DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/18/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1-19 and 61 have been
amended, no claim is canceled and added. Thus claims 1-19 and 61 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”:
Applicant argues:
…
Reviewing the analysis and rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §101, Step 2A - Prong One (Office Action 04/18/2025, page 9, lines 10 - 17), the characterizes numerous substantive limitations as a judicial exception (mental process) that cannot integrate the judicial exception to a practical application. For the limitations reproduced below, the 101 analysis terminates at the conclusion. The limitations dismissed in this manner include:
"[...] managing an electric utility power transmission and distribution grid, said grid including a plurality of utility assets distributed on a utility power line route in a geographic area, [... ] generating, by said processor, an infrastructure model of said grid, said infrastructure model comprising a plurality of utility asset data objects in relation to said plurality of utility assets, said infrastructure model comprising asset classification data in relation to said plurality of utility asset data objects, said infrastructure model comprising infrastructure model image information"
(Office Action, page 9, lines 10 -20).
[…]
Applicant traverses the above 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection as mischaracterizing the scope of claim 1 by failing to consider the meaning of the claim limitations in context as understood by a POSITA. The rejection is also traversed for being conclusory and lacking support particularly in failing to articulate meaningful, non-conclusory reasoning that supports the rejection. These gross omissions prevent Applicant from understanding and responding to the grounds for the rejection. These omissions force Applicant to speculate as to the grounds and reasoning that support the rejection, and this prevents Applicant from understanding and defending against the rejection. The rejection, accordingly, is deficient and should be withdrawn. In the alternative, the meaning of the claim terms and limitations in context as understood by a POSITA, and the particular reasoning that supports the rejection, should be articulated so as to provide Applicant opportunity to understand the grounds and reasoning, or lack of reasoning, for the rejection and defend against or respond to the rejection without undue speculation. The rejection is also traversed for being conclusory and lacking support in failing to articulate reasoning that supports the rejection. The above 101 rejection, accordingly, should be withdrawn.
(see Response filed 10/18/2025 [pages 10-16]).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable subject matter eligibility which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection made. Specifically, the arguments do not specifically address the examiner’s reasoning under the Alice/Mayo framework. In particular, applicant does not clearly explain why the claims, as currently amended, are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong one, nor does applicant explain how the claims integrated the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A , Prong two as required by the current USPTO eligibility guidance. Further, the arguments do not show how the amendments, if any, provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”:
Applicant argues:
…
35 U.S.C. §101 Step 2A - Prong One
Despite arguments put forth in the Office Action and reviewed in the preceding paragraph, neither the method as a whole recited in claim 1 and 61, nor any steps recited in claim 1, "could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind' as asserted in the Office Action (Office Action, pg. 21, line 1 - page 22, line 11). The assertion is both conclusory and incorrect. Applicant, disagrees both with (i) the explanation of those limitations noted in the Office Action (Office Action, page 21, line 1 to page 22, line 11) and (ii) omission of limitations in claims 1 and 61 that require structure and operations other than, and beyond capability of, the human mind. Applicant respectfully submits, for example, that at least the following limitations recited in claim 1 could not be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind:
(excerpt of claim 1)
A method for managing an electric utility power transmission and distribution grid, said grid including a plurality of utility assets distributed on a utility power line route in a geographic area, said method comprising:
[...]
generating, by a processor of a virtual world platform, a simulated virtual environment model comprising an integrated model, said integrated model comprising an integration of said power line imaging data in relation to said geospatial topological model information in relation to said infrastructure model, said integrated model comprising integrated image information, said integrated image information comprising an integrated visualization of said infrastructure model image information with said geospatial topological model image information and with said power line imaging data.
Each of these limitations are particularly tied to and enabled by a processor of a virtual world platform, which is structure required to perform the recited method. Accordingly, at least these limitations recited in claim 1 could not be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, as suggested in the Office Action (Office Action, pages 21-22). The analysis and conclusion put forth in the Office Action, accordingly, are error and should be withdrawn.
Applicant respectfully points out that claim 1 and 61 as a whole, considering the elements in combination, and specifically considering the limitations reproduced in the preceding paragraph, does not recite a mental process in Step 2A - Prong One. The inquiry is satisfied and ends here. There is no need to go forward in the analysis.
Claim 61 recites elements similar to claim 1, due to dependency thereupon, and is patent eligible for the same reasons as claim 1.
(see Response filed 10/18/2025 [pages 16-19]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees that “claim 1 as whole, considering the elements in combination, and specifically considering the limitations reproduced in the preceding paragraph, does not recite a mental process in Step 2A - Prong One” and “Each of these limitations are particularly tied to and enabled by a processor of a virtual world platform, which is structure required to perform the recited method.”
First, Applicant’s argument misapprehends the nature of the Step 2A, Prong One inquiry. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a): Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above (i.e., 1) Mathematical concepts…; 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity …; 3) Mental processes …). As explained in MPEP 2106.04(d): Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. In other words, At this stage of the analysis (Step 2A, Prong One), the Examiner is not required to evaluate the claim as a whole,, nor to determine whether the claim integrates the identified abstract idea into a practical application, which is considerations are addressed in Step 2A, prong Two, after a judicial exception has been identified.
Second, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). In other words, even though claim recites computer or computer components (e.g., processor or any other computer components), the claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, still can be considered covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or use pen and paper.
Third, the claims do recite a metal process. Regarding claim limitation, “managing an electric utility power transmission and distribution grid, said grid including a plurality of utility assets distributed on a utility power line route in a geographic area” and “generating … said infrastructure model of said grid, said infrastructure model comprising a plurality of utility asset data objects in relation to said plurality of utility assets, said infrastructure model comprising asset classification data in relation to said plurality of utility asset data objects, said infrastructure model comprising infrastructure model image information, said infrastructure model integrating said infrastructure information, said infrastructure model encoding physical properties, physical relationships, geometric properties, geometric relationship, electrical properties, and electrical relationships of said plurality of utility assets within a common geospatial reference frame” and “generating … a simulated virtual environment model comprising an integrated model, said integrated model comprising an integration of said power line imaging data in relation to said geospatial topological model information in relation to said infrastructure model, said integrated model comprising integrated image information, said integrated image information comprising an integrated visualization of said infrastructure model image information with said geospatial topological model image information and with said power line imaging data,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, can be reasonably considered to covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or use pen and paper. Please refer to the current Office Action for a detailed explanation of this analysis.
Therefore, these claim limitations recite “Mental Process”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A, Prong One is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”:
Applicant argues:
35 U.S.C. §101 Step 2A -Prong Two
Claims 1, 15, 16 and 61 are rejected because the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Office Action, pages 22-23). Even if in the Step 2A - Prong One analysis it is found that claims 1 recites a judicial exception, and the analysis proceeds, then in the analysis under Step 2A - Prong Two, claims 1, 15, 16 and 61 each recite elements that integrate the abstract idea, i.e, the mental process or abstract idea, into a practical application. For example, at least the following limitations recited in claim 1 are elements that integrate the judicial exception, i.e, the abstract idea or mental process, into a practical application:
(excerpt of claim 1)
…
Accordingly, even if the method of claim 1 recites a mental process in Step 2A - Prong One, then in the analysis under Step 2A - Prong Two, claim 1 recites elements that integrate the abstract idea, i.e, the mental process or abstract idea, into a practical application. The 101 eligibility inquiry is satisfied and ends here. There is no need to go forward in the analysis.
The invention of amended claim 1 improves the functioning of computer-implemented infrastructure-modeling systems by receiving heterogeneous and non-uniform datasets. (See, amended claim 1 reciting: "infrastructure information ... comprising heterogeneous and non-uniform datasets") and generating an infrastructure model of the grid that integrates this information into a unified, geospatially and electrically coherent model (See amended claim 1 reciting: "generating ... an infrastructure model of said grid" and "within a common geospatial reference frame"). This infrastructure model encodes physical, geometric, and electrical properties and relationships of the plurality of utility assets (See amended claim 1 reciting: "physical properties, ... geometric ... electrical ... relationships"), enabling accurate registration, simulation, and automated analysis of physical utility assets (See amended claim 1 reciting: "supporting automated analysis, simulation, and automated damage assessment of said grid"). Prior systems required manual reconciliation of disparate GIS, CAD, and asset databases and could not produce an operational model usable for automated damage assessment, design, or analysis. The present claims therefore recite a technological improvement to data-integration and geospatial-modeling technology itself specifically through the integration of heterogeneous infrastructure datasets into an operational model of a functioning utility system within its geographic context-rather than merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer. Support for the present amendments of claim 1 is provided in the specification and drawings, at least, in paragraphs [0027], [0028], [0031], [0057] - [0060], and FIGS. 4,9, 11, 12, 24, 25, 29, 30, 37, 38, 58, and 59.
The Office Action also errs in asserting that claim 1 is ineligible under 101 due to merely implementing the abstract idea or a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Office Action, pages 22-23). As explained hereinabove, claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception, e.g. the abstract idea or mental process, into a practical application. If an abstract idea or mental process is found, then claim 1 reciting that a processor of a virtual world platform "[generates] a simulated virtual environment model comprising an integrated model' does not remove the multiple additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Considering that claim 1 recites elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1 is not made ineligible by reciting a "a processor of a virtual world platform" (excerpt of claim 1). Applicant also observes that the noted limitation is not merely a general purpose computer.
The Office Action further errs in asserting that claim 1 is ineligible under 101 merely because the judicial exception, an abstract idea, is not integrated into a practical application or integrated into elements, so that the claim is directed to the judicial exception (an abstract idea) (Office Action, page 22, line 10 - page 23, line 21). Applicant traverses this rejection.
As explained hereinabove, Claim 1 recites additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In view of all of the preceding, the 101 rejections are error and should be withdrawn. The methods of claims 1-19, and the non-transitory computer-accessible medium of claim 61, are tied to elements in a particular, useful implementation that clearly limit application of any abstract idea that may be identified in the claims. Applicant, hereinabove, has noted multiple additional elements in claim 1 that integrate any abstract idea into a practical application, applying, relying on, or using the asserted abstract idea in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception. Applicant thus disputes that the asserted abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The Action also asserts that, where claim 1 recites "a processor; a processor of a virtual world platform; and "a simulated virtual environment model... and with said power line imaging data", these are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (citing MPEP 2106.05(f)). The Action further asserts that claim 1, in part, amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or using a computer to applying a computer to perform an abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements or practical application (Office Action, page 20, lines 10-21).
The Office Action also asserts that concrete limitations recited in claim 1 merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment.
Applicant traverses each of these rejections. Applicant respectfully directs attention to the USPTO document entitled "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (the "Guidance'), Docket No. PTO-P-2018-0053. Page 16 of the Guidance recites the following:
"In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This prong adds a more detailed eligibility analysis to step one of the Alice Mayo test (USPTO Step 2A) than was required under prior guidance.
- If the recited exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A.
This concludes the eligibility analysis." (emphasis added)
In the decision of Ex Parte Ben F. Bruce, the PTAB implementing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO's) 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, ("Guidance') decided that claims to a "computerized method" (Appeal 2017-011204, Application 14/094,579, decided March 28, 2019; hereafter "ExParte Bruce') are patent eligible, where those claims might previously have been dismissed as abstract ideas not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 of the Bruce '579 Application recited a "computerized method comprising: diagnosing a patient, wherein the diagnosing comprises [...] performing [certain] operations until a diagnosis confidence factor exceeds a high confidence factor threshold." The operations in Bruce include determining "body characteristics" using "sensors," creating and comparing a "current multimedia representation," determining whether a diagnosis "confidence factor" exceeds a "confidence factor threshold," and "selecting a treatment based on the diagnosis." The claim did not recite administering the treatment or identifying the treatment.
The PTAB in Bruce cited revised Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Guidance, which provides that a claim is patent eligible if the "recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application." Guidance at 51 (emphasis added). The Guidance provides several examples of what constitutes "integration" and states that "examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application." Id. At 55 (emphasis added). Thus, including a routine, conventional activity may be sufficient to "integrate" a judicial exception and overcome an eligibility rejection. In ExParte Bruce, the PTAB found that several elements of claim 1 "integrate the mental processes into a practical application," including the steps of: "determining, using one or more body measurement sensors ..., ""creating a current multimedia representation...," and "in response to the diagnosis confidence factor not exceeding the high confidence factor threshold, selecting a different body characteristic of the patient to determine to increase the diagnosis confidence factor .... " Ex Parte Bruce at 11 (emphasis added). Where such claim elements might previously have been dismissed as abstract "data processing," under the Guidance, the PTAB concluded that these elements "reflect technology improvement of a ... system." Id.
Applicant respectfully submits that in light of Guidance, and application of the Guidance as in Ex Parte Bruce, present claims 1-19, and claim 61 which includes all of the limitations of independent claim 1, each integrate the elements thereof, including any abstract idea, into a practical application. Each of these claims, for example, recites the following limitations selected from independent claim 1:
…
The methods of claims 1-19 and corresponding limitations of claim 61, thus are tied to the concrete, specific and practical application of "[a] method for managing an electric utility power transmission and distribution grid, [...][by] generating, by a processor of a virtual world platform, a simulated virtual environment model comprising an integrated model, said integrated model comprising an integration of said power line imaging data in relation to said geospatial topological model information in relation to said infrastructure model, said integrated model comprising integrated image information, said integrated image information comprising an integrated visualization of said infrastructure model image information with said geospatial topological model image information and with said power line imaging data. (excerpt of claim 1). Consistent with Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Guidance, the claim is no less concrete, specific and practical if the multiple specific subject matter limitations within each claim are conventional. Therefore, in accordance with this guidance provided by the USPTO, each of the 1-19 and 61 claims are eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A, and the eligibility analysis is concluded.
In light of the foregoing and in light of the guidance provided by the USTPO's 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the previous rejections are overcome by the claims in view of these Remarks. Applicant thus respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1-19 and 61.
Claims 2-19 and 61 are dependent upon independent claim 1, and include all limitations recited in claim 1, and thus overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for each of the reasons that claim 1 overcomes the same 101 rejections.
Claims 2-4, for example, also include additional patent eligible subject matter. In this regard, claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and further specifies "rendering, by said processor, a navigable virtual environment comprising said integrated image information, and said integrated image information comprising said integrated visualization." Claim 3, similarly, also recites "generating, by said processor, a viewer in relation to said navigable virtual environment, said viewer comprising a point of view, said viewer further comprising for said point of view a virtual view on said utility power line route depicted in said navigable virtual environment. "Claim 4 recites "said virtual view comprising said integrated visualization, said integrated visualization comprising said infrastructure model image information comprising utility asset image information for said plurality of utility assets ". This additional subject matter recited in each of claims 2, 3 and 4 is patent eligible under section 101.
Claims 2-19 each include additional patent-eligible subject matter recited therein. Applicant traverses the 101 rejections of these claims, which are based on impermissible, excessive parsing of limitations in each claim without balanced consideration of each dependent claim as a combination of elements. This excessive parsing removes the elements from context of the claims as a whole and for this reason is error. The 101 rejections should be withdrawn, because these rejections are based on excessive parsing, which is error.
Applicant also traverses the 101 rejections for each of the reasons and grounds stated above in regards to independent claim 1, from which the rejected claims depend. Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 2-19 and 61 for each of the reasons put forth in regard to independent claim 18.
(see Response filed 10//2025 [pages 19-26]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees that, “Applicant, hereinabove, has noted multiple additional elements in claim 1 that integrate any abstract idea into a practical application, applying, relying on, or using the asserted abstract idea in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception.”
As explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." (emphasis added).
Further, In order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” In other words, the specification should describe the claimed improvement over the background invention or existing technology, and the claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements (emphasis added) by specifying how the claimed improvement perform the additional element different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
Regarding claimed additional limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two. Please refer to the current Office action for a detailed explanation of this analysis. However, the additional limitations are merely adding a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering activity, and merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. As explained in MPEP2106.05(a)(I): Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
The additional limitations do not specify how the alleged improvement performs the additional elements in a manner that is different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field or any known technical field. For example, how the claimed additional limitations of receiving data, generating models (e.g., infrastructure model and simulated virtual environment model) are technologically distinct from generic or conventional computer functions such as data gathering and data processing steps. Likewise, the claim does not provide any details indicating that receiving and generating functions using any non-conventional techniques or specifies any technical improvement over known data gathering and data processing methods. In contrast, the claimed limitation merely disclose the receiving and generating steps at a high level generality would not consider as an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees that “… in light of Guidance, and application of the Guidance as in Ex Parte Bruce, present claims 1-19, and claim 61 which includes all of the limitations of independent claim 1, each integrate the elements thereof, including any abstract idea, into a practical application.”
In Ex Parte Bruce, the PTAB found that several elements of claim 1 “integrate the mental processes into a practical application,” including the steps of: “determining, using one or more body measurement sensors…,” “creating a current multimedia representation…,” and “in response to the diagnosis confidence factor not exceeding the high confidence factor threshold, selecting a different body characteristic of the patient to determine to increase the diagnosis confidence factor….” Ex Parte Bruce at 11. Where such claim elements might previously have been dismissed as abstract “data processing,” under the Guidance, the PTAB concluded that these elements “reflect technology improvement of a medical analysis and diagnosis system.” (https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2231/2019-05-under-new-guidance-patent-eligibility-computerized#:~:text=v.,of%20an%20otherwise%20abstract%20idea). In other words, the claim recited specific, technical operations including sensor acquisition of physiological data, dynamic modification of measurement selection, and improvements to medical diagnostic system. The Board determined that the limitations provided a technical advancement specifically derived from the functional integration of specialized medical equipment and diagnostic workflows. In contrast, the claimed additional limitations of instant application do not recite improvements to computer functionality, imaging technology, virtual environment generation, or infrastructure modeling system. Instead, the claimed additional limitations are directed to collecting, integrating and visualizing information using generic computing components. The recited virtual world platform and processor are used merely as tools to implement information processing, without a disclosed technical improvement. Therefore, the reasoning of the cited appeal decision does not apply to the instant claims.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees that “Claims 2-19 each include additional patent-eligible subject matter recited therein. Applicant traverses the 101 rejections of these claims, which are based on impermissible, excessive parsing of limitations in each claim without balanced consideration of each dependent claim as a combination of elements.”
The Office Action evaluated the claims as a whole, consistent with the Alice/Mayo framework and the 2019 Revised Guidance. Under Step 2A, Prong One, the Office Action identified the specific limitations that recites a judicial exception. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the Office Action then considered whether the claim including additional elements integrated judicial exception into practical application. Identifying which limitations recite an abstract idea and which limitations constitute additional elements is not impermissible parsing; instead, it is a required part of the Step 2A analysis. The Office Action did not remove limitations from context, but instead determined that, when the claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements amount to generic computer implementation, data manipulation, and information presentation that do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims were also considered and were found not to add limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to no more than applying
computer components to perform well-understood, routine and conventional functions in the field of modeling, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B, and independent claim 1 and dependent claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not
persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental process), are not integrated judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection of claim 1-19 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “said viewer further comprising for said point of view a virtual view on said utility power line route …” is indefinite because it is unclear the limitation refers to a virtual view for said point of view or something else? For the purposes of examination, it interpreted as said viewer further comprising, for said point of view, a virtual view of said utility power line route..."
Claim 6 recites “said navigating of said viewer providing for a plurality of said points of view a corresponding plurality of said virtual views on said utility power line route …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, “providing for a plurality of said points of view a corresponding plurality of said virtual views” is indefinite because it is unclear the limitation refers to a plurality of points of view corresponding to a plurality of virtual views or something else? For the purposes of examination, it interpreted as a plurality of points of view corresponding to a plurality of virtual views ...
Claim 7 recites “provide a simulated time series for a plurality of camera points of view a corresponding simulated time series of said plurality of said virtual views on said utility power line route…” is indefinite because it is unclear the limitation refers to a plurality of camera points of view corresponding to a simulated time series of said plurality of said virtual views or something else? For the purposes of examination, it interpreted as a plurality of camera points of view corresponding to a simulated time series of said plurality of said virtual views ...
The remaining claims are dependent upon one of the claims listed above and rejected for the same reason.
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.
The claim(s) 1-19 and 61 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to judicial exception an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-19 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of processes;
Yes, Claim 61 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium and falls within the statutory category of manufactures.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim 1 does recite a mental process.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Further, as explain in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A): In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: • a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); …
Further, as explain in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): 1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018) … 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 … 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699.
Claim 1: The limitations of “managing an electric utility power transmission and distribution grid, said grid including a plurality of utility assets distributed on a utility power line route in a geographic area” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of observing and considering information describing a utility grid and its associated assets distributed along a geographic route, and evaluating and making judgments regarding the operation, condition, or management of the grid and its assets within the geographic area (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
Further, Claim 1: the limitations of “generating … an infrastructure model of said grid, said infrastructure model comprising a plurality of utility asset data objects in relation to said plurality of utility assets, said infrastructure model comprising asset classification data in relation to said plurality of utility asset data objects, said infrastructure model comprising infrastructure model image information, said infrastructure model integrating said infrastructure information, said infrastructure model encoding physical properties, physical relationships, geometric properties, geometric relationship, electrical properties, and electrical relationships of said plurality of utility assets within a common geospatial reference frame, …” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of observing and evaluating information describing physical, geometric, and electrical attributes of utility assets, organizing and classifying information (e.g., identifying assets, categorizing asset types, and associating attributes with the utility assets), and mentally integrating the information to form a representation of infrastructure assets and relationships among the assets within a geographic context, such as a one-line diagram. The person is further capable of associating assets with spatial locations and understanding relationships among the utility assets within a common geospatial reference frame (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
Further, Claim 1: the limitations of “generating … a simulated virtual environment model comprising an integrated model, said integrated model comprising an integration of said power line imaging data in relation to said geospatial topological model information in relation to said infrastructure model, said integrated model comprising integrated image information, said integrated image information comprising an integrated visualization of said infrastructure model image information with said geospatial topological model image information and with said power line imaging data,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of observing power line imagery, terrain or topological information, and infrastructure representations, and mentally integrating and visualizing the information together to form a representation of a virtual environment in a geographic context, such as by drawing or sketching or mentally overlaying the information on a map (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
Claim 61 recites the similar elements as claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1 and 61 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 15 and 16: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - "A non-transitory computer-accessible medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions for managing an electric utility power transmission and distribution grid, wherein, when a computer hardware arrangement executes the computer-executable instructions, the computer hardware arrangement is configured to perform” and “at a processor” and “by the processor” and “by said processor of a virtual world platform” which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f): (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further, the following additional element – “receiving, at a processor, infrastructure information …” and “receiving, at said processor, power line imaging data …” and “receiving, at said processor, geospatial topological model information …” which are merely adding a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, such as data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. As explain in MPEP 2106.05(g): Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
• Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
…
iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); …
Further, the limitation “generating, by said processor of a virtual world platform, a simulated virtual environment model …” and “said infrastructure information of said grid enabling generation of an infrastructure model supporting automated analysis, simulation, and automated damage assessment of said grid” and “said infrastructure model supporting automated analysis, simulation, and automated damage assessment of said grid, said infrastructure model supporting automated updating of said grid from new power line imaging data when acquired.” The limitations are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer/processor to perform routine data processing (e.g., integrating information from multiple source to generate a combined visualization, or generation of model support for further analysis, simulation, assessment and automated update) at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic processing functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. More specifically, the recited “virtual world platform (well-known, existing environment technology described in the instant specification [0047]),” “integrated model,” “integration,” and “integrated visualization” are described functionally (outcome focused) without reciting any particular technical manner of generating the simulated environment, and specific visualization technique, any specific data structure, or any particular computer improvement that meaningfully limits how the claims result is achieved. The limitation is directed to organizing and combining information (power line imaging data, geospatial topological model information, and infrastructure model information) and showing the combined information, which is a generic computer implementation of the abstract idea rather than a practical application that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f): (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 61 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 61: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further, The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); … ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); …; iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); …
The additional limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional limitations merely describe using generic computer components (e.g., a processor, data storage and software) to perform data gathering (e.g., receiving infrastructure information and imaging data), data organization and processing (e.g., generating and integrating an infrastructure model), and data visualization (e.g., generating a simulated virtual environment), which are described at a high level of generality in the specification and corresponds to well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. The claims do not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional computer architecture, or particular technological mechanism for performing the recited functions in an unconventional manner. Instead, the specification clearly identifies the “virtual world platform” as being implementable using commercially available products such as OpenSimulator or Unreal Engine, confirming that the claimed functionality based on existing simulation and visualization technology used as a tool to the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to no more than applying computer components to perform well-understood, routine and conventional functions in the field of numerical modeling, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 and 61 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-19 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-19 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “said method further comprising: rendering, by said processor, a navigable virtual environment comprising said integrated image information, and said integrated image information comprising said integrated visualization.”
The limitation specifies using a generic processor to rendering a navigable virtual environment comprising integrated image information generated by the computer implemented modeling steps recited in claim 1. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of rendering, any specific visualization technique, or any technological improvement to computer graphics or user interface technology. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely adds a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution activity), such as displaying or rendering information to the judicial exception, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3 recites “said method further comprising: generating, by said processor, a viewer in relation to said navigable virtual environment, said viewer comprising a point of view, said viewer further comprising for said point of view a virtual view on said utility power line route depicted in said navigable virtual environment.”
The limitation specifies using a generic processor to generating a viewer and associated point of view for virtual viewing the navigable virtual environment previously rendered in claim 2. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of generating the viewer, any specific rendering algorithm, or any technological improvement to computer graphics, visualization or user interface technology. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer/processor to perform generic display function at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic function, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4 recites “said method further comprising: said virtual view comprising said integrated visualization, said integrated visualization comprising said infrastructure model image information comprising utility asset image information for said plurality of utility assets.”
The limitation further specifies that the virtual view generated in claim 3 includes an integrated visualization that incorporates infrastructure model image information, including utility asset image information as the content of the visualization presented in the virtual view. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of generating the integrated visualization, any specific image processing technique, rendering algorithm, or any technological improvement to computer graphics, visualization or user interface technology. The limitation also does not recite any unconventional computer operation or specialized hard are for performing the visualization. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely adds a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution activity), such as displaying or presenting image information associated with infrastructure assets as part of the virtual view to the judicial exception, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 recites “said method further comprising: outputting, by said processor, said virtual view to a display.”
The limitation further specifies that the virtual view generated in claim 3 is output to a display device. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of outputting the virtual view, any specific image processing technique, rendering algorithm, or any technological improvement to computer graphics, visualization, hardware, or user interface technology. The limitation also does not recite any unconventional computer operation or specialized hardware for outputting or displaying. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely adds a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution activity), such as displaying or presenting image information on a monitor to the judicial exception, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6 recites “said method further comprising: navigating, by said processor, of said viewer in relation to said navigable virtual environment, said navigating of said viewer providing for a plurality of said points of view a corresponding plurality of said virtual views on said utility power line route depicted in said navigable virtual environment, said plurality of said virtual views comprising said integrated visualization comprising said infrastructure model image information comprising said utility asset image information for said plurality of utility assets.”
The limitation further specifies using a processor to navigating a viewer within the navigable virtual environment to provide a plurality of points of view and corresponding virtual views of the utility power line route, where the virtual views comprise the integrated visualization generated by the computer implemented modeling steps recited in claim 1. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of navigation, any specific visualization or rendering technique, or any technological improvement to computer graphics, visualization, user interface technology or virtual environment navigation. The limitation also does not recite any unconventional computer operation or improved computer functionality for performing the navigation or generating the plurality of views. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely adds a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution activity), such as navigating through and viewing different perspectives of previously generated visual information to the judicial exception, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7 recites “said method further comprising: simulating, by said processor, navigation of said viewer in relation to said navigable virtual environment to provide a simulated time series for a plurality of camera points of view a corresponding simulated time series of said plurality of said virtual views on said utility power line route depicted in said navigable virtual environment, said plurality of said virtual views comprising said integrated visualization comprising said infrastructure model comprising said utility asset image information for said plurality of utility assets.”
The limitation further specifies using a processor to simulate navigation of a viewer within the navigable virtual environment to generate a simulated time series for a plurality of camera points of view and corresponding simulated time series of virtual views of the utility power line route. The simulated virtual views comprise the integrated visualization generated by the computer implemented modeling steps recited in claim 1. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of simulation, any camera model, any temporal modeling technique, or any technological improvement to computer graphics, simulation technology, or virtual environment navigation. The limitation also does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional computer operation, or improved computer functionality for performing the simulation or generating the time series views. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer/processor to perform generic simulation function at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic function, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8 recites “said method further comprising: receiving, at said processor, said plurality of said virtual views from said viewer,” which is merely adding a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, such as data gathering which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). “examining, by said processor, said plurality of said virtual views to identify damage visible in said integrated visualization comprising said infrastructure model image information comprising said utility asset image information for said plurality of utility assets,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of visually inspecting images or views of utility assets and determining whether damage is occurred based on visible characteristics. Therefore, the claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9 recites “said method further comprising: classifying, by said processor, utility assets in said virtual view as being in normal condition or damaged condition, process by performing a trained classification algorithm in run-time mode to compare said collected power line imaging data to reference classification information, said trained classification algorithm in a training period developing said reference classification information in relation to receiving reference power line imaging data for said plurality of utility assets classified in known normal condition or damaged condition,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of observing images of utility assets with known conditions, mentally developing and evaluating reference standards based on the images, comparing newly observed images to the reference standards and determining whether a utility asset is in normal or damaged condition (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the additional limitations “by said processor” and “a trained classification algorithm in run-time mode” and “trained classification algorithm in a training period” are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer/processor to perform generic data processing associated with trained classification model at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic algorithmic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations do not recite any particular technical manner of training such as a specific training methodology. The additional limitations also do not recite any improved computer functionality, specialized hardware, or unconventional computing operation for performing the developing function by trained classification algorithm. Therefore, the claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10 recites “said method further comprising: said trained classification algorithm in said training period developing said reference classification information in relation to receiving said reference power line imaging data in a reference view of infrastructure comprising a utility asset, said reference view selected from: a virtual view, a real-world image, or both,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of observing reference images of utility assets obtained from real-world images virtual views or both, being aware of the known conditions associated with the reference images, and mentally developing or forming reference classification information by associating visual characteristics in the reference images with known normal or damage conditions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation “trained classification algorithm in said training period” is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer/processor with trained classification algorithm to perform generic data processing for developing reference classification information at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic algorithmic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of training such as a specific training methodology or algorithmic architecture. The additional limitations also do not recite any improved computer functionality, specialized hardware, or unconventional computing operation for performing the developing function. Therefore, the claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11 recites “said method further comprising: said power line imaging data comprising lidar data.”
The limitation merely specifies received power line imaging data previously recited in claim 1, includes lidar data. The limitation merely adding a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, such as data gathering which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12 recites “said method further comprising: said power line imaging data comprising telemetry data.”
The limitation merely specifies received power line imaging data as previously recited in claim 1, includes telemetry data. The limitation merely adding a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, such as data gathering which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13 recites “said method further comprising: said power line imaging data selected from the following: lidar data, telemetry data, photography data, and photogrammetry data.”
The limitation merely specifies received power line imaging data as previously recited in claim 1, selected from lidar data, telemetry data, photography data, and photogrammetry data. The limitation merely adding a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, such as data gathering which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14 recites “said method further comprising: said integrated model comprising first geographic location information having first resolution for said geospatial topological model, second geographic location information having second resolution for said infrastructure model in relation to said first geographic location information, and third geographic location information having third resolution for said power line imaging data in relation to at least one of the following: said first geographic location information and said second geographic location information; said first resolution, second resolution and third resolution sufficient to enable said classifying of utility assets in said virtual view as being in normal condition or damaged condition by reference to said integrated model.”
The limitation merely further specifies that the integrated model includes multiple types of geographics location information sets, each having a respective resolution associated with a corresponding model or data layer, and the resolutions are sufficient to enable the classifying of utility assets recited in claim 9. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of defining , generating, or determining the resolution, or any technological improvement to computer graphics, visualization, or computer functionality. The limitation also does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional computer operation to handling the different resolutions. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely extends the mental process of classifying utility assets recited in claim 9 by specifying the use of geographic location information at different resolutions. Therefore, the claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 15 recites “said method further comprising: said first resolution, second resolution and third resolution sufficient to enable said classifying by said trained classification algorithm of utility assets in said virtual view as being in normal condition or damaged condition by reference to said integrated model without receiving first-person field storm damage survey information for condition of each of said plurality of utility assets on said power line route.”
The limitation merely further specifies that the classifying of utility assets recited in claim 9, as supported by the integrated model of claim 14, is performed using the recited resolutions and without receiving first-person field storm damage survey information. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of defining , using, or determining the resolution, or any technological improvement to computer graphics, visualization, image analysis, or classification technology. The limitation also does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional computer operation for performing the classification without first-person survey data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely extends the mental process of classifying utility assets recited in claim 9 by excluding a source of input information. Therefore, the claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 16 recites “said method further comprising: said classifying by said trained classification algorithm of utility assets in said virtual view as being in normal condition or damaged condition by reference to said integrated model providing a level of assessment precision substantially equal to first-person field storm damage survey information for visual field assessment of condition of each of said plurality of utility assets on said power line route.”
The limitation merely further specifies that the classifying of utility assets recited in claim 9, as supported by the integrated model of claims 14 and 15, achieves a level of assessment precision comparable to first-person field storm damage survey information. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of achieving the level of assessment precision, or any technological improvement to computer graphics, visualization, image analysis, or classification algorithms , or computer functionality. The limitation also does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional computer operation, or specific performance technique for achieving equivalent with first-person field assessments. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely extends the mental process of classifying utility assets recited in claim 9 by reciting a desired result and does not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 17 recites “said method further comprising: said classifying by said trained classification algorithm of utility assets in said virtual view as being in normal condition or damaged condition by reference to said integrated model providing a level of assessment precision sufficient to enable automated dispatching assignments of storm damage repair crews with service equipment and substantially identical replacement utility assets sufficient to restore damaged infrastructure to substantially normal condition for said plurality of utility assets on said power line route at automated utilization efficiency substantially equal to field survey utilization efficiency of manual dispatching assignments enabled by first-person storm damage field survey inform a lion for said plurality of utility assets on said power line route.”
The limitation merely further specifies that the classifying of utility assets recited in claim 9, and further limited by claims 14 and 15, results in an assessment having a level of precision characterized as sufficient to enable automated dispatching assignments and related restoration activities at a utilization efficiency. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of achieving the level of assessment precision, any specific dispatching technique, control logic, any specific optimization method or any technological improvement to computer functionality, dispatching systems. The limitation also does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional computer operation. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely extends the mental process of classifying utility assets recited in claim 9 by describing a desired result or intend use of the classification output, and does not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 18 recites “said method further comprising: said classifying by said trained classification algorithm of utility assets in said virtual view as being in normal condition or damaged condition by reference to said integrated model providing information sufficient to dispatch field survey personnel to perform first-person storm damage field surveys to perform field assessments of condition of each of said plurality of utility assets on said power line route classified in an indeterminate condition by said trained classification algorithm.”
The limitation merely further specifies that the classifying of utility assets recited in claim 9, as supported by the integrated model of claims 14, providing information that is characterized as sufficient to enable dispatching of field survey personnel to perform first-person storm damage field surveys for asset classified as being in an indeterminate condition. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of generating the information, any specific dispatching technique, control logic workflow, or optimization method for dispatching filed survey personnel, or any technological improvement to computer functionality, dispatching systems. The limitation also does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional computer operation. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely extends the mental process of classifying utility assets recited in claim 9 by describing a desired result or intend use of the classification output, and does not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 19 recites “said method further comprising: in said receiving, said power line imaging data stored in a cloud database indexed by geospatial information.”
The limitation merely further specifies that the power line imaging data received and stored in a cloud database and indexed using geospatial information. However, the limitation does not recite any particular technical manner of storing the data, indexing the data, managing the cloud database, or performing geospatial indexing, or any technological improvement to database technology, could computing, data storage, retrieval performance or computer functionality. The limitation also does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional computer operation. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the limitation merely adds a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering to the judicial exception, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component (i.e., cloud database) to storing image data indexed by geospatial information at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic algorithmic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim 19 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 11-13, 19 and 61 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the
rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-10 and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the
rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 101, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior arts found, (New) Strebel US20170358068A1, discloses a computer-implemented method includes: receiving, by a computing device, sensor data associated with a geographic location; processing, by the computing device, the sensor data to identify an infrastructure asset within the geographic location; determining, by the computing device, a condition of the infrastructure asset based on processing the sensor data; and storing or outputting, by the computing device, information regarding the condition of the infrastructure asset. (New) Fathi US20200082168A1, discloses at least some of the information associated with substantial completion of a user information goal for a physical asset or a collection of physical assets of interest comprises 2D and/or 3D information derived, at least in part, from sensor information. In some implementations, such 2D and/or 3D sensor information can comprise image information. Such image information can be acquired during an imaging event associated with a generated data acquisition plan. AAPA (applicant admitted prior art) in the instant application, discloses computer-implemented system 500 may include a virtual world platform 520. Commercially available products which may embody a suitable virtual world platform 520 may include OpenSimulator (opensimulator.org) and Unreal Engine (Epic Games, Cary, North Carolina). Virtual world platform 520 when executed may be capable of providing a navigable simulation of a three-dimensional virtual environment …). (New) Santarone US20200370994A1, discloses augmented Virtual Models accessible via Orienteering using a smart device. The smart device is operative to identify a position within a building and use fine-grain location monitoring to guide a user to a desired location. Upon reaching the desired location, the user can point the smart device at a wall or component and learn, query, or supplement technical details and other information about the wall or component. (New) Xiong US20220058591A1, discloses an autonomous asset detection system that leverages artificial intelligence (AI) models for three-dimensional asset identification and damage detection, asset damage classification, automatic in-field asset tag readings, and real-time asset management. Nussbaum US11107162B1, discloses determining a risk of damage to a property are provided. To determine the risk, a high resolution virtual model of a region that includes the property is obtained. The virtual model is imported into a simulation environment … The result of the simulation is analyzed to determine the predicted risk of damage to the property. Schwartz US20200041560A1, discloses unmanned monitoring devices, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), drones or rovers may inspect system components within an area of interest (AOI) such an electric power distribution system including generation, transmission, and distribution elements for autonomous detection of damage to the components. Work orders for repairing the damage are autonomously generated and resources identified within the work orders are autonomously provisioned.
However, In light of record taken as a whole, applicant's method claim 1 is considered to be
patentable distinct over the prior art. In particular, the prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest in combination of limitations “A method for managing an electric utility power transmission and distribution grid, said grid including a plurality of utility assets distributed on a utility power line route in a geographic area, said method comprising: receiving, at a processor, infrastructure information of said grid including said plurality of utility assets distributed on said utility power line route in said geographic area, said infrastructure information comprising heterogeneous and non-uniform datasets, the datasets comprising utility asset information of aspects of said plurality of utility assets, the utility asset information comprising: physical construction, material properties, structural properties, electrical characteristics, circuit relationships, spatial topology, equipment configurations, structural state, and operational condition; said infrastructure information of said grid enabling generation of an infrastructure model supporting automated analysis, simulation, and automated damage assessment of said grid; generating, by said processor, said infrastructure model of said grid, said infrastructure model comprising a plurality of utility asset data objects in relation to said plurality of utility assets, said infrastructure model comprising asset classification data in relation to said plurality of utility asset data objects, said infrastructure model comprising infrastructure model image information, said infrastructure model integrating said infrastructure information, said infrastructure model encoding physical properties, physical relationships, geometric properties, geometric relationship, electrical properties, and electrical relationships of said plurality of utility assets within a common geospatial reference frame, said infrastructure model supporting automated analysis, simulation, and automated damage assessment of said grid, said infrastructure model supporting automated updating of said grid from new power line imaging data when acquired; receiving, at said processor, power line imaging data collected along said utility power line route, said power line imaging data comprising utility asset imaging data in relation to said plurality of utility assets; receiving, at said processor, geospatial topological model information for said geographic area, said geospatial topological model information comprising terrain data and elevation data, said geospatial topological model information comprising geospatial topological model image information; generating, by said processor of a virtual world platform, a simulated virtual environment model comprising an integrated model, said integrated model comprising an integration of said power line imaging data in relation to said geospatial topological model information in relation to said infrastructure model, said integrated model comprising integrated image information, said integrated image information comprising an integrated visualization of said infrastructure model image information with said geospatial topological model image information and with said power line imaging data,” as disclosed in claims 1. Claims 2-19 and 61 are allowed as being dependent from allowed claims 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to YI HAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187