DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
This action is non-Final.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, which is a process and is a statutory category invention. Claims 8-20 are directed to a computing device, which is a system and is a statutory category invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing device” , “a memory” , “a processor,” and “a graphical user interface,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites analyzing the data corresponding to the installation site characteristics to determine at least one of fence post spacing and fence post locations along the fence run, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing the data that corresponds to the installation site characteristics to determine fence post spacing and fence post locations along the fence run, as described in [page 3 | lines 9-10] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claim 1 also recites including providing a three- dimensional augmented reality visual representation of the at least one of the fence post spacing and the fence post locations along the fence run through the user interface, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing augmented reality visual representation of fence post spacing and locations, as described in [page 4 | lines 12-14] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claims 8 and 14 similarly recite determine a straight line distance between a first reference point and a second reference point along the length of the fence run, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing lines and distances between reference points along the length of the fence run, as described in [page 6 | lines 10-11] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claim 8 also recites analyze the at least one of the LIDAR data and the photogrammetry data to determine a location of one more fence posts along the straight line distance, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing LIDAR and photogrammetry data to determine fence post characteristics along the straight line distance, as described in [page 5 | lines 13-14] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claim 8 also recites generate a visual representation of the location of the one or more fence posts along the straight line distance, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing visual representations of locations, lines and fence post characteristics, as described in [page 5 | lines 15-16] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claim 14 also recites analyze the data corresponding to the length of the fence run to determine at least one of fence post spacing and fence post installation locations along the fence run, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing data that corresponds to fence lengths and fence post spacing, as described in [page 6 | lines 12-14] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. See analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 2, 11, and 20 recite the additional limitation “smartphone” as in dependent claims 2, 11, and 20 , “tablet”, as in dependent claims 2, 11, and 20, “wireless electronic device” as in dependent claims 2 and 11, “sensor” as in independent claim 8 and dependent claims 11, 12, 13 and 15, “LIDAR sensor” as in dependent claims 3, 12, and 18, “measurement device” as in independent claims 1, 8 and 14 and dependent claims 2-4, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20, “GPS receiver” as in independent claim 18, “computing device as in independent claims 8 and 14 and dependent claims 9-13 and 15-20, “processor” as in independent claims 8 and 14 and dependent claims 9, 12-13, 15, 17, and 19, “memory” as in independent claims 8 and 14, and “graphical user interface” as in independent claims 8 and 14 and dependent claims 10 and 15, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional claim 1 limitation of collecting data corresponding to a length of a fence run using a measurement device, collecting data corresponding to installation site characteristics along the fence run, and outputting the at least one of the fence post spacing and the fence post locations through the user interface can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional claim 2 limitation of wherein collecting data corresponding to the length of the fence run using the measurement device includes using one of a smart phone, tablet, and a wireless electronic device to collect the data, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional claim 3 limitation of wherein collecting data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes collecting LIDAR data using a LIDAR sensor of the measurement device, the LIDAR data corresponding to a topography of the installation site, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional claim 4 limitation of wherein collecting data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes collecting photogrammetry data using a camera of the measurement device, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional claim 6 limitation of outputting the fence post characteristics through the user interface, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional claim 7 limitation of collecting data corresponding to the length of the fence run includes analyzing the data corresponding to the length of the fence run to determine initial fence post spacing and initial fence post locations along the fence run, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim 8 and 14 limitations of “configured to store computer instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer instructions,” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea and can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, these limitations fail to provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
The additional claim 8 and 14 limitations of collect data corresponding to a length of a fence run at an installation site via a measurement device in electronic communication with the at least one processor, and collect at least one of LIDAR data and photogrammetry data with a sensor of the measurement device along the straight line distance can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional claim 8 and 14 limitations of display a graphical user interface to the user for receiving the visual representation of the location of the one or more fence posts along the straight line distance, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional claim 12 limitation of execute the computer instructions to collect the LIDAR data, the LIDAR data including topography information at the installation site, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, these limitations fail to provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
The additional claim 13 limitation of execute the computer instructions to collect the photogrammetry data, the photogrammetry data including images captured by the camera and stored on the measurement device, the at least one processor further configured to execute computer instructions to: determine a topography of the installation site by triangulating converging lines in space based on the photogrammetry data, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, these limitations fail to provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
The additional claim 15 limitation of collect at least one of LIDAR data and photogrammetry data from a sensor of the measurement device along the straight line distance can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional claim 15 limitation of display the graphical user interface to the user for receiving the visual representation of the fence post characteristics, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional claim 18 limitation of wherein the data corresponding to the length of the fence run is at least one of LIDAR data collected via a LIDAR sensor of the measurement device, photogrammetry data collected via a camera of the measurement device, and GPS data collected by a GPS receiver of the measurement device can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claims 2, 11, and 20 recite the additional limitation “smartphone” as in dependent claims 2, 11, and 20 , “tablet”, as in dependent claims 2, 11, and 20, “wireless electronic device” as in dependent claims 2 and 11, “sensor” as in independent claim 8 and dependent claims 11, 12, 13 and 15, “LIDAR sensor” as in dependent claims 3, 12, and 18, “measurement device” as in independent claims 1, 8 and 14 and dependent claims 2-4, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20, “GPS receiver” as in independent claim 18, “computing device as in independent claims 8 and 14 and dependent claims 9-13 and 15-20, “processor” as in independent claims 8 and 14 and dependent claims 9, 12-13, 15, 17, and 19, “memory” as in independent claims 8 and 14, and “graphical user interface” as in independent claims 8 and 14 and dependent claims 10 and 15, this limitation does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional claim 1 limitation of collecting data corresponding to a length of a fence run using a measurement device, collecting data corresponding to installation site characteristics along the fence run, and outputting the at least one of the fence post spacing and the fence post locations through the user interface can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 2 limitation of wherein collecting data corresponding to the length of the fence run using the measurement device includes using one of a smart phone, tablet, and a wireless electronic device to collect the data, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 3 limitation of wherein collecting data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes collecting LIDAR data using a LIDAR sensor of the measurement device, the LIDAR data corresponding to a topography of the installation site, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 4 limitation of wherein collecting data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes collecting photogrammetry data using a camera of the measurement device, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 6 limitation of outputting the fence post characteristics through the user interface, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 7 limitation of collecting data corresponding to the length of the fence run includes analyzing the data corresponding to the length of the fence run to determine initial fence post spacing and initial fence post locations along the fence run, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The claim 8 and 14 limitations of “configured to store computer instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer instructions,” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea and can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, these limitations fail to amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 8 and 14 limitations of collect data corresponding to a length of a fence run at an installation site via a measurement device in electronic communication with the at least one processor, and collect at least one of LIDAR data and photogrammetry data with a sensor of the measurement device along the straight line distance can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 8 and 14 limitations of display a graphical user interface to the user for receiving the visual representation of the location of the one or more fence posts along the straight line distance, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 12 limitation of execute the computer instructions to collect the LIDAR data, the LIDAR data including topography information at the installation site, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, these limitations fail to amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 13 limitation of execute the computer instructions to collect the photogrammetry data, the photogrammetry data including images captured by the camera and stored on the measurement device, the at least one processor further configured to execute computer instructions to: determine a topography of the installation site by triangulating converging lines in space based on the photogrammetry data, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, these limitations fail to amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 15 limitation of collect at least one of LIDAR data and photogrammetry data from a sensor of the measurement device along the straight line distance can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 15 limitation of display the graphical user interface to the user for receiving the visual representation of the fence post characteristics, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional claim 18 limitation of wherein the data corresponding to the length of the fence run is at least one of LIDAR data collected via a LIDAR sensor of the measurement device, photogrammetry data collected via a camera of the measurement device, and GPS data collected by a GPS receiver of the measurement device can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 5 recites “analyzing the photogrammetry data, including determining a topography of the installation site using triangulation of converging lines in space based on the photogrammetry data,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 6 recites “analyzing the data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes determining fence post characteristics,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 6 recites “providing a visual representation of at least one of fence post height and fence post installation depth through the user interface,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein analyzing the data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes adjusting the initial fence post spacing and initial fence post locations based on the data corresponding to the installation site characteristics along the fence run to determine the fence post spacing and fence post locations along the fence run,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 9 recites “analyze the at least one of the LIDAR data and the photogrammetry data to determine fence post characteristics, the fence post characteristics being at least one of a fence post height and a fence post installation depth,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the visual representation is an augmented reality indicator and the graphical user interface is displayed to the user on the measurement device,” which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 11 recites “wherein the measurement device is a smart phone, tablet, or a wireless electronic device including the sensor,” which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 15 recites “analyze the at least one of the LIDAR data and the photogrammetry data to determine fence post characteristics along the straight line distance; generate a visual representation of the fence post characteristics,” which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 16 recites “wherein the fence post characteristics are at least one of fence post height and fence post installation depth,” which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 17 recites “analyze the at least one of the LIDAR data and photogrammetry data to determine topography information of an installation site; and adjust the at least one of the fence post spacing and fence post installation locations based on the topography information,” which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 18 recites “wherein the data corresponding to the length of the fence run is at least one of LIDAR data collected via a LIDAR sensor of the measurement device, photogrammetry data collected via a camera of the measurement device, and GPS data collected by a GPS receiver of the measurement device,” which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 19 recites “wherein the data corresponding to the length of the fence run is at least one of LIDAR data collected via a LIDAR sensor of the measurement device, photogrammetry data collected via a camera of the measurement device, and GPS data collected by a GPS receiver of the measurement device,” which is directed to a “Mental Process,” which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 20 recites “wherein the measurement device is a smartphone or a tablet,” which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by GILBERT (US 20150363950 A1), herein, GILBERT.
Claim 1
GILBERT anticipates collecting data corresponding to a length of a fence run using a measurement device GILBERT ([0023] “The grid scale (measurement device) can be set to (corresponding to a length of a fence run), for example, 50 feet, 100 feet, 250 feet, or 500 feet, to create a fence drawing having the desired level of detail and based on fence lengths.”) See also GILBERT ([0018] “The illustrative fence database 106 is embodied as a searchable database, table, or other suitable data store, which is populated with fence data (collecting data), including fence types, materials, components, component types, measurable dimensions (e.g., length, width, weight, etc.), cost information, and installation requirements, including labor.”) See also GILBERT ([Figure 1], [Figure 3], and [Figure 5].)
GILBERT anticipates presenting a visual representation of the length of the fence run through a user interface GILBERT ([0023] “In FIG. 5, an illustrative user interface screen 500 displays (presenting a visual representation) portions of the fence materials data 108 corresponding to the fence selection inputs 102, at dialog area 510. For example, an image of the selected fence style, as well as fence components, dimensions (length of the fence run) and other details, are shown in dialog area 510 (through a user interface).”) See also GILBERT ([Figure 4] and [Figure 5].)
GILBERT anticipates collecting data corresponding to installation site characteristics along the fence run GILBERT ([0016] “Embodiments of the system 100 can be used for residential and/or commercial fence installation projects (installation site characteristics).”) See also GILBERT ([0015] “The system 100 can also estimate labor costs, store the fence design project in computer memory for later use/ access (e.g., for remote access by a contractor in the field), and complete the fence sale online.”) See also GILBERT ([0021] “Some examples offence materials data 108 include data values that indicate the length (along the fence run), width, and/or spacing requirements of the various fence components that are needed to construct a fence of the type selected by the fence selection inputs 102.”)
GILBERT anticipates analyzing the data corresponding to the installation site characteristics to determine at least one of fence post spacing and fence post locations along the fence run GILBERT ([0021] “In response to the fence selection inputs 102, the system 100 retrieves (analyzing the data) the corresponding fence material details and/or other information from the fence database (corresponding to the installation site characteristics) 106, and supplies fence materials data 108 to the fence drawing module 116. Some examples offence materials data 108 include data values that indicate the length, width, and/or spacing requirements of the various fence components that are needed to construct a fence of the type selected by the fence selection inputs 102. Some examples of fence components include fence segments ( e.g., elongated structural members), various types of fence posts (e.g., vertical structural members designed to support one or more fence segments, including terminal posts and line posts) (to determine at least one of fence post spacing), post caps, gates (e.g., structural members designed to enable ingress/egress to/from a fenced in area) (fence post locations along the fence run), louvers, and/or others.”)
GIBLERT anticipates outputting the at least one of the fence post spacing and the fence post locations through the user interface GILBERT ([0022] “The fence drawing module 116 (through the user interface) receives fence project design inputs 114 (at least one of the fence post spacing and post locations), and in response to the inputs 114, generates a graphical rendering of the design of a fence project (outputting). In doing so, the fence drawing module 116 enables an end user to interactively draw and/or insert graphical elements representing components of a fence on a scalable grid interface.”)
GILBERT anticipates including providing a three- dimensional augmented reality visual representation of the at least one of the fence post spacing and the fence post locations along the fence run through the user interface GILBERT ([0049] “the processor-executable modules including a fence drawing module to, in response to user interaction with the computing system: draw, on a display device, a graphical element representing a fence; determine a virtual measurement of a dimension of the drawn graphical element according to a virtual unit of measurement; and calculate, based on the virtual measurement, a physical measurement of the fence; and in an automated fashion, update the physical measurement in response to a change in the drawing of the graphical element; and a fence estimator module to calculate a cost of the fence based on the drawing of the fence.”) See also GILBERT ([Figure 4] and [Figure 7].)
Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected because GILBERT anticipates the claim 1 limitations.
GILBERT also anticipates wherein collecting data corresponding to the length of the fence run using the measurement device includes using one of a smart phone, tablet, and a wireless electronic device to collect the data GILBERT ([0013] “The illustrative fence estimator computing system 100 enables fence contractors and others to plan, estimate, organize, and sell fence projects using, for example, a web-based service or a mobile device, such as a smart phone or tablet computer, including any web browser accessible by, e.g., personal computers (PCs, including APPLE Macintosh-based products), iOS-based devices, and ANDROID devices.”)
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected because GILBERT anticipates the claim 1 limitations.
GILBERT also anticipates outputting the fence post characteristics through the user interface, including providing a visual representation of at least one of fence post height and fence post installation depth through the user interface GILBERT ([0031] “Referring back to FIG. 1, the fence drawing module 116 (user interface providing visual representation) determines and outputs the fence project specifications 118 (outputting the fence post characteristics), which include the physical measurements (e.g., lengths) (fence post height and depth) of all fence segments in the drawing of the fence project, as calculated by the fence drawing module 116, and quantities and measurements of the other fence components (fence post) shown in the fence drawing (e.g., gates, posts, etc.).”) See also GILBERT ([Figure 1].”)
PNG
media_image1.png
623
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GILBERT Figure 1 Reference
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected because GILBERT anticipates the claim 1 limitations.
GILBERT also anticipates wherein analyzing the data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes adjusting the initial fence post spacing and initial fence post locations based on the data corresponding to the installation site characteristics along the fence run to determine the fence post spacing and fence post locations along the fence run GILBERT ([0036] “At block 228, the system 100 adjusts the fence drawing (adjusting the initial fence post spacing and initial fence post locations) in real time, automatically, as graphical elements are added to the drawing, re-sized, or re-positioned (adjusting the initial fence post spacing). For example, the system 100 may separate a line segment into two line segments (e.g. in response to insertion of a gate) at 230, or create a corner post (adjust initial fence post location) (e.g., in response to the connecting of two line segments at a ninety degree angle, or another angle that forms a corner, e.g., is less than 180 degrees) (based on data corresponding to the installation site characteristics along the fence run), at 232. At block 234, the system 100 adjusts the drawing scale in response to user input and/or geographic data. For instance, as the user zooms in or out on satellite imagery, the system 100 responsively adjusts the drawing scale.”) See also GILBERT ([0051] “in response to user input: draws graphical elements representing fence components on a scalable grid; draws lines representing fence segments (based on data corresponding to the installation characteristics along the fence run); connects lines representing two fence segments; inserts graphical elements representing fence posts in response to the connection of two lines; detects corners created by the connection of two lines, determines the angle created by the corner (determine the fence post spacing), and determines the appropriate type of fence post to connect the two lines based on the angle of the corner (determine the fence post locations along the fence run); incrementally increases or decreases the length of fence segments according to an adjustable scale, including in increments of 1 foot or less.”) See also GILBERT ([0038] and [Figure 2].)
PNG
media_image2.png
748
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
GILBERT Figure 2 Reference
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected because it is the system embodiment of claim 2, with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-5, 8-10, and 12-20 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILBERT, in view of PHELAN (US 20200103552 A1), herein PHELAN.
Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected because GILBERT anticipates the claim 1 limitations.
GILBERT does not teach wherein collecting data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes collecting LIDAR data using a LIDAR sensor of the measurement device, the LIDAR data corresponding to a topography of the installation site.
However, PHELAN teaches wherein collecting data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes collecting LIDAR data using a LIDAR sensor of the measurement device, the LIDAR data corresponding to a topography of the installation site PHELAN ([0164] “Another 2D/3D environment option on the feature could be to use this onboard system (measurement device) to build a digital elevation model or digital terrain model (corresponding to a topography of the installation site) using a combination of LiDAR and captured imagery (LIDAR data). A LiDAR sensor or solid state LiDAR sensor (using a LIDAR sensor) can broadcast/pulse laser information within a field of view (FOY) and return distances from the UAV to the ground. These then can be compared with the UAV GPS coordinates to build a 3D canvas for the FOY. This 3D FOY, called a digital elevation model (DEM), enables the system to drape or overlay the captured image (collecting LIDAR data) directly over the DEM and create a real-world view of the FOY. This process can run these photogrammetric methods.”) See also PHELAN [0160], and [0163].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of PHELAN with GILBERT as the references deal with fence posts, and more particularly, to systems and methods for laying out fence post locations at an installation site. PHELAN would modify GILBERT wherein collecting data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes collecting LIDAR data using a LIDAR sensor of the measurement device, the LIDAR data corresponding to a topography of the installation site. The benefits of doing helps the team be versatile and agile based on area of interest, weather, and sun-shadow conditions, and not have to worry about losing data, having to fill gaps in between layers or routes or creating extra or double collection of waypoints. (PHELAN [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected because GILBERT anticipates the claim 1 limitations.
GILBERT does not teach wherein collecting data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes collecting photogrammetry data using a camera of the measurement device.
However, PHELAN teaches wherein collecting data corresponding to the installation site characteristics includes collecting photogrammetry data using a camera of the measurement device PHELAN ([0163] “A 2D/3D environment option for this onboard system could replace the approach and method of processing or building point clouds. The current practice of creating a point cloud from UAV data starts with the UAV collecting, typically, hundreds to thousands of images (collecting photogrammetry data). Next, the UAV software or system (using a camera of the measurement device) saves and geotags the images then load them into a cloud environment. A cloud-based system then uses photogrammetry software to stitch all these images together, and then builds the point cloud… The system would to run a comparison of each data block as the data is being gathered on the UAV. The AI will, as new data is collected, run or use photogrammetry on each adjacent data that was collected just before the current block of data.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of PHELAN with GILBERT as the references deal with fence posts, and more particularly, to systems and methods for laying out fence post locations at an installation site. PHELAN would modify GILBERT wherein collecting data