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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s response to Non Final filed on July 9, 2026.
Claims 3, 5-9, 11-12 and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10 and 13-17 have been cancelled.
Claims 18-20 are new claims.
Claims 3, 5, 9 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 3, 5-9 and 11-12 are free of prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed July 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amended claims 3, 5 and new claims 18-20 (see below).
I. The Claims Are Not Directed To An Abstract Idea
Applicant argues that independent claims 3, 5, and 18-20 are directed to a specific technological solution implemented within an excavation safety system and therefore are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. Applicant further argues that the claims recite a concrete sequence of operations and, for certain claims, a physical action of avoiding unintentional contact with an underground utility during excavation. These arguments are not persuasive.
When properly considered as a whole, the claims are directed to collecting, analyzing, comparing, scoring, and using location-related information to determine excavation-related guidance. The claimed steps include accessing databases, parsing and correcting text, generating ticket and reference polygons, comparing those polygons, determining spatial relationships, computing distance-based scores, forming a category matrix, and generating an additional score. These are classic data processing operations that fall within the judicial exceptions of organizing human activities and mental processes, even when implemented on a computer.
Applicant’s characterization of the claims as a “specific technological solution” is not commensurate with the actual claim language. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of a computer, a new type of database structure, a new polygon-generation mechanism, or a particular technical advance in geospatial processing. Rather, they recite the use of generic computing components to perform result-oriented analysis of spatial information.
Applicant’s reliance on the recitation of “avoiding unintentional contact with the underground utility while excavating” is also unpersuasive. The language expresses a desired outcome or intended use of the analyzed information. It does not recite a concrete technical step that changes the operation of the computer or another technology. The claims do not require actual excavation control, machine actuation, or a particular physical transformation.
Accordingly, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant’s citations to McRO, Thales, and PowerBlock do not compel a different result. Unlike McRO, the claims do not recite a specific rule set that improves a technological process. Unlike Thales, the claims do not recite a specific unconventional sensing or measurement technique. Unlike PowerBlock, the claims here are not saved by the mere inclusion of a real-world field of use or intended physical consequence. The claims instead recite abstract geospatial data analysis performed using generic computer functions.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments under Section I are not persuasive.
II. The Claims Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into A Practical Application
Applicant argues that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they improve excavation safety, improve map accuracy, support future automated correction, and reduce utility strikes. Applicant further argues that the claims are tied to a real-world technological environment and therefore are not merely directed to an abstract idea. These arguments are not persuasive.
The claims merely apply the abstract idea in the context of excavation safety and underground utility location. Limiting an abstract idea to a particular field of use does not make the claim patent eligible. The fact that the claimed processing may be used in a useful real-world setting does not, by itself, amount to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The claimed databases, processor, and graphical user interface are recited at a high level of generality and perform conventional functions. The claims do not recite a technological improvement to the operation of the computer, database management, spatial analysis engine, or graphical user interface. Rather, they recite generic computer implementation of information gathering, comparison, and display.
Applicant’s assertion that the claims improve excavation operations is not sufficient. An improvement in the outcome of a human activity does not establish a practical application where the improvement is achieved through abstract data analysis using conventional computer components. The claims do not recite a specific way of improving the computer itself or the underlying geospatial technology. Instead, they use ordinary data processing to inform a decision regarding excavation.
Applicant’s reliance on Enfish and Diehr is likewise unpersuasive. In Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific database architecture that improved computer functionality. Here, no comparable technical improvement is recited. In Diehr, the claims integrated a mathematical formula into an industrial process that physically transformed raw material. Here, the claims do not recite a comparable industrial or technical process, but rather use calculations and comparisons to generate excavation-related information.
The recitation of “avoid[ing] unintentional contact with the underground utility while excavating” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This language states an intended result of using the analyzed information. It does not impose a meaningful technological limitation or specify a technical mechanism for achieving that result.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments under Section II are not persuasive.
III. The Claims Recite Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea
Applicant argues that, even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, they recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they include a specific combination of databases, polygon generation, scoring thresholds, a category matrix, a graphical user interface, and a review database. Applicant further argues that the ordered combination of these elements amounts to an inventive concept. These arguments are not persuasive.
When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements amount to no more than routine, conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. The claims recite generic components performing generic functions: databases storing information, a processor accessing and comparing that information, polygon generation, score calculation, result storage, and display of outputs. These are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The claims do not recite a nonconventional algorithm, a new data structure, an unconventional database architecture, or a specific technical mechanism that improves the way a computer or geospatial system operates. The recited “category matrix,” “predetermined distance-based scoring thresholds,” and “review database” are functional features stated at a high level of abstraction. They do not amount to an inventive concept absent a specific technical implementation.
Applicant’s argument regarding “long-term training optimization” is also unpersuasive. Storing data for later review, correction, or training is a conventional data-management practice. The claim language does not identify a specific technological improvement in machine learning, automated correction, or system training. It merely states a desired use of stored data.
The dependent claims do not add significantly more. Claims 6-9 merely recite scoring relationships based on spatial overlap or distance, which remain part of the same abstract analysis. Claim 11’s email alert is a conventional notification step that does not supply an inventive concept. Claim 12’s postponement of excavation is a human decision or intended consequence based on the analysis, not a technological feature that transforms the claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments under Section III are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 3, 5 and 18-20 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. Claims 3 and 18 recite “avoid unintentional contact” and claims 5 and 19-20 recite “avoiding unintentional contact”. The term “unintentional” appears to be new matter. After reviewing the specification, Examiner found the term “inadvertent” in paragraph 13. Inadvertent typically implies a lack of awareness or attention, suggesting that the action was done accidentally or without realizing the consequences. On the other hand, unintentional suggests that the action was not done on purpose, but may have been the result of negligence or carelessness. Examiner notes there are two different meanings. Applicant has support for the term “inadvertent” (see paragraph 13) but not “unintentional”.
Claims 6-9 and 11-12 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 3, 5-9, 11-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1
Claims 3 and 18 is directed to a system, claims 5-9, 11-12 and 19-20 are directed to a method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One
With regard to claim 3, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
An excavation safety system comprising:
a reference database containing a plurality of data layers;
a ticket database containing information from ticket data inputs;
a processor operably connected to the reference database and the ticket database, the processor adapted to:
access the ticket database to retrieve the information from the ticket data inputs, wherein at least some of the information from the ticket data inputs comprises global positioning system coordinates;
automatically identify and correct misspelled ticket entries based on the reference database prior to polygon generation;
access the reference database to retrieve the plurality of data layers configured for spatial analysis;
prioritize global positioning system coordinates over manually entered positional data when generating a ticket polygon;
generate a ticket polygon comprising latitude and longitude coordinates corresponding to geographic location and spatial mapping functions;
generate a reference polygon based on the plurality of data layers;
compare the ticket polygon to the reference polygon and identifying containment, intersection, and non-intersection relationships;
compute polygon distance metrics using predetermined distance-based scoring thresholds stored in memory;
form a category matrix using the ticket polygon, the reference polygon, a containment relationship, an intersection relationship, and a non-intersection relationship, and a distance-based proximity score wherein the category matrix comprises at least four category scores and minimum-threshold enforcement values;
generate another score based on the at least four category scores; and
store the ticket polygon, reference polygon, category matrix values, scoring results, detected errors, and corrected data in a review database for subsequent automated correction of inaccurate map data and long-term training optimization;
identify inconsistencies between the ticket polygon and the reference polygon to determine a location of an underground utility to avoid unintentional contact with the underground utility during excavation at the location
a graphical user interface adapted to display inputs for generating the ticket polygon and the reference polygon, wherein the graphical user interface is further adapted to display scores related to the category matrix; and
wherein the data layers are selected from the group consisting of a parcel layer, a line map layer, a facility map layer, an ortho map layer, a road features layer, a water features layer, a highway layer, a building footprint layer, a route layer, a Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) file layer, and combinations thereof.
With regard to claim 5, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
A method of generating and scoring excavation polygons, the method comprising:
accessing a ticket database and retrieving information from ticket data inputs, wherein at least some of the information from the ticket data inputs comprises global positioning system coordinates;
automatically identifying and correcting misspelled ticket entries based on a reference database prior to polygon generation;
accessing the reference database and retrieving a plurality of data layers configured for spatial analysis;
prioritizing the global positioning system coordinates over manually entered positional data when generating a ticket polygon;
generating the ticket polygon comprising latitude and longitude coordinates corresponding to a geographic location and spatial mapping functions;
generating a reference polygon based on the plurality of data layers;
comparing the ticket polygon to the reference polygon and identifying containment, intersection, and non-intersection relationships;
computing polygon distance metrics using predetermined distance-based scoring thresholds stored in memory;
forming a category matrix using the ticket polygon, the reference polygon, a containment relationship, the intersection relationship, the non-intersection relationship, and a distance-based proximity score, wherein the category matrix comprises at least four category scores and minimum-threshold enforcement values;
generating another score based on the at least four category scores;
storing the ticket polygon, the reference polygon, category matrix values, scoring results, detected errors, and corrected data in a review database for subsequent automated correction of inaccurate map data and long-term training optimization;
identifying inconsistencies between the ticket polygon and the reference polygon to determine a location of an underground utility;
displaying inputs for generating the ticket polygon and the reference polygon;
populating information fields by entering information into a graphical user interface to generate a ticket polygon;
displaying scores related to the category matrix on the graphical user interface wherein the reference polygon comprises data layers selected from the group consisting of a parcel layer, a line map layer, a facility map layer, an ortho map layer, a road features layer, a water features layer, a highway layer, a building footprint layer, a route layer, a Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) file layer, and combinations thereof; and
avoiding unintentional contact with the underground utility while excavating at the location due to identification of the inconsistencies between the ticket polygon and the reference polygon.
With regard to claim 18, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
A system comprising:
a reference database containing a plurality of data layers pertaining to a location of an underground utility, wherein the plurality of data layers are selected from the group consisting of a parcel layer, a line map layer, a facility map layer, an ortho map layer, a road features layer, a water features layer, a highway layer, a building footprint layer, a route layer, a Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) file layer, and combinations thereof;
a ticket database containing information from ticket data, the information pertaining to the location of the underground utility;
a processor operably connected to the reference database and the ticket database, the processor configured to:
access the ticket database to retrieve the information pertaining to the location of the underground utility;
access the reference database to retrieve the plurality of data layers pertaining to the location of the underground utility;
generate a ticket polygon based on the information pertaining to the location of the underground utility;
generate a reference polygon based on the plurality of data layers pertaining to the location of the underground utility;
compare the ticket polygon to the reference polygon;
identify containment, intersection, and non-intersection relationships based on a comparison of the ticket polygon to the reference polygon; and
identify inconsistencies between the ticket polygon and the reference polygon to determine the location of the underground utility to avoid unintentional contact with the underground utility during excavation at the location.
With regard to claim 19, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
A method comprising:
accessing a reference database containing a plurality of data layers pertaining to a location of an underground utility, wherein the plurality of data layers are selected from the group consisting of a parcel layer, a line map layer, a facility map layer, an ortho map layer, a road features layer, a water features layer, a highway layer, a building footprint layer, a route layer, a Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) file layer, and combinations thereof;
accessing a ticket database containing information from ticket data, the information pertaining to the location of the underground utility;
retrieving the information pertaining to the location of the underground utility from the ticket database;
retrieving the plurality of data layers pertaining to the location of the underground utility from the reference database;
generating a ticket polygon based on the information pertaining to the location of the underground utility;
generating a reference polygon based on the plurality of data layers pertaining to the location of the underground utility;
comparing the ticket polygon to the reference polygon;
identifying containment, intersection, and non-intersection relationships based on a comparison of the ticket polygon to the reference polygon;
identifying inconsistencies between the ticket polygon and the reference polygon to determine the location of the underground utility; and
avoiding unintentional contact with the underground utility while excavating at the location due to identification of the inconsistencies between the ticket polygon and the reference polygon.
With regard to claim 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
A method comprising:
receiving excavation information pertaining to an underground utility, wherein received excavation information is determined by at least:
a reference database containing a plurality of data layers pertaining to a location of the underground utility, wherein the plurality of data layers are selected from the group consisting of a parcel layer, a line map layer, a facility map layer, an ortho map layer, a road features layer, a water features layer, a highway layer, a building footprint layer, a route layer, a Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) file layer, and combinations thereof;
a ticket database containing ticket information from ticket data, the ticket information pertaining to the location of the underground utility;
a ticket polygon based on the ticket information;
a reference polygon based on the plurality of data layers;
a comparison of the ticket polygon to the reference polygon;
identification of containment, intersection, and non-intersection relationships based on the comparison; and
identification of inconsistencies between the ticket polygon and the reference polygon;
avoiding unintentional contact with the underground utility while excavating at the location of the underground utility due to the received excavation information that includes identified inconsistencies between the ticket polygon and the reference polygon.
Claims 3, 5 and 18-20 recite a system and method for generating and scoring excavation polygons by assessing ticket information, generating ticket polygons and reference polygons, comparing the polygons to assess the proximity of the polygons to one another, creating a scoring matrix and then generating a score and displaying it.
The above limitations are reciting a method of organizing human activity because the claim is reciting concepts relating fundamental economic principles, such as mitigating risks MPEP 2106.04. Specifically, the claim relates the comparison of excavation ticket information to reference information in order to geographically verify dig areas. These are activities that are part of risk mitigation by call centers and the construction industry, and thus fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas.
Additionally, the claimed steps of generating a ticket polygon and a reference polygon, comparing the polygons and generating a score falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims rely on spatial analysis by performing spatial computations. This involves mathematical calculations.
Lastly, the claims recite concepts that can be performed mentally. In particular, the accessing of tickets, generation of polygons, comparison of polygons to determine spatial relationships and the formation of a category matrix, and the generation of a score include observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions that can be performed by a human either in their mind or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Next, the examiner considers whether the claims recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements claimed are as follows: a reference and ticket database, a processor operably connected to the databases, and a graphical user interface.
The examiner finds that these additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not seem to amount to more than a tool being used to implement the abstract idea. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2); see, e.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (appending a limitation that the process be aided or performed by a generic computer does not “salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process”). As evidenced by the specification, these are generic devices used to perform generic computer functions. [Spec. 00014-15] (describes a generic database for storing data); [Spec. 00011-112] (describes generic processor, interface and software modules).
Moreover, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished). The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Here, the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the claimed processor performs the claimed steps which is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Step 2B
If the claims are not integrated into a judicial exception, the Examiner must consider whether there is “significantly more” recited in the claim in step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.05. As noted above, Applicant has primarily recited generic computer components for performing the steps of the invention and as determined in step 2A, merely using a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea is not sufficient. Thus, Applicant' s claims fail to provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). As noted above, the MPEP states that Examiners may consider the following three factors when determining whether the claim recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: 1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; 2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and 3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applying those factors to the instant application: 1) the claims do not recite how the computer performs any of the steps; 2) the claims invoke the computer to perform an abstract process performing spatial analysis to score excavation requests; and 3) the claims are general and not recited in much particularity.
Therefore, claims 3, 5 and 18-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to dependent claims 6-9 and 11-12, the claims are found to be reciting further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was set forth for the independent claims. Nothing additional is claimed for consideration under the Step 2A Prong 2 or Step 2B.
Therefore, for the reasons above, claims 3, 5-9, 11-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID R MERCHANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1360. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights