DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 10/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 6 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully
consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed
invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed
by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the
claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the
invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the
specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology
familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can
be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited
references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the
applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of
compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1 and 3 to correct minor informalities. Objections to claims 1 and 3 due to minor informalities are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 4-5, 8, and the cancelation of claim 6. Rejections to claims 4-5 and 8 due to lack of clarity are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Rejections to claims are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.2 Ln.3-19] that amended claim 1 isn’t directed towards an abstract idea because the claim limitations “require processing geometric models of physical objects in a specific spatial arrangement and require processing three-dimensional point group data and solid models extracted therefrom, these features are not practically performable in the human mind, and thus do not fall within the abstract idea category of mental processes.” Applicant also argues claim 1 is directed towards a practical application “to process three-dimensional point group data of physical cables and utility poles.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1, 3-5 are directed towards a device, therefore fall within the statutory category of a machine. Claim 7 is directed to a method, as such this claim falls within the statutory category of process. And Claim 8 is directed to a CRM, as such this claim falls within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A: Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 7 are directed towards an abstract idea (Mental Processes performed on a generic computer per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) – see 35 USC §101 analysis below.
Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre-solution, mere data gathering per MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional claim limitations identified (e.g. Claim 1), outside the judicial exception, can be summarized as receiving data (i.e. mere data gathering necessary for the claimed process of line diagram creation).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Since the additional elements of receiving data are directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre solution) and have been determined to be well understood, routine, conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d), claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar rationale for rejection is provided for claims 3-5, and 7-8 below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims. Previous rejections to claims 1, 7-8 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6 states “two endpoints repsectively attached” and should read “two endpoints respectively attached”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 3-5 are directed to a device, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a machine.
Claim 7 is directed to a method, as such this claim falls within the statutory category of process.
Claim 8 is directed to a CRM, as such this claim falls within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims recite Mental Processes performed on a computer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
measuring a height of a lowest point on each of the plurality of the cable
models disposed in the same span, (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Specifically, this limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably evaluate a plurality of cable models to determine the lowest point and then measure a height therefrom.)
determining a first owner of a cable disposed at the highest position and a
second owner of a cable disposed at the lowest position in the same span, (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. observe, evaluate, judge) which cables are at the highest/lowest positions and then determine a first/second owner thereof.)
linking information of the first owner of the cable disposed at the highest
position to a cable model disposed at the highest position among the plurality of the cable models, (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably link, or associate (observe, evaluate), owner information to a cable model.)
linking information of the second owner of the cable disposed at the lowest
position to a cable model disposed at the lowest position among the plurality of the cable models (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably link, or associate (observe, evaluate), owner information to a cable model.)
a line diagram creation unit comprising a computer processor and configured to create a line diagram including the cable model disposed at the highest position to which the information of the first owner is linked and the cable model disposed at the lowest position to which the information of the second owner is linked (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer since a person can reasonably draw (i.e. create) a line diagram, with the aid of pen/paper, to include the cable model disposed at the highest position to which the information of the first owner is linked and the cable model disposed at the lowest position to which the information of the second owner is linked.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra Solution Activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
a model determination unit comprising a computer processor and configured to receive a plurality of cable models representing a plurality of cables, each cable model serving as a solid model of a cable extracted from three-dimensional point group data, wherein the plurality of the cable models are disposed in a same span between two utility pole models, each cable model includes two endpoints repsectively attached to the two utility pole models (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, such as receiving a plurality of cable models for use in a process for creating line diagrams.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering). MPEP 2106.05(g) states “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document.”
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claim 3 recites, wherein the model determination unit is configured to calculate a distance between a plurality of endpoints of the plurality of cable models in a height direction, for at least one of the plurality of cable models with the distance exceeding a first setting value determined in advance, determine an owner of a cable individually in accordance with a determination table, and link the information of the owner of the cable determined to a corresponding cable model of at least one cable model exceeding the first setting value. The additional feature(s) limitation(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception) - MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance, “to calculate’, “determine”, and
“link” information are considered mental processes (i.e. abstract idea). Therefore, the
claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites, wherein an endpoint of each cable model is connected to one of the two utility pole models serving as a solid model of a utility pole, and the utility pole model is connected to a supporting wire model or supporting pole model serving as a solid model of a supporting wire or a supporting pole, the model determination unit is configured to calculate a distance in a height direction from the endpoint of each cable model to a connection position between the supporting wire model or supporting pole model and the utility pole model, for at least one cable model of a plurality of the cable models with the distance exceeding a second setting value determined in advance, determine an owner of the cable individually in accordance with a determination table, and link information of the owner of the cable determined to a corresponding cable model of the at least one cable model exceeding the second setting value. The additional feature(s) limitation(s) further elaborates the claim 1/3 abstract idea and also amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception) - MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance, “to calculate”, “determine”, and “link the information” are considered mental processes (i.e. abstract idea). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 recites, wherein the model determination unit is configured to calculate a distance between a plurality of the endpoints of the plurality of the cable models in a height direction, and when the distance between an endpoint of a cable model of the plurality of the cable models and an endpoint of another cable model of the plurality of the cable models to which the information of an owner is linked is less than or equal to a third setting value determined in advance, link, to the other cable model, an owner the same as the owner linked to the cable model for which the distance between the endpoints is the third setting value or less. The additional feature(s) limitation(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception) - MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance, “to calculate”, “determine”, and “link” information are considered mental processes (i.e. abstract idea). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 has been canceled.
Independent Claim 7 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 8 recites, A non-transitory recording medium storing a program, wherein execution of the program causes a computer to operate as a model determination unit and a line diagram creation unit included in the line diagram creation device according to claim 1. The additional feature(s) limitation(s) amounts
to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a
computer (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception) - MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance,
the program itself merely implements (i.e. instructs) the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101.
PCT/JP2019/036627 The written opinion of the international searching authority denoted all claims as meeting the requirements for Novelty, Inventive Step, and Industrial applicability.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Fathi et al. (US 9904867 B2 – Systems And Methods For Extracting Information About Objects From Scene Information) teaches various methods and systems “for information extraction from scene information... clustered 3D information can be used to provide, e.g., measurement information, dimensions, geometric information, and/or topological information about the object(s)” [Abstract]. However, Fathi fails to specifically disclose much of the claimed invention.
Ieda et al. (JP 2015078849 A – Facility State Detection Method and Device Therefor) relates to the detection of the “state of facilities, such as utility poles, cables, and closures” [Abstract], utilizing three dimensional point cloud data models. However, Ieda fails to disclose identifying positional relationships between cables, determining an owner of the cables, linking owner information to each cable, creating a line diagram, along with all the other claimed limitations.
Konishi (US 20190308320 A1 – Object Recognition Processing Apparatus and Method) discloses “a model data acquisition unit configured to acquire three-dimensional model data of an object; a measurement unit configured to acquire measurement data including three-dimensional position information of the object; a position/orientation recognition unit configured to recognize a position/orientation of the object based on the three-dimensional model data and the measurement data; a similarity score calculation unit configured to calculate a similarity score indicating a degree of similarity between the three-dimensional model data and the measurement data in a position/orientation recognition result of the object” [Abstract]. However, Konishi fails to specifically disclose all of the other claimed limitations.
Okada et al. (US 2009/0309875 A1 - Electric Cable Housing Component Drawing Generating Device) discloses a “diagram generation part (123) for converting the three-dimensional data into a line segment for each component and a file output part (127) for outputting the two-dimensional data, where the output two-dimensional data is stored as a file in the storage unit” [Abstract], but fails to disclose all the other claimed limitations.
Liang, Jing, Jixian Zhang, Kazhong Deng, Zhengjun Liu, and Qunshan Shi. "A new power-line extraction method based on airborne LiDAR point cloud data." In 2011 International Symposium on Image and Data Fusion, pp. 1-4. IEEE, 2011, discloses a method “to aid in accurately extracting power lines from airborne LiDAR point clouds, which can automatically extract multiple power lines” [Abstract]. However, the article fails to specifically disclose the claimed limitations.
Guo, Bo, Qingquan Li, Xianfeng Huang, and Chisheng Wang. "An improved method for power-line reconstruction from point cloud data." Remote sensing 8, no. 1 (2016): 36, discloses a “robust algorithm to reconstruct power-lines using ALS technology” [Abstract]. However, the article fails to specifically disclose the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ohira et al. (Information Processing Equipment, Information Processing Methods, And Programs – US Pat. No 12135200 B2). “an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a program, which are capable of determining an owner of an attachment attached to a facility using a solid model of a facility extracted from three-dimensional point group data. The present invention determines the owner of the attachment from a planar positional relationship between the solid model of a columnar structure and the solid model of the attachment in the solid model.” [Abstract]
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights