physically affected or a change in state or information in a part of a machine. These can all be regarded as physical effects. By contrast, the alleged invention is a mere scheme, an abstract idea, mere intellectual information, which has never been held to be patentable, despite the existence of such schemes over many years of the development of the principles that apply to manner of manufacture. There is no physical consequence at all.”[60]
[59] [2006] FCAFC 120; 234 ALR 230 (Grant).
[60] Grant at [32].
The High Court has consistently made it plain that NRDC, and all other cases, were not laying down a precise formulation that can be applied unthinkingly:
“Nothing said in the Court's reasons for decision in that case can be taken as an exact verbal formula which alone captures the breadth of the ideas to which effect must be given.”[61]
“This Court in NRDC did not prescribe a well-defined pathway for the development of the concept of ‘manner of manufacture’ in its application to unimagined technologies with unimagined characteristics and implications. Rather, it authorised a case-by-case methodology.”[62]
[61] Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 50; 253 CLR 284 (Apotex) at [83].
[62] D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35; 258 CLR 334 (Myriad) at [23].
That case-by-case approach must have regard to the substance of the claimed invention, not simply the form of the claim.[63] The point is made most succinctly by Gageler and Nettle JJ in the Myriad case:
“Whatever words have been used, the matter must be looked at as one of substance and effect must be given to the true nature of the claim.”[64]
[63] Myriad at [6] and [88].
[64] Myriad at [144].
In RPL Central the Full Court of the Federal Court said the same thing in the context of a computer-implemented invention:
“A claimed invention must be examined to ascertain whether it is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology. The basis for the analysis starts with the fact that a business method, or mere scheme, is not, per se, patentable. The fact that it is a scheme or business method does not exclude it from properly being the subject of letters patent, but it must be more than that. There must be more than an abstract idea; it must involve the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer is integral to the invention, rather than a mere tool in which the invention is performed. Where the claimed invention is to a computerised business method, the invention must lie in that computerisation. It is not a patentable invention simply to ‘put’ a business method ‘into’ a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well- known and understood functions.
Is the mere implementation of an abstract idea in a well-known machine sufficient to render patentable subject matter? Is the artificial effect that arises, because information is stored in RAM and there is communication over the Internet or wifi, sufficient? Does any physical effect give rise to a manner of manufacture? Are the mere presence of an artificial effect and economic utility, without more, sufficient to determine manner of manufacture?
It is not a question of stating precise guidelines but of deciding, in each case, whether the claimed invention, as a matter of substance not form, is properly the subject of a patent.”[65]
[65] RPL Central at [96]-[98].
In Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents[66] the Full Court of the Federal Court stated:
[66] [2014] FCAFC 150; (2014) 109 IPR 364 (Research Affiliates).
“When the authorities in Australia prior to and including Grant are considered, a
consistent approach emerges as to the relevance of:
· a distinction between a claim to a business scheme and claims to methods which in practice result in a new machine or process or an old machine giving a new and improved result – that is, a distinction between mere intellectual information and a method that affects the operation of an apparatus in a physical form (Grant at [18]);
· the fact that the claimed steps are foreign to the normal use of computers, such as the production of an improved curve image (IBM 2 at 225-226);
· the particular mode or manner of achieving an end result which is an artificially created state of affairs, such as the storage of data as to Chinese characters and retrieval of graphic representations to enable word processing (CCOM at 295);
· whether part of the invention is an inventive method which includes the application and operation in a physical device (Grant at [30]);
· the distinction drawn in Catuity, as explained in Grant (at [24]), between ‘a technological innovation which is patentable and a business innovation which is not’. In Catuity, Heerey J did not accept that a physically observable effect was necessarily required (at [128]) but the Full Court in Grant expressed the opinion that a physical effect in the sense of a concrete effect or phenomenon, or manifestation or transformation is required (at [32]).
· the fact that a physical effect is required does not make it sufficient to confer patentability;
· the fact that a method may be called a business method does not prevent it being properly the subject of letters patent (Grant at [26] citing Catuity at [125]-[126]);
· the fact that for claimed computer programs, the courts look to the application of the program to produce a practical and useful result, so that more than ‘intellectual information’ is involved (Grant at [29]). A method that is in the nature of directions for use does not constitute an invention or a manner of manufacture in the absence of some previously unrecognised property of an aspect of the method (Grant at [29]).”[67]
[67] Research Affiliates at [94].
In considering the substance of the invention the Full Court went on to say:
“In the context of the claim, the significance lies in the content of the data rather than any specific effect generated by the computer. The computer-implementation is an essential integer of the claimed process. That is, of course, important. It is of particular importance in the assessment of, for example, novelty and infringement. However, in examining whether a claimed invention is properly the subject of letters patent, it is necessary to look not only at the integers of that claimed invention but also at the substance of that invention.
The claimed method in this case clearly involves what may well be an inventive idea, but it is an abstract idea. The specification makes it apparent that any inventive step arises in the creation of the index as information and as a scheme. There is no suggestion in the specification or the claims that any part of the inventive step lies in the computer implementation. Rather, it is apparent that the scheme is merely implemented in a computer and a standard computer at that. It is not part of the claimed method that there is an improvement in what might broadly be called ‘computer technology’.”[68]
[68] Research Affiliates at [117]-[118].
Not every result which might colloquially be considered useful is relevant for the purposes of what may be considered patentable. In Research Affiliates it was stated that it is not an artificial or patentable effect to merely implement a scheme:
“To take the words of NRDC at CLR 268…, the process does not produce ‘either immediately or ultimately, a useful physical result in relation to a material or tangible entity’. The claimed method, the result of the ingenuity of the inventors, does not produce such a result; the ingenuity is in the scheme. Again, drawing from NRDC at CLR 270…, there is a useful result of the claimed process but there is no physical thing ‘brought into existence or so affected as the better to serve man’s purposes’. There is no ‘physical phenomenon in which the effect, be it creation or merely alteration, may be observed’: NRDC at CLR 276…”[69]
[69] Research Affiliates at [114].
The Full Court in Encompass Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd[70]did not find it necessary to revisit the correctness of RPL Central or Research Affiliates, explaining that:
“In each case, the Full Court was seeking to describe the conceptual distinction between a manner of manufacture and an unpatentable abstraction. In each case, the Full Court was explaining that a claimed method that is unpatentable does not change its legal character merely because the method is implemented by the instrumentality of a computer.”[71]
[70] [2019] FCAFC 161; 372 ALR 646 (Encompass).
[71] Encompass at [91].
The Full Court in Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd[72] observed in relation to a claim defining an electronic gaming machine (EGM) with a particular feature game:
“What this purpose-specific but extremely common computer does is play the feature game. Consequently, the substance of the invention disclosed by Claim 1 is that feature game implemented on the computer which is an EGM. It is therefore a computer-implemented invention.
As we have already observed, integers 1.10-1.12 embody an abstract idea which may be characterised both as a set of rules defining a family of games and as a business scheme for increasing player interest in an EGM. As such its implementation in the computer which is an EGM cannot constitute patentable subject matter unless it represents an advance in computer technology.”[73]
[72] [2021] FCAFC 202; 163 IPR 231 (Aristocrat ’21).
[73] Aristocrat ’21 at [56]-[57].
On appeal to the High Court in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents,[74] the High Court was evenly split, and via section 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903 affirmed the Aristocrat ’21 decision. However, both sets of reasons appear to have indicated that an inquiry as to whether there is an advance in computer technology is not a useful test for patentability.[75] The High Court affirmed the importance of properly characterising the claimed invention.[76] Additionally, the reasons of the High Court confirm that the Full Court decisions in Research Affiliates, RPL Central, Encompass and Rokt were correctly decided.[77] Therefore, I understand that the law as applied in these Full Court decisions still stands and remains relevant.
[74] [2022] HCA 29, (Aristocrat ’22).
[75] Ibid, see the reasons by Kiefel CJ, Gageler J and Keane J at [77] and the reasons by Gordon J, Edelman J and Steward J at [122].
[76] Aristocrat ’22 at [73], [101]-[105].
[77] Aristocrat ’22 at [121]-[122].
The delegate in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd[78]summarised the considerations arising from RPL Central which are relevant to assessing whether a computer-implemented invention is in substance a manner of manufacture. These considerations, which remain relevant in view of the subsequent Full Court decisions, are:
[78] [2016] APO 49 (Aristocrat ’16).
“I conclude that it is relevant to consider a range of matters. Without seeking to be exhaustive, these include:
· there must be more than an abstract idea, mere scheme or mere intellectual information;
· is the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature;
· does the invention solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer;
· does the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed;
· does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result;
· can it be broadly described as an improvement in computer technology;
· does the method merely require generic computer implementation;
· is the computer merely an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea;
· is there ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised;
· does the invention involve steps that are foreign to the normal use of computers;
and
· does the invention lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of intellectual information.”[79][79] Aristocrat ’16 at [35].
What is the subject matter of the claims?
My interpretation of the claims which I previously discussed explains what I consider to be the subject matter of the claims and how the invention works. In summary, claim 1 is directed to a system having several physical integers: a position detection module, a speed detection module, and a controller. The position detection module and the speed detection module are associated with a machine and the controller receives signals from the detection modules regarding the position and speed of a machine. The controller uses the received signals to build a heuristic model to identify load and dump locations at a work site where the machine is operating. As previously discussed, claim 11 is directed to a method with steps which the system of claim 1 performs for identifying load and dump locations at a worksite. The different aspects are unified by the methodology of identifying load and dump locations at a worksite by building a heuristic model.
What is the contribution to the claimed invention to the art?
I understand the applicant’s submissions (quoted above) regarding the contribution of the claimed invention as emphasising the importance of the specific combination of steps setting out how the position, speed and velocity data are processed to automate the identification of load and dump locations at the worksite and maintain an accurate and up-to-date record of load and dump locations.
The claimed combination of the position detection module, the speed detection module, and the controller was assessed during examination to be novel and non-obvious. Therefore, I accept that there is a contribution to the art to the extent that the specific combination of features is new and inventive over the prior art. However, the contribution for the purposes of novelty and inventive step under s18(1)(b) of the Act is not the same as the contribution for the purposes of manner of manufacture under s 18(1)(a). Manner of manufacture assesses whether the contribution of the invention is of a nature or type that attracts patent protection whereas novelty and inventive step assesses “whether the degree of contribution sufficiently advances the art” when compared to the prior art.[80] Put another way, the contribution of the invention may be an advance when compared to the prior art but may, or may not, be of a nature or type that attracts patent protection.
[80] Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure 5.6.8.1 under the subheading “Role of the state of the art”.
The applicant’s submissions regarding the contribution of the claimed invention only attribute weight to how the specific combination of features is used to obtain position, speed, and velocity data. The submissions are silent on the aspects of the claimed invention regarding how the obtained data is evaluated to identify load and dump locations at the worksite. A determination of the substance of the claimed invention requires consideration of how the claimed invention works. In considering how the invention works, I must consider the nature and contribution of the features of the invention claimed as a whole.
I understand that the position, speed, and velocity data obtained are evaluated as representations of the workings of machines in real-time. From the obtained data, the location of load and dump sites are determined based on probability determinations and predictive modelling, these being mathematical ideas or schemes. The mathematical modelling relied upon to predict the identity of sites suggests to me that there are aspects of the claimed invention where the nature and contribution weigh towards a scheme that is implemented by a system.
I will consider a full range of factors which contribute to a determination of the substance of the invention.
Does the invention as claimed solve a technical problem in the computer or outside the computer?
The applicant contends that “the claimed invention addresses technical problems outside the computer and the material effect of the claimed invention is outside the computer, it is not necessary to consider whether the claimed invention solves a technical problem within the computer and none of the considerations in Research Affiliates and RPL Central apply for the present invention.”[81]
[81] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023, page 9, at 7.
I have previously construed claim 1 to include a computer that processes data received from the position detection module and the speed detection module to identify a load location and a dump location at a worksite. Therefore, I consider claim 1 to be a computer-implemented invention. It follows from my construction of the claims that I consider all the claims to be directed to a computer-implemented invention. Consequently, the law concerning a computer-implemented invention, as previously discussed, applies to the present application.
The applicant appears to be contending that the claimed invention addresses a technical problem outside of a computer because (1) the automation of identifying load and dump locations at a worksite, and (2) the automation of updating load and dump locations using machines as the geography of the worksite changes, are technical in nature and relate to machines operating in a physical environment (i.e., the worksite).[82] I observe that while the data gathered by the claimed invention relates to a worksite, which is outside of a computer, it does not necessarily follow that the problem addressed is technical in nature.
[82] The applicant’s submissions filed 22 November 2023, page 6, at 6.2.
As previously explained, the specification discusses the problem addressed by the claimed invention in the context of tracking the activities of machines at a work site with an objective to tracking productivity. The data that is gathered by the claimed invention is evaluated using mathematical modelling to address work efficiency. There is no mention in the specification that implementation of the claimed invention overcomes any technical limitation, or that automating the data gathering and evaluation processes was a technical problem. I also cannot find any mention in the specification that there was a technical problem in the ability to gather position, speed, and velocity data from the machines (e.g., excavators, haulers) operating at a worksite. Therefore, I consider the claimed invention of all the claims does not solve a technical problem in the computer, or outside the computer.
Is there an improvement in the functioning of the computer?
The specification describes that the controller may be a microprocessor or other processor as known in the art.[83] From a reading of the specification, I also understand the speed detection module and the position detection module are simply gathering data in a manner these devices normally gather data. Therefore, the controller, speed detection module and the position detection module are individually performing their normal functions which are also known functions. Even when these features are considered in combination as claimed, the specific combination does not overcome any technical limitation anywhere – either in a computer or outside a computer.
[83] The specification at [0034].
I am of the view that the specific combination of features in claim 1 provides useful business intelligence which allows a predictive model to be built to automate the identification of load and dump locations. In my view, any potential improvements provided by the claimed invention address productivity of a business and there is no improvement to what might broadly be called “computer technology”. I also cannot see an improvement to any other field of technology.
Mere implementation in a computer of an idea or scheme without improvement in the functioning of the computer is not sufficient.[84] Consequently, I consider there is no relevant improvement when considering manner of manufacture.
[84] Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2019] FCA 1956 at [37], [44]-[47].
Does the invention use generic computer technology?
From the previous discussions, I have no reason to believe that the system as claimed uses anything other than generic or conventional computer technology.
Are there any steps which are foreign to the normal use of computers?
For the reasons I already discussed, I have no reason to believe that the system as claimed would utilise any steps foreign to the normal use of computers.
Is there a practical and useful result?
I consider that the business intelligence produced by the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11 can be used to manage the workflow of machines at a worksite to improve productivity. I accept that the business intelligence is useful to inform business decisions and therefore of economic significance.
However, I do not consider that the business intelligence produced by the system of claim 1, and the method of claim 11 has a relevant “practical and useful result” for the purposes of what may be considered patentable. No physical thing or phenomenon has been brought into existence because of the claimed system or method. I consider the ingenuity is in the mathematical modelling for identifying load and dump locations, this being a scheme. While the present invention produces information that is commercially useful, it is akin to the Research Affiliates case where “[t]he method of the invention is not one that has any artificial or patentable effect other than the implementation of a scheme, which happens to use a computer to effect that implementation. There is no technical contribution to the invention or artificial effect of the invention by reason of the intervention of the inventors.”[85]
[85] Ibid.
Does the invention lie in the generation, presentation, or arrangement of intellectual information?
While the claimed invention of claim 1 and claim 11 generates business information, I consider there are aspects of the claimed subject matter that define how data is gathered and processed to produce the business information. As previously construed, the claimed invention uses a combination of a position detection module, a speed detection module, and a controller to gather data. The gathered data is used to build a predictive model to identify load and dump locations, this being the business information. Therefore, I consider the claimed invention does not lie merely in the generation, presentation, or arrangement of intellectual information.
Balance of considerations
In determining the substance of a claimed invention, I have considered how the claimed invention works. I have also considered the nature and contribution of the features of the invention as claimed as a whole. The questions which I have sought to answer in this decision, which are questions derived from judicial authority, provide a framework which I have used for weighing various considerations that contribute to the substance of the claimed invention. No single consideration is conclusive in determining the substance of the claimed invention. Some considerations may be more significant than others.
A consideration of only the specific combination of physical integers (the position detection module, the speed detection module, and the controller) could suggest that the substance of the claimed invention is the way a computerised system is utilised to implement a scheme (the identification of load and dump locations at a work site). However, in determining the substance of the claimed invention, I must consider the contribution of the mathematical modelling that forms the basis of identifying load and dump locations at a worksite. Since the contribution of mathematical modelling is by nature an idea or scheme, I consider the substance of the claimed invention weighs towards a scheme that is merely implemented on a computerised system.
Additionally, I note that the specification emphasises details of building a heuristic model to represent the workings of the machines in the real world. As I previously discussed, the specification explains in some detail the use of nominated predetermined threshold values for speed, distance, and time to filter out duplicate load locations, dump locations and repeated events. The specification also discusses confidence scores associated with an identified load and dump location. In my view, the emphases of the description in the specification are consistent with my finding that the ingenuity of the claimed invention lies in the mathematical modelling for identifying the load locations and dump locations at a worksite – a scheme.
I also consider that the various types of data (position, speed, and velocity) required to implement the scheme governs the devices that can be combined, and the specific combination of physical integers does not alter the nature of the ingenuity which remains a scheme. Additionally, I have found that the each of the physical integers of the claimed invention (a) perform their normal and known functions, and (b) individually, or in combination, does not overcome any technical limitation (or solve a technical problem) anywhere – either in a computer or outside a computer. Consequently, I give minimal weight to the specific combination of physical integers used to implement the scheme when determining the substance of the claimed invention. I consider that the specific combination of physical integers of the claimed invention to be a mere tool by which various data is gathered and processed to identify load and dump locations at a worksite. In other words, the combination of physical integers is a mere tool to implement a scheme – the mathematical modelling for identifying load and dump locations.
Additionally, as previously discussed, the specific combination of features in claim 1 and claim 11 provides useful business intelligence which improves work productivity but does not provide any technological improvement.
Consequently, I consider the innovation to be a business innovation rather than a technological innovation.
On balance, I consider the substance of claim 1 is not more than a scheme used to identify load locations and dump locations at a worksite. I also consider the substance of claim 11 and all the claims appended to claim 1 and claim 11 is not more than a scheme for similar reasons as claim 1.
Conclusion
The invention claimed in each of claims 1-20 is not for a manner of manufacture. I have previously discussed the disclosure of the specification and, having reviewed the specification, I can see no subject matter which could be made the subject of a valid claim to overcome this finding.
I do note the applicant’s request it be provided with an opportunity to further amend the specification should I find the claims of the present invention not to define patentable subject matter. However, in view of my findings, there is nothing in the specification that could be added to the claims to avoid my findings. I further note that the applicant has already taken the opportunity to file amendments along with the written submissions for this hearing which did not avoid the objection. It would not be in the public interest to allow the applicant further time to propose additional amendments, thereby unnecessarily prolonging the time during which the status of the present application is uncertain. Additionally, I note that the applicant has filed and requested examination of a divisional application through which it appears prosecution will be continued. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to refuse the present application.
Dr A. Lim
Delegate of the Commissioner of PatentsAnnex A
1. A system for detecting a load location and a dump location at a worksite, the system comprising:
a position detection module associated with a machine, the position detection module configured to generate a position signal indicative of a position of the machine at the worksite;
a speed detection module associated with the machine, the speed detection module is configured to generate a speed signal indicative of a speed of the machine; and
a controller coupled to the position detection module and the speed detection module, the controller configured to:
receive the position signal indicative of the position of the machine;
receive the speed signal indicative of the speed of the machine;
identify a load location on the worksite based on a relative distance between the machine and a loading tool and the speed of the machine;
monitor a velocity of the machine as the machine moves away from the identified load location;
gather data related to a plurality of stops made by the machine; and
build a heuristic model and select one stop from the plurality of stops as a dump location based on a distance between the selected stop and the load location, a duration of stopping of the machine at the selected stop, and a confidence score associated with the selected stop.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine the relative distance between the machine and the loading tool based on the position signal;
determine the plurality of stops made by the machine based on the speed signal and/or position signal;
determine the distance between the selected stop and the load location based on the position signal; and
determine the duration of stopping of the machine based on the speed signal.
3. The system of claim 1 or 2, wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine dump locations using position and speed data from one or more other machines operating on the worksite; and
determine the confidence score based on the dump locations determined using the position and speed data from the one or more other machines operating on the worksite.
4. The system of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the controller is further configured to identify a type of the machine as any one of the loading tool and a hauler.
5. The system of any one of the preceding claims, wherein identification of the load location further includes:
identifying a load zone in a load area surrounding the load location and building a confidence score in the identified load location based on monitoring activities of a plurality of machines in the load area.
6. The system of any one of the preceding claims, wherein for selecting the one stop from the plurality of stops the controller is configured to identify a dump zone in a dump area surrounding the selected stop and build the confidence score in the selected stop based on monitoring activities of a plurality of machines in the dump area.
7. The system of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the controller is configured to discard remaining stops from the plurality of stops that occur after the selected stop is identified as the dump location.
8. The system of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the controller is further coupled to an output device, such that the controller is configured to display a notification of the identified load and dump locations on the output device.
9. The system of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the controller is configured to identify the load and dump locations on a real-time basis.
10. The system of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the controller is configured to correlate a number of the load locations and a number of the dump location for the machine.
11. A method for detecting a load location and a dump location at a worksite, the method comprising:
receiving, by a controller, a position signal indicative of a position of a machine, the position signal generated by a position detection module associated with the machine;
receiving, by the controller, a speed signal indicative of a speed of the machine, the speed signal generated by a speed detection module associated with the machine;
identifying, by the controller, a load location on the worksite based on a relative distance between the machine and a loading tool and the speed of the machine;
monitoring, by the controller, a velocity of the machine as the machine moves away from the identified load location;
gathering, by the controller, data related to a plurality of stops made by the machine; and
building a heuristic model and selecting, by the controller, one stop from the plurality of stops as a dump location based on a distance between the selected stop and the load location, a duration of stopping of the machine at the selected stop, and a confidence score associated with the selected stop.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
determining, by the controller, the relative distance between the machine and the loading tool based on the position signal;
determining, by the controller, the plurality of stops made by the machine based on the speed signal and/or position signal;
determining, by the controller, the distance between the selected stop and the load location based on the position signal; and
determining, by the controller, the duration of stopping of the machine based on the speed signal.
13. The method of claim 11 or 12, further comprising:
determining, by the controller, dump locations using position and speed data from one or more other machines operating on the worksite,
wherein the confidence score is determined based on the dump locations determined using the position and speed data from the one or more other machines operating on the worksite.
14. The method of any one of claim 11 to 13, further including identifying, by the controller, a type of the machine as any one of the loading tool and a hauler.
15. The method of any one of claims 11 to 14, wherein identification of the load location further includes:
identifying, by the controller, a load zone in a load area surrounding the load location and building, by the controller, a confidence score in the identified load location based on monitoring activities of a plurality of machines in the load area.
16. The method of any one of claims 11 to 15, wherein selecting the one stop from the plurality of stops includes identifying, by the controller, a dump zone in a dump area surrounding the selected stop and building, by the controller, the confidence score in the selected stop based on monitoring activities of a plurality of machines in the dump area.
17. The method of any one of claims 11 to 16, further including discarding, by the controller, remaining stops from the plurality of stops that occur after the selected stop is identified as the dump location.
18. The method of any one of claims 11 to 17, further including displaying, by the controller, a notification of the identified load and dump locations through an output device.
19. The method of any one of claims 11 to 18, further including detecting, by the controller, the load and dump locations on a real-time basis.
20. The method of any one of claims 11 to 19, further including correlating, by the controller, a number of the load locations and a number of the dump location for the machine.
11
0