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 .
Claims Amendment
The amendment filed 05/15/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
[I] a plurality of physical board signs configured for installation and later dismantling in the railway right-of-way,
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Amended 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 05/15/26, independent claim 1 is as followed:
(Currently amended) A board signage safety system for use in a railway right-of-way, the system comprising:
[I] a plurality of physical board signs configured for installation and later dismantling in the railway right-of-way, each of the plurality of physical board signs having data for verification associated therewith, each of the plurality of physical board signs having sign identification data thereon, each of the plurality of physical board signs including guidance to maintain safety in the railway right- of-way;
[II] a remote server having access to a board signage safety database, wherein a board signage safety application runs on the remote server, the board signage safety application including graphics data tools and geolocationing tools, wherein the graphics data tools operate on a site plan or other vector graphics data files with texture identifiers or two-dimensional or three-dimensional map image files specified in one or more map tiles to create augmented data for the site plan to determine signs and sign locations, and wherein the geolocationing tools interface with geolocationing data embedded in the site plan and geolocationing data provided on-site by a smart device; and
[III] the 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 board signage locationing data from a the remote server, the board signage locationing data specifying designated sign placement geolocation information and sign identification data for each of the plurality of physical board signs and including at least a portion of the augmented data for the site plan,
[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 physical board 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 the geolocationing tools interfacing with the geolocationing data embedded in the site plan and the geolocationing data provided on-site by the smart device, including by comparing the global-positioning-system data for the particular sign with the designated sign-placement geolocation information and indicating correct installation or incorrect installation, and the remote server appending the acknowledgement and the verification status to the board signage safety database, [6] when the verification signal indicates incorrect installation, the smart device automatically presents an alert as an audio, visual, or audio visual in- application notice indicating incorrect installation, wherein the smart device repeats the capture-and-acknowledge cycle after disestablishment and establishment or re-establishment of the particular sign until a subsequent verification signal indicates correct installation, [7] following receipt of a signal from the smart device that an incident has occurred, the remote server locks the information and data stored at the board signage safety database about the particular project so that the information and data are only accessible by designated parties, and
[8] present, on the smart device, an establishment map showing locations with GPS data and preferred routing information for establishment of a series of signs.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[9] are added to the beginning of each element.
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 is a system for a project workflow management of a proper installation of a board signage (sign) for use in a railway, comprising: a) a plurality of physical board signs, b) a remote server, c) board signage safety database, d) a board signage safety application, e) a smart device, f) a processor, and g) a camera, to cause the system to carry steps of: (1) receive board signage location data, (2) establish a pairing with a particular sign, (3) capture media (photograph/video) of installing the particular sign, (4) send an acknowledgement of the installed sign to the remote server, (5) receive a verification signal including the installed sign, (6) append data to the database (BSS), [7] present an alert, [8] lock the information record, and [9] present a map showing the installation of a series of signs.
* Conclusion: claims 1 and 4-7 falls within a statutory category.
2) Method: 9 and 10.
(2) Claim 9 and 10 comprises steps for a project workflow management of a proper installation of a board signage (sign) for use in a railway, comprising steps of: (1) receive board signage location data, (2) establish a pairing with a particular sign, (3) capture media (photograph/video) of installing the particular sign, (4) send an acknowledgement of the installed sign to the remote server, (5) receive a verification signal including the installed sign, (6) append data to the database (BSS), [7] present an alert, [8] lock the information record, and [9] present a map showing the installation of a series of signs.
(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 9 and 10 fall within a statutory category.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-10 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 workflow management for properly installing a board signage (signs) for use in a railway right-of-way and verifying the installation to ensure proper location - activities that are fundamental economic practices.
Clauses:
(1) receive board signage location data, (2) establish a pairing with a particular sign, (3) capture media (photograph/video) of installing the particular sign, (4) send an acknowledgement of the installed sign to the remote server, (5) receive a verification signal including the installed sign, (6) append data to the database (BSS), [7] present an alert, [8] lock the information record, and [9] present a map showing the installation of a series of signs.
These steps describe the organization of a workflow 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. This workflow management 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:
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
Steps Types
[1] receive sign location data. 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.
(5a) receive a verification signal, Mental/analysis/verifying result.
(5b) append data to the database, Storage of data, IE-SA.
[6] verifying: negative, send alert (data). Data transmitting, displaying, IA-SA.
[7] incident occurs, locks information, and Insignificant post solution activity.
[8] present a map showing the signs (data) Data displaying, IE-SA.
As shown above, steps [1], [3], [5b], [6], and [8] are mere data gathering, data generation, data transmitting, data displaying and data storage, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Step [7] is insignificant post solution activity.
Steps [2], [4], and [5a] are fundamental economic practices/commercial interactions or mental analysis for managing a project or workflow management for 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.
(4) A board signage safety application including graphics data tools and geolocationing tools are considered as well understood, routine and conventional tools for graphics design and data management tool.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/26 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.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (directed-to-analysis)
Application’s comment on page 19 that the claims require a board signage safety (BSS) application running on a remote server and including graphics data tools and geolocationing tools to create augmented site-plan data which is not abstract idea is noted but not persuasive. The concept of creating site-plan with proper allocation of signs for improving safety can be carried out manually using one’s mind on a map with a pencil to mark various signs on the map to improve safety. The step of receiving a verification signal from the remote server and how the verification of the proper installation of sign at a certain location using geolocationing tools appear to be computer automation of a manual step for comparing of the location where the sign is supposed to be installed with the actual location where the sign is installed. This appears to be automation of the “verifying the location of the installed sign.”
PNG
media_image1.png
618
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The workflow management of a proper installation of a board signage (sign) for use in a railway in the independent claims appear to be shown in Fig. 5 above, which is a series of interactive steps between the server, app on the smart device, and the board signs. The server, the app on the smart device and the board signages appear to be generics computer functions and elements for carrying well known computer functions of data analysis for verifying the correct installation of a sign on a geographic location using GPS and other geolocationing device.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (integration into a practical application)
Applicant’s comments are not persuasive since steps [1], [3], [5b], [6], and [8] are mere data gathering, data generation, data transmitting, data displaying and data storage, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Step [7] is insignificant post solution activity.
Steps [2], [4], and [5a] are fundamental economic practices/commercial interactions or mental analysis for managing a project or workflow management for 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], [5b], [6], and [8] are mere data gathering, data generation, data transmitting, data displaying and data storage, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Step [7] is insignificant post solution activity.
Steps [2], [4], and [5a] are fundamental economic practices/commercial interactions or mental analysis for managing a project or workflow management for 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).
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
Prosecution Insights