DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/10/2025 has been entered.
Claims Amendment
The amendment filed 10/10/25 has been entered.
(1) Independent claims: 1, 9 and 10.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-10 are pending. They comprising of 3 groups:
1) Apparatus1: 1, and 4-7, and
2) Method1: 9, and
3) Method2: 10.
As of 10/10/25, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently amended) A board signage safety system for use in a railway right-of-way, the system comprising:
[I] a plurality of signs, each of the plurality of signs having data for verification associated therewith, each of the plurality of signs having sign identification data thereon, each of the plurality of signs including guidance to maintain safety in the railway right-of- way; and
[II] a smart device having non-transitory memory accessible to a processor and a camera, the non-transitory memory including processor-executable instructions that, when executed, by the processor cause the system to:
[1] receive a board signage locationing data from a remote server, the board signage locationing data specifying designated sign placement geolocation information and sign identification data for each of the plurality of signs,
[2] establish a pairing with a particular sign, by way of one of data entry into the smart device and verification with the camera, according to the board signage locationing data, the particular sign being one of the plurality of signs,
[3] capture media comprising a photograph or video of physically installing the particular sign using the camera;
[4] in response to physically installing the particular sign, send an acknowledgement to the remote server, the acknowledgment including the sign identification data, the captured media, and global positioning system data relative to the particular sign, the global positioning system data including time and location information, and
[5] receive a verification signal from the remote server, the verification signal indicating a verification status of the particular sign, the verification signal including a notification selected from the group consisting of correct installation relative to the particular sign and incorrect installation relative to the establishment of the particular sign, the verification signal being generated by comparing the global-positioning-system data for the particular sign with the designated sign- placement geolocation information and indicating correct installation when the coordinates fall within a preset tolerance and incorrect installation when the coordinates do not fall within the preset tolerance, and append the acknowledgement and the verification status to a board-signage safety database,
[6] wherein the verification signal is generated by comparing the global- positioning-system data for the particular sign with the designated sign-placement geolocation information and indicating correct installation when the coordinates fall within a preset tolerance and incorrect installation when the coordinates do not fall within the preset tolerance, and
[7] when the verification signal indicates incorrect installation, the smart device automatically presents an alert requiring physical repositioning of the particular sign before further work can proceed, the alert being presented as an audio and/or visual in-application notification, wherein the smart device repeats the capture- and-acknowledge cycle until a subsequent verification signal indicates correct installation,
[8] after a verification signal indicating correct installation is received, the board-signage safety server locks an installation record for the particular sign against further modification, and
[9] present, on the smart device, an establishment map showing locations with GPS data and preferred routing information for a subsequent sign.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[9] are added to the beginning of each element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1) In independent claim 1, steps [5] “the verification signal…” and [6] “wherein the verification signal…”, as cited above, are vague because the amended feature of step [6] is cited previously in step [5] and generate duplicate steps in steps [5]-[6] which is vague.
Summary of Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/25 have been fully considered and the results are as followed:
(1) 112, 2nd rejection: withdrawn due to amendment.
(2) 101 Rejection: maintained because arguments are not persuasive. See the back.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-7 (system), and 9 and 10 (method) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1: Statutory Category
1) System (apparatus): 1, 4-7.
(1) Claim 1 comprises: a) a plurality of signs, b) a smart device, c) a camera, to cause the system to carry steps of: (1) receive data, (2) establish a pairing with a particular sign, (3) capture media, (4) send an acknowledgement, (5) receive a verification signal, (6) append data to the database, [7] present an alert, [8] lock a record, and [9] present a map.
* Conclusion: claims 1 and 4-7 falls within a statutory category.
2) Method: 9 and 10.
(2) Claim 11 comprises: steps for (1) providing a plurality of sings, (2) establish a pairing with a particular sign, (3) capture media, (4) send an acknowledgement, (5) receive a verification signal, (6) append data to the database, [7] present an alert, [8] lock a record, and [9] present a map.
Conclusion: Claims 11 and 12 fall within a statutory category.
Claims 12-14 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One: Recitation of Judicial exception
Independent claims 1 (system) and respective 11 (method) recite abstract ideas within the (i) “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping under the 2019 PEG, specifically:
1. Fundamental economic practices/commercial interactions:
The claim is directed to a project management for installing a board signage safety for use in a railway right-of-way and verifying the installation to ensure proper location - activities that are fundamental economic practices.
Clauses:
(1) providing a plurality of sings, (2) establish a pairing with a particular sign, (3) capture media, (4) send an acknowledgement including sign identification data, captured image, GPS data of the sign, (5) receive a verification signal, (6) append data to the database, [7] present an alert, [8] lock a record, and [9] present a map.
These steps describe the organization of a project management: providing the sign location, (2) establish a pairing with a particular sign, (3) capture media, (4) send an acknowledgement including sign identification data, captured image, GPS data of the sign, (5) receive a verification signal, (6) append data to the database, [7] present an alert, [8] lock a record, and [9] present a map showing the signs. This is managing the installation of a sign with verification of the location of the sign based on design or projected to determine proper installation and send alert if not proper and show a map of the installed signs.
Furthermore, independent claims 1, and 9 and 10 recite an abstract idea related to organization of a project management: providing the sign location, (2) establish a pairing with a particular sign, (3) capture media, (4) send an acknowledgement including sign identification data, captured image, GPS data of the sign, (5) receive a verification signal, (6) append data to the database, [7] present an alert, [8] lock a record, and [9] present a map showing the signs, constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. For example, facilitate purchasing an item, a battery, and recycling the item.
B. Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application?
This requires additional elements or a combination of elements that:
(i) Improve the functioning of a computer or other technology;
(ii) Apply the exception with a particular machine;
(iii) Effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing;
(iv) Apply the exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment (field of use).
Evaluation of Additional Elements:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps Types
[1] providing the sign location. Data gathering, IE-SA.
Insignificant extra solution activity (IE-SA).
(2) establish a pairing with a particular sign, Mental/Analysis/compare.
(3) capture media comprise photograph (data) Data gathering.
(4) send an acknowledgement (data) Mental/analysis/reception of data.
(5) receive a verification signal, Analysis/result.
(6) append data to the database, Storage of data, IE-SA.
[7] present an alert (data). Data transmitting, displaying, IA-SA.
[8] lock a record, and Insignificant post solution activity.
[9] present a map showing the signs (data) Data displaying, IE-SA.
As shown above, steps [1], [3], [6], [7], [8] and [9] are mere data gathering, data generation, data transmitting, data displaying and data storage, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Steps [2], [4], and [5] are fundamental economic practices/commercial interactions or mental analysis for managing the installation of a board signage safety for use in a railway right-of-way. The additional computer elements of (1) database for storing data, (2) a processing unit, (3) a memory, and (4) and computer instructions for carrying out the steps, are generic computer devices performing generic computer functions.
(1) a sign :
The sign is claimed at a high level of generality – “ a sign” or “item” or “stop sign” being installed. It requires no specific structure and can be just “data” or “information.”
(2) Smart device – a generic computer having memory accessible to a processor and a camera, when the memory having instructions when executed by the processor, cause the system to carry out the steps. The remote computer functions as a generic computer and does not apply the abstract idea in a manner that meets the test (i)-(iv) above.
(3) Remote server – a computer functions as a generic computer and does not apply the abstract idea in a manner that meets the test (i)-(iv) above.
Conclusion: no practical application.
C. Step 2B: Significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
Because the claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, the analysis proceeds to step 2B: do the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the exception?
1. Individual Element Analysis:
(1) a sign :
The sign is claimed at a high level of generality – “ a sign” or “item” or “stop sign” being installed. It requires no specific structure and can be just “data” or “information.”
(2) Smart device – a generic computer having memory accessible to a processor and a camera, when the memory having instructions when executed by the processor, cause the system to carry out the steps. The remote computer functions as a generic computer and does not apply the abstract idea in a manner that meets the test (i)-(iv) above.
(3) Remote server – a computer functions as a generic computer and does not apply the abstract idea in a manner that meets the test (i)-(iv) above.
(3) Computer-implemented application: is recited in purely functional terms. Generic computing devices performing generic functions (data storage, retrieval, transaction processing, establish a pairing, scheduling, ordering, executing, sending, displaying, etc.,) are well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC). These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
2. Ordered Combination Analysis:
Here the combination of items “signs, smart device, server, computer-implemented application” do not create a synergy / significantly more than the abstract idea that results in a technical improvement.
As for dependent claims 4-5 (part of 1 above), which deal with acknowledgement features, i.e. a confirmation, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1. In addition, they recite the types of verification features. Even in combination, these additional elements do not (2B) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 6 (part of 1 above), which further plan deals with signal disestablishment plan, the claim recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1. Even in combination, these additional elements do not (2B) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 7 (part of 1 above), which deals with verification signal features, i.e. a notification of correct dismantling and types of project, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1. In addition, they recite the types of verification signal. Even in combination, these additional elements do not (2B) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-7, and 9-10 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
D. Conclusion: claims 1, 4-7 and 9-10 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/25 have been fully considered and the results are as followed:
(2) 101 Rejection: maintained because arguments are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (directed-to-analysis)
Application’s comment that the claim center the claim on sensor-based geolocation comparison that tied to real world location, not an abstract plan management, is noted however, the “collected /received data” is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) so how the collected data is measured or generated, i.e. by sensor, is not significant.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (integration into a practical application)
Applicant’s comments are not persuasive since steps [1], [3], [6], [7], [8] and [9] are mere data gathering, data generation, data transmitting, data displaying and data storage, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Steps [2], [4], and [5] are fundamental economic practices/commercial interactions or mental analysis for managing the installation of a board signage safety for use in a railway right-of-way. The additional computer elements of (1) database for storing data, (2) a processing unit, (3) a memory, and (4) and computer instructions for carrying out the steps, are generic computer devices performing generic computer functions. The additional elements or a combination of elements does not:
(i) Improve the functioning of a computer or other technology;
(ii) Apply the exception with a particular machine;
(iii) Effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing;
(iv) Apply the exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment (field of use).
Step 2B (inventive concept)
Applicant’s comments are not persuasive since steps [1], [3], [6], [7], [8] and [9] are mere data gathering, data generation, data transmitting, data displaying and data storage, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Steps [2], [4], and [5] are fundamental economic practices/commercial interactions or mental analysis for managing the installation of a board signage safety for use in a railway right-of-way. The additional computer elements of (1) database for storing data, (2) a processing unit, (3) a memory, and (4) and computer instructions for carrying out the steps, are generic computer devices performing generic computer functions. Here the combination of items “signs, smart device, server, computer-implemented application” do not create a synergy / significantly more than the abstract idea that results in a technical improvement.
The additional elements or a combination of elements does not:
(i) Improve the functioning of a computer or other technology;
(ii) Apply the exception with a particular machine;
(iii) Effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing;
(iv) Apply the exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment (field of use).
Applicant’s citations of the benefits on page 19 under step 2B are not persuasive in view of the arguments above.
Citations of relevant Arts
The teaching of WO 2004/095173 in view of LEE, US 2018/0.302.354 and ZDROIK, US 2018/0.306.893, do not teach the steps and features of independent claims 1, 9 or 10.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689