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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The applicant has amended claim 40 in response to the objection.
The amendment is satisfactory and resolves the cited issue. The objection to claim 40 has been resolved.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The applicant has amended claim 40 in response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefinite language.
The amendment to the claim resolves the issue cited previously and accordingly the rejection has been withdrawn. However, amendments to the claim have introduced additional rejections to the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as described in this action.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant has amended the claims in response to the previously set forth rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and argues that the amended claims recite features that allegedly reflect real world computational improvements in a technological process which would yield a practical application. Specifically, the applicant argues that a technical improvement to producing stone slabs is provided by the implementation of a “predetermined and automated slab identification sequence” for “identifyi[ing] a first slab image file from the production database that is similar to a second slab image file”.
This process of slab identification and further identifying two slab image files that are similar to each other is, except for the recitation of generic computing components by which to apply the exception (automated and production database), is a process which can practically be performed in the human mind. Humans are perfectly capable of making visual observations and judgements to identify similar images. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the human mind, those processes performed using assistive aids, nor those such processes being performed by way of a generic computer or in a computing environment. The technical improvement cannot be provided by the judicial exception itself and must be provided by additional elements of the claim. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.”. Because such elements argued are not additional elements but additional recitations of judicial exceptions, the argued limitation does not reflect an improvement to technology.
The applicant further argues that further technical improvement is provided by programming the server system software to generate compressed images, wherein the compressed images have lower resolution that that in the production database. The applicant argues that this limitation facilitates rapid viewing of stone slab inventory images on the client application.
This feature of rapid viewing of the stone slab inventory images on the client application is not claimed. The independent claims recite in the final limitation the transmission of identifications and compressed images to a client application for display. However, the claim does not positively recite or require that the transferred information is ever displayed and does not contain limitations that describe in detail how the client uses the transferred information for display purposes so as to demonstrate any rapid viewing capability in a client application.
The applicant further argues that the specification sets forth technical improvements throughout, citing [0071], [0050], and [0005].
However, the specification merely sets forth such improvements in a conclusory manner without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art as such an improvement. Additionally, the claims do not include the components or steps of the invention that would provide such improvements as described in the specification. [0071] of the instant specification recites “an image transmitted to client device 60 may be compressed or have lower resolution than an image stored in an image file 530. A user may thus quickly view various images associated with an inventory of stone slabs on client device.” There is no such detail made in the claim to reflect how a user may quickly view various images as described. [0050] of the instant specification recites “reduce latency time between user input selection and the corresponding display in the 3D scene… reduce the processing burden required to operate the client application” . It is not apparent that latency is reduced by the mere transmission of a compressed image and the identification information. Furthermore, a user input selection, the display of the 3D scene, and the operation of a client application are not claimed so as to reflect these alleged improvements. [0005] of the instant specification recites “improve performance and speed of a visualization system, while reducing the processing burden of server and client applications and/or latency time in communications between server and client applications”. Again, these features are not claimed to reflect such improvements- there is no claimed visualization system, nor is there claimed the operation of such applications, and furthermore there is not claimed a specific manner of data communication between any such applications.
The compression of the images is not described in such a way that there is an inventive approach for compressing the images- but rather any known image compression algorithm may be leveraged. Likewise, the transmission of images is not claimed in any meaningful capacity to demonstrate inventive concepts beyond any known and conventional means of transmitting data over a network. In a similar manner, the display of specific data is not positively recited in any meaningful capacity to demonstrate a quick viewing mechanism that is beyond any other well-known means by which to display images. The alleged improvement(s) to the production of stone slabs is not made apparent by the claim and appears to only exist in the specification in a conclusory manner without the recitation of details necessary for one of skill to recognize the improvements.
The applicant further argues that the features of the claim make the claim patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, citing case law examples without describing their significance or pertinence to the present claims. The applicant further argues that the claim includes a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts such as an improvement to computer functionality.
There are no limitations of the claim which demonstrate specific solutions in the software arts yielding improvements to computer functionality. The computer functionalities of the claims are all recited non-specifically and generically such that the claim encompasses any and all mechanisms by which to achieve the functionality. These are not specific and particularly identifiable function implementations that would demonstrate any such improvements to computer functionality or performance. In the consideration of improvements to a technology or technical field MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), in example iv, an improved, particular method of digital data compression may be sufficient to show an improvement to technology. However, there is absolutely no particularity to the method of image compression claimed in the present claims that it would be uniquely identifiable, much less demonstrate any sort of improvement. See in example MPEP 2106.05(f) describing the following types of features claimed and their respective consideration as amounting to generic computing components: “TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.”. This is much like the matter in the additional elements of the present claims.
The applicant lastly argues that the claim as a whole amounts to more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and argues that the MPEP requires analyzing the specification to determine whether the claims recite technical improvements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The MPEP specifically requires from section 2106.04(d)(1) “In short, 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”. The specification sets forth improvements in a conclusory manner while failing to provide details as to how a technological problem is solved by a specific solution. As such, the claims have been determined to not improve technology. In addition, the claims likewise do not include components or steps that provide the alleged improvement. The claim recites a series of steps which may be construed as mental process but are implemented by way of generically recited computers performing non-specific and routine existing computer functionalities in the technological environment of stone slab manufacturing. The additional elements of the claims do not set forth any inventive concepts but rather the inventive concept appears to be rooted in the steps which may be construed as mental process. For the rationale provided in this response, in conjunction with the updated rejection of this action, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The applicant has amended the independent claims in response to the rejection set forth in the previous action under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and argues that the features of the present claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
The arguments have been considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn. Further search was carried out in light of the added claim limitations but no additional prior art was found to cure the deficiencies of the art already of record.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 40 is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the claim recites the term “means” and includes functional language without corresponding structure recited in the claim.
Claim 40 recites “means for generating slab image files…”. When read in light of the specification, particularly paragraph [0059], a “means for generating slab image files” is understood to mean a camera. (Instant Specification, [0059], “Stone slab 50a may proceed to an image generator station 515 resulting in a high resolution slab image file 520 of stone slab 50a. In an exemplary embodiment, the image generator station 515 includes a camera (e.g., optionally, a "medium format" camera) mounted within an enclosure. Stone slab 50a may sequentially pass into the enclosure and within the field of view of the camera to be imaged.”)
Claim 40 also recites “means for storing the slab image files…”. When read in light of the specification, particularly paragraph [0095], a “means for storing the slab image files” is understood to mean a database. (Instant Specification, [0095], “Exemplary process 800 further includes operation 808 of storing a slab image file in a database. For example, one or more slab image files generated in operation 806 may be transferred to or otherwise stored in a database for subsequent access, use, modification and/or distribution. Operation 808 may include steps of storing the slab image file to a cloud-based database system and/or grouping the slab image files according to one or more features and characteristics stored as image metadata.”)
Claim 40 further recites “means for generating a first compressed image for the first slab image file and a second compressed image for the second slab image file…”. When read in light of the specification, this element does not appear to be described in such a way that any structure is apparent.
Claim 40 further recites “means for transferring identification of the single first stone slab…”. When read in light of the specification, particularly [0038], the means for transferring images or other data between the database and client device is one or more network communication devices (Instant Specification, [0038], “Server system 11 may include software programmed to receive and manipulate slab image files 20 and/or slab environment images (e.g. captured and/or received from client device 60), and/or combine at least some aspects of the images to generate a scene depicting a slab in an installation environment. Server system 11 includes one or more network communication devices 17 that provide communication between production database 30 and/or client device 60, and facilitate transfer of slab image files 20, slab environment images, and/or other data.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.
The limitation “means for generating a first compressed image for the first slab image file and a second compressed image for the second slab image file, the first and second compressed images having a lower resolution than an image included with each of the first and second slab image files in the production database; and ” in claim 40 lacks written description because the specification does not provide adequate details to fulfill the requirement. The support provided in the specification would not have permitted one having ordinary skill in the art to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process.
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.
Claim 40 is 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.
The claim limitation “means for generating a first compressed image for the first slab image file and a second compressed image for the second slab image file, the first and second compressed images having a lower resolution than an image included with each of the first and second slab image files in the production database; and ” in claim 40 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as stated above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification in [0071] describes that an image transmitted to the client device may be compressed of have lower resolution but does not describe the mechanism, algorithm, or specific steps for the generation of the compressed images ([0071] “The client device 60 may in turn display the image and/or selected data for viewing by a user. In some embodiments, an image transmitted to client device 60 may be compressed or have lower resolution than an image stored in image file 520.”). An image generator is described in the specification but is described as generating a high resolution image using a camera which is not the same as generating a compressed image ([0059] “In embodiments in which image generator station 515 includes a medium format camera, image 521 may be a medium format image. “);([0076] In an exemplary embodiment, process 600 includes an image generator operation 612 that can be used to generate an image associated with each stone slab processed by process 600. Image generating operation 612 may be performed after polishing operation 610 such that a polished slab can readily proceed to image generator operation 612. In an exemplary embodiment, image generating operation 612 generates a high resolution, medium format image associated with each stone slab.)
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 21 and 23-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong One - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2A Prong Two - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. This evaluation considers any additional elements in the claim beyond any recited judicial exceptions.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More. This evaluation is to evaluate if the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
The additional elements are evaluated to determine if any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Independent Claims:
Claim 21:
Step 1: Claim 21 and its dependent claims 23-34 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 21 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold italics:
identify a first slab image file from the production database that is similar to a second slab image file from the production database by comparing the one or more characteristics stored in the image metadata according to a predetermined and [[…]] slab identification sequence, wherein the predetermined and automated slab identification sequence comprises identifying the first and second slab image files based on (i) the first and second slab image files each having a same target slab style and (ii) the first and second slab image files each having a same target numeric color characteristic, the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs;. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and evaluating images files in a database according to color characteristics and a specified process that considers the same target slab style and the same target numeric color characteristic. This task may be performed using the human mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper. Though the claim appears to imply the use of a computing environment by way of using a database and performing the task automatically, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the human mind and those that are performed using assistive aids such and pen and paper or a generic computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a production database stored at a server system and including slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs and including:- This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering that is necessary to perform the mental process. The limitation has further been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for using generic computing components such as a database and a server system as tools to execute the abstract idea. The limitation is also identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use
an image of a major surface of the single stone slab, and- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs and also describes and limits the specific data that is used as part of the mental process.
image metadata including an identifier that uniquely identifies the single stone slab, and one or more characteristics of the single stone slab, the one or more characteristics including a numeric color characteristic and a slab style; This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs and using data that is pertinent to the field of use and technological environment also describes and limits the specific data that is used as part of the mental process.
the server system including software programmed to:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
query the production database to- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
automated (slab identification sequence)- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
generate, at the server system, a first compressed image for the first slab image file and a second compressed image for the second slab image file, the first and second compressed images having a lower resolution than an image included with each of the first and second slab image files in the production database; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computers to perform an existing process
transfer, from the server system, identification of the single first stone slab with the first compressed image and the single second stone slab with the second compressed image to a client application for display.- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
a production database stored at a server system and including slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs and including:– This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering that is necessary to perform the mental process. The courts have recognized the computer function of storing information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function
transfer, from the server system, identification of the single first stone slab with the first compressed image and the single second stone slab with the second compressed image to a client application for display- This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. The courts have recognized the computer function of transmitting data over a network as a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to execute the judicial exception or perform generic computer functions and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 35:
Step 1: Claim 35 and its dependent claims 36-39 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 35 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold italics:
identify a first slab image file from the production database and a second slab image file from the production database by comparing a similarity of color characteristics of the first and second slab image files stored in the image metadata according to a predetermined and [[…]] slab identification sequence, wherein the predetermined and automated slab identification sequence comprises identifying the first and second slab image files based on (i) the first and second slab image files each having a same target slab style and (ii) the first and second slab image files each having a same target numeric color characteristic, the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs;. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and evaluating images files in a database according to color characteristics and a specified process that considers the same target slab style and the same target numeric color characteristic. This task may be performed using the human mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper. Though the claim appears to imply the use of a computing environment by way of using a database and performing the task automatically, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the human mind and those that are performed using assistive aids such and pen and paper or a generic computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
storing slab image files at a production database of a server system, the slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file including: This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering that is necessary to perform the mental process. The limitation has further been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for using generic computing components such as a database and a server system as tools to execute the abstract idea. The limitation is also identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use
an image of a major surface of the single stone slab, and- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs and also describes and limits the specific data that is used as part of the mental process.
image metadata including an identifier that uniquely identifies the single stone slab, and one or more characteristics of the single stone slab, the one or more characteristics including a numeric color characteristic and a slab style; This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs and using data that is pertinent to the field of use and technological environment also describes and limits the specific data that is used as part of the mental process.
querying the production database to- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
automated (slab identification sequence)- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
generating a first compressed image for the first slab image file and a second compressed image for the second slab image file, the first and second compressed images having a lower resolution than an image included with each of the first and second slab image files in the production database; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computers to perform an existing process
transferring identification of the first stone slab with the first compressed image and the single second stone slab with the second compressed image to a client application for display. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
storing slab image files at a production database of a server system, the slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file including:– This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering that is necessary to perform the mental process. The courts have recognized the computer function of storing information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function
transferring identification of the first stone slab with the first compressed image and the single second stone slab with the second compressed image to a client application for display.- This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. The courts have recognized the computer function of transmitting data over a network as a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to execute the judicial exception or perform generic computer functions and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 40:
Step 1: Claim 40 is directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 40 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold italics:
identified as similar to a second slab image file from the production database based on comparison of the one or more color characteristics of the first slab image file with the one or more color characteristics of the second slab image file stored in the image metadata according to a predetermined and [[…]] slab identification sequence, wherein the predetermined and [[…]] slab identification sequence comprises identifying the first and second slab image files based on (i) the first and second slab image files each having a same target slab style and (ii) the first and second slab image files each having a same target numeric color characteristic, the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and evaluating images files in a database according to color characteristics and a specified process that considers the same target slab style and the same target numeric color characteristic. This task may be performed using the human mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper. Though the claim appears to imply the use of a computing environment by way of using a database and performing the task automatically, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the human mind and those that are performed using assistive aids such and pen and paper or a generic computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
means for generating slab image files associated with a physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file associated with only a single stone slab in the physical inventory of stone slabs, each slab image file including: This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation links the judicial exception to a technological environment to employ image processing. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
an image of a major surface of the single stone slab, and- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs and also describes and limits the specific data that is used as part of the mental process.
image metadata including an identifier that uniquely identifies the single stone slab, and one or more characteristics of the single stone slab, the one or more characteristics including a numeric color characteristic and a slab style; and This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it further describes the field of use of imaging stone slabs and using data that is pertinent to the field of use and technological environment also describes and limits the specific data that is used as part of the mental process.
means for storing the slab image files including a first slab image file from a production database configured to be- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea. This limitation has been further identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
automated (slab identification sequence)- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers or other machinery as tools to execute the abstract idea.
means for generating a first compressed image for the first slab image file and a second compressed image for the second slab image file, the first and second compressed images having a lower resolution than an image included with each of the first and second slab image files in the production database; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computers to perform an existing process
means for transferring identification of the single first stone slab with the first compressed image and the single stone slab with the second compressed image to a client application for display.. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
means for storing the slab image files including a first slab image file from a production database configured to be- – This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering that is necessary to perform the mental process. The courts have recognized the computer function of storing information in memory as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function
means for transferring identification of the single first stone slab with the first compressed image and the single stone slab with the second compressed image to a client application for display.- This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. The courts have recognized the computer function of transmitting data over a network as a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to execute the judicial exception or perform generic computer functions and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 23
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 23, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 23 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 23 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristic represents an overall color characteristic of the associated stone slab. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 24
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 24, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 24 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 24 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristic includes a color intensity value, color uniformity value, or color tonality value. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 25
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 25, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 25 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 25 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristic includes a veining characteristic. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 26
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 26, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 26 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 26 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristic includes a flow characteristic. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 27
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 27, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 27 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 27 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristic includes a location specific color characteristic. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 28
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 28, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 28 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 28 additionally recites the limitation wherein the one or more characteristics includes a gloss value. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 29
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 29, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 29 additionally recites the limitation wherein the image of the major surface of the single stone slab has an image length and an image width, the single stone slab has a stone slab length and a stone slab width, and the one or more characteristics includes a numeric ratio of the stone slab length to the image length (Lslab/Limage), which can reasonably be read to entail deriving a numeric ratio based on the measurements of a stone slab and measurements of an image of a stone slab. The recitation of a numeric ratio is the explicit recitation of a mathematical relationship. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 29 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 30
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 30, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 30 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 30 additionally recites the limitations a first numeric value corresponding to a first visual quality of the single stone slab, and and a second numeric value corresponding to a second visual quality of the single stone slab. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 31
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 31, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 31 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 31 additionally recites the limitation wherein the server system includes software programmed to receive the first and second slab image files from the production database and an environment image of a slab installation environment. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. Claim 31 also recites the limitation and generate a 3D scene depicting at least a portion of major surfaces of first and second stone slabs associated with the first and second slab image files in the slab installation environment. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of insignificant application of data outputting to a display. The courts have ruled appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because limitations were identified as insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, the limitations must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. For the limitation wherein the server system includes software programmed to receive the first and second slab image files from the production database and an environment image of a slab installation environment, when read in light of the specification, the database can be stored on a server system or remotely ((Instant Specification, [0040]) "The slab image file and/or environment image may be received from production database 30 stored at server system 11, a remote production database 30, client device 60, or another repository of slab image files or environment images. In some embodiments, a user may transmit one or more environment images of the installation environment from client device 60 (e.g. by capturing an environment device via image capturing device 65 and transmitting the image from client device 60 to server system 11). “). The courts have found that the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network and the function of storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine and conventional activities. For the limitation generate a 3D scene depicting at least a portion of major surfaces of first and second stone slabs associated with the first and second slab image files in the slab installation environment, when read in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses generic computing devices such as a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop or a desktop which all have displays. The specification further provides examples of other display mechanisms such as a touch screen, projector, virtual reality simulator, 3d display or the like ((Instant Specification, [0039]) "Client device 60 includes a user interface display 61, network communication device 62, one or more inputs 63 for user commands, and a client application. Client device 60 is a device configured to receive information related to one or more stone slabs in the physical inventory of stone slabs 50 from server system 11. In various exemplary embodiments, client device 60 may be a consumer device, such as a consumer computing device, and/or may include a smartphone, personal digital assistance, tablet computing device, laptop computing device, desktop computing device, or the like. User interface display 61 may deliver visual output to a user related to the physical inventory of stone slabs 50, such as a scene depicting a stone slab in an installation environment. In various exemplary embodiments, user interface display 61 may include a touch screen, projector, virtual reality simulator, 3D display, or the like."). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitation recites the generic use of a display in which to generate a 3D scene. Rendering 3D scenes to a generic display is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity, as supported by the evidence of commercially-available off-the-shelf software that is capable of performing this task. An example of such software is Autodesk 3ds Max (Autodesk, “Autodesk 3ds Max: Create immersive worlds and high-quality designs“, Accessed May 30, 2025, https://www.autodesk.com/products/3ds-max/overview), hereinafter referred to as Autodesk, which is a 3d modeling and animation software that enables modeling and rendering of 3d scenes to a generic computer display. ((Autodesk, Overview, ¶1) "What is Autodesk 3ds Max? Autodesk 3ds Max professional 3D modeling, rendering, and animation software enables you to create expansive worlds and premium designs.") The courts have found that limitations that amount to simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities to a judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 32
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 32, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 32 additionally recites the limitation wherein the server system is further programmed to determine a geometry of a target area of the slab installation environment where the first and second stone slabs are to be installed, and wherein the target area has a different geometry than the major surfaces of the first and second stone slabs., which can reasonably be read to entail utilizing a generic computing component (software) as a tool to evaluate an installation environment where slabs are to be installed and determining a geometry of the stones to cut from the full major surface of the stone to fit into the installation environment. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Usage of a generic computing tool (software) to perform the mental process does still amounts to the recitation of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 21 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 33
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 33, the judicial exception of independent claim 21 is further incorporated.. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 33 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 33 additionally recites the limitation wherein the inventory of stone slabs comprises processed stone slabs. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 34
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 34, the judicial exception(s) of independent claim 21 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 34 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 34 additionally recites the limitation wherein the inventory of stone slabs comprises quarried stone slabs. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 36
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 36, the judicial exception of independent claim 35 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 36 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 36 additionally recites the limitations wherein the one or more characteristics include: a first numeric value corresponding to a first visual quality of the single stone slab, and a second numeric value corresponding to a second visual quality of the single stone slab. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 37
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 37, the judicial exception of independent claim 35 is further incorporated The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 37 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 37 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristics includes a numeric value that represents an overall color characteristic of the associated stone slab. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 38
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 38, the judicial exception of independent claim 35 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 38 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 38 additionally recites the limitation wherein the color characteristics includes a gloss value and a location associated with the gloss value. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 39
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 39, the judicial exception of independent claim 35 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 39 additionally recites the limitation further comprising: determining a location for a seam based on the color characteristics., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating color characteristics of stone slab image information to determine a seam location. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
Step 2A Prong 2& Step 2B: Claim 39 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 23-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the applicable outstanding rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The independent claims 21, 35, and 40 are considered allowable over the prior art since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP 2111.01, none of the prior art references of record, either alone or in combination, fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the claims, including at least:
In claim 21:
query the production database to identify a first slab image file from the production database that is similar to a second slab image file from the production database by comparing the one or more characteristics stored in the image metadata according to a predetermined and automated slab identification sequence, wherein the predetermined and automated slab identification sequence comprises identifying the first and second slab image files based on (i) the first and second slab image files each having a same target slab style and (ii) the first and second slab image files each having a same target numeric color characteristic, the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs;
generate, at the server system, a first compressed image for the first slab image file and a second compressed image for the second slab image file, the first and second compressed images having a lower resolution than an image included with each of the first and second slab image files in the production database; and
transfer, from the server system, identification of the single first stone slab with the first compressed image and the single second stone slab with the second compressed image to a client application for display.
In claim 35:
querying the production database to identify a first slab image file from the production database and a second slab image file from the production database by comparing a similarity of color characteristics of the first and second slab image files stored in the image metadata according to a predetermined and automated slab identification sequence, wherein the predetermined and automated slab identification sequence comprises identifying the first and second slab image files based on (i) the first and second slab image files each having a same target slab style and (ii) the first and second slab image files each having a same target numeric color characteristic, the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs;
generating a first compressed image for the first slab image file and a second compressed image for the second slab image file, the first and second compressed images having a lower resolution than an image included with each of the first and second slab image files in the production database; and
transferring identification of the first stone slab with the first compressed image and the single second stone slab with the second compressed image to a client application for display.
And in claim 40:
means for storing the slab image files including a first slab image file from a production database configured to be identified as similar to a second slab image file from the production database based on comparison of the one or more color characteristics of the first slab image file with the one or more color characteristics of the second slab image file stored in the image metadata according to a predetermined and automated slab identification sequence, wherein the predetermined and automated slab identification sequence comprises identifying the first and second slab image files based on (i) the first and second slab image files each having a same target slab style and (ii) the first and second slab image files each having a same target numeric color characteristic, the first slab image file associated with a single first stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs and the second slab image file associated with a single second stone slab from the physical inventory of stone slabs;
means for generating a first compressed image for the first slab image file and a second compressed image for the second slab image file, the first and second compressed images having a lower resolution than an image included with each of the first and second slab image files in the production database; and
means for transferring identification of the single first stone slab with the first compressed image and the single stone slab with the second compressed image to a client application for display.
The closest prior art of record includes:
Morgan et Al (US 2007/0282718 A1) which teaches a system for producing stone slabs wherein the system includes a data managements system where images and associated data for each slab in an inventory are stored. The system further includes an image station that generates a visual image of a stone slab with specified zones such as top and bottom as major surfaces areas of the imaged stones. The system further includes a database where slab images are associated with specific data associated with the slab and the image. The data management system is described as being in communication with a customer interface wherein images or data associated with each slab are stored on the data management system and available for access at the customer interface. The reference does not contemplate an automated slab identification sequence to identify two slabs with the same style and target numeric color characteristic. Furthermore, images are not described as being compressed.
Martinez-Alajarin et Al. (Martinez-Alajarin, J., Luis-Delgado, J., Tomas-Balibrea, L., “Automatic System for Quality-Based Classification of Marble Textures”, Nov. 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics- Part C: Applications and Reviews, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp 488-497) discloses the characteristics of imaged slabs comprising color and textural information, wherein the features can be further characterized by statistical numeric parameters. The reference further teaches a system for classifying stone slabs through computational algorithms using images of stone slabs. While the classification is automated, the reference does not contemplate identifying two distinct slabs but merely classifies marble slabs into different groups in real time according to slab quality, colorimetric, and textural properties. The reference does not contemplate the compression of images, nor the transfer of identification and associated compressed images from a server system to a client system for display.
Shakes et al. (US 9,524,485 B1) teaches a server system including software programmed to query a production database for identification of items in an inventory. Individual items in the database may contain information that distinguishes like items such that each individual item in an inventory is uniquely identifiable based on the association information. The reference further describes a plurality of items being identifiable from a database wherein pattern information that identifies the product can be transmitted to a communication client device for display. The reference does not contemplate the compression of images nor the transfer of such compressed images. Nor does the reference contemplate any sort of predetermined and automated slab identification sequence according to the style and target numeric color characteristics.
MacInnes et al (US 20050081161 A1) teaches a method in client-server computing for generating and rendering photorealistic scenes for interior design purposes. The reference describes leveraging compressed images from a central repository for use on a local client device to reduce computational overhead ([0074]) and further describes transferring files from an online repository to a local library of an application for visualizing a scene with objects in it ([0053]). The reference describes capabilities of visualizing and customizing designs of at least stone-based designs (Table 1). Further, the system describes an intelligent matching and replacing engine that can search for similar make and type of objects ([0136]). However, the reference is not particular to management of stone slab inventory and does not contemplate the identification of slabs and associated images for two distinct slabs according to the same style and same target numeric color characteristic.
Cortes Izurdiaga et al (ES2385882A1) teaches an automated recognition system for natural stone that creates a unique digital record for each slab where all the characteristics of the slab are reflected in a digital format, as metadata. The method collects raw images for each slab and the said image is converted into different formats, according to the characteristics to be analyzed for recognition. The method describes particularly not comparing images directly but comparing the slabs by their unique corresponding digital file that characterizes the original image. The parameters within the file include visual characteristics in the form of numerical data and can be for vein color, spot color, background color, or the like. The slabs may also be characterized according to aesthetic categories, as a unique style. The reference does not contemplate the compression of the raw images, nor the transfer of any such compressed images from a server to a client device for display.
No additional prior art was found to cure the deficiencies of these references.
When taken as a whole, the dependent claims have been found allowable over the prior art for at least the above features recited in the independent claims upon which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights