Legal Research
Cases
Caterpillar Inc.

Caterpillar Inc.

Case [2024] APO 8 19 February 2024

Patentable Subject Matter

Manner of Manufacture

Business Method

Intellectual Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Caterpillar Inc.

Details

AGLC: Caterpillar Inc. [2024] APO 8
Case: [2024] APO 8
Decision Date: 19 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of an application for a patent for a System and Method for Detection of Load and Dump Locations, the application was made by Caterpillar Inc. The delegate, Dr A. Lim, refused the application. The invention was described as a system for detecting load and dump locations at a worksite, and a method for detecting load and dump locations at a worksite. The system comprises a position detection module, a speed detection module, and a controller. The method involves receiving position and speed signals, identifying a load location, monitoring velocity, gathering data on stops, and building a heuristic model to select a dump location. The delegate found that the invention did not constitute a manner of manufacture under the Patents Act 1990. The delegate considered various factors, including whether the invention solved a technical problem, whether it involved an improvement in the functioning of the computer, and whether it was merely a scheme or plan. The delegate concluded that the invention was a scheme implemented on a computerized system, and did not involve any technical contribution. The delegate refused the application as it did not define patentable subject matter.

Orders