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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 24, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the RCE filed on March 24, 2026.
Claims 3, 5-9 and 11-12 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10 and 13-17 have been cancelled.
Claims 3 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 3, 5-9 and 11-12 are free of prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 6-7, “The processor now performs operations that cannot feasibly be carried out in the human mind, including automatic extraction and correction of free-form text, integration of GPS coordinates with text-derived location information through a priority-based conflict-resolution algorithm, and computation of proximity thresholds through deterministic logic stored in computer memory. No human can manually perform these operations at the required granularity, accuracy, or speed, particularly when the system must process thousands of tickets daily and reconcile multiple data sources, maps, layers, and inconsistent text descriptors.” Examiner disagrees. The focus of the claims, as a whole, is the collection, reconciliation, evaluation, and scoring of information to produce and verify a polygon—i.e., processing heterogeneous geospatial and textual data using rules and thresholds to yield a data result. Courts have consistently held that such data manipulation, evaluation, and reporting constitute abstract ideas, including mental processes and mathematical concepts. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–56 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results is abstract); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (data recognition/extraction abstract); and SAP America., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (mathematical calculations and result accuracy do not confer eligibility). Regarding “cannot feasibility be carried out in the human mind” argument, the fact that a computer performs the process at a scale, granularity, speed, or accuracy beyond human capability does not itself render the claim non-abstract. Automating mental processes or mathematical techniques on a generic computer remains an abstract idea. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146–49 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Next, Applicant argues on page 7 that “the amended claims are rooted in a specific technological problem identified in the specification: the frequent inaccuracy of excavation polygons resulting from inconsistent user-generated textual descriptions, outdated or incomplete map layers, and the heterogeneous nature of ticket inputs.” Examiner disagrees. The specific technological problem as argued by Applicant is a business problem with a business solution with the use of generic computer components. It is not a technical improvement to a computer or other technical field. An improvement to an abstract idea does not provide a technical improvement to a computer or other technical field; in the instant case, alleged improvements to the accuracy and reliability of computer-generated excavation polygons derived from inconsistent input data merely improves the abstract idea of determining whether an excavation site is safe to work at or not.
Next, Applicant argues on page 7 that amended claims satisfy Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis. Applicant specifically argues that the amended claims, “They integrate these concepts into a meaningful technological application by reciting a system, configured with non-conventional instructions, and by specifying how that machine improves spatial-processing accuracy. The claims recite a detailed sequence of technological operations that transform raw, inconsistent, and partially incorrect input data into an accurate polygon representation using automation that extends beyond generic data retrieval or display. Such automation includes the detection of map inconsistencies, the automatic correction of textual location descriptors, the use of stored distance thresholds to compute proximity scores, and the storage of results in a review database to facilitate future automated map corrections. These are concrete technological enhancements to computer functionality, not aspirational results untethered from implementation detail.” Examiner disagrees. The recited limitations are primarily functional/result-oriented (e.g., “detection of map inconsistencies,” “automatic correction,” “use of stored distance thresholds to compute proximity scores,” “store results in a review database”). The claims do not, on their face, sufficiently identify how the computer’s internal operation is changed in a technical sense (for example, by reciting a specific novel data structure, a particular spatial indexing method that reduces computational complexity, a specific low-level algorithmic innovation, or other detailed implementation steps that demonstrably alter how the computer performs its tasks). Cases recognizing eligible claims under Step 2A Prong Two (e.g., Enfish v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO v. Bandai Namco, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) involved claims that explicitly recited improvements to computer functionality itself (self-referential table, specific limited rule set producing improved animation, or a particular way of solving a Internet-specific problem). The present claims lack comparable claim language tying the asserted improvements to a specific structural or algorithmic modification of computer operation. Further, a system performs processing at a scale, speed, or accuracy not feasible manually does not alone render the claims non-abstract. Automating an abstract mental process or mathematical technique on a generic computer remains an abstract idea absent additional structural or unconventional detail. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues on pages 7-8, that the “limitations added are far from routine or conventional. Standard systems do not automatically detect and correct misspelled or nonexistent streets, do not prioritize GPS over text in a defined algorithmic framework, and do not compute distance-based scoring thresholds using stored proximity categories to produce an excavation-safety score. Similarly, traditional systems do not store corrected descriptors, detected errors, and polygon comparisons in a review database for automated long-term database improvement. These processing steps are specific, technological, and substantially more than generic computer implementation. They reflect a carefully crafted architecture that meaningfully improves the functioning of geospatial computing systems and the accuracy of safety-critical excavation analyses.” Examiner disagrees. The amended claims recite conventional data-processing building blocks (processor, memory, database) and describe standard functions (parsing text, matching against a repository, prioritizing one datum over another, computing a distance-based score, storing results). As such, these appear to be well-understood, routine, and conventional uses of generic computing components. The claimed combination does not represent an unconventional arrangement that produces a technical improvement beyond the abstract idea.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 3, 5-9 and 11-12 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that claim 5 is a method claim. Method claims should consist of positively recited steps of doing something. For example, computing a score and displaying the score. It is noted the active verbs of computing and displaying end in the gerund “ing”. Claim 5 is cited to be a method claim according to the preamble, however the only positively recited steps appear to be providing an excavation safety system, populating information fields and displaying scores. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret the following steps as being positively recited as follows for claim 5:
accessing 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;
parsing free-form text to extract locational descriptors, identify street names, intersection references, and address components, and automatically detect missing or misspelled street names by comparing extracted text to the reference database entries
automatically correcting misspelled or incomplete street names based on the reference database prior to polygon generation;
accessing the reference database to retrieve the plurality of data layers configured for spatial analysis;
prioritizing global positioning system coordinates over text-derived positional data when generating the ticket polygon;
generating a ticket polygon comprising latitude and longitude coordinates corresponding to 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, the ticket polygon, the reference polygon, containment relationship, intersection relationship, and 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; and
storing 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;
displaying 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;
populating information fields by entering information into the graphical user interface to generate a ticket polygon; and
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.
Applicant is encouraged to amend claims to bring them in line with typical method claim construction.
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 and 5 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 5 recite “parse free-form text”, “incomplete street names” and “text-derived positional data”. Regarding “parse free-form text” and “incomplete street names”, it appears to be new matter. After reviewing the specification, Examiner could not find support for these terms or items. Paragraph 20 of the specification describes automatically correcting misspelled ticket entrys, but that is not the same as a incomplete street name as recited in claim. Examiner could not find support for the “parsing” of free-form text as claimed or “text-derived positional data”. It is not clear how “text-derived positional data” is different from GPS coordinates or what “text-derived positional data” even is as there is no description in the specification. For examination purposes, Examiner will assume that “text-derived positional data” is simply GPS coordinates in the form of numbers and letters or combination of.
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 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1
Claim 3 is directed to a system, claims 5-9 and 11-12 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;
parse free-form text to extract locational descriptors, identify street names, intersection references, and address components, and automatically detect missing or misspelled street names by comparing extracted text to the reference database entries;
automatically correct misspelled or incomplete street names 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 text-derived positional data when generating the 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, containment relationship, intersection relationship, and 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;
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:
providing 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;
access the reference database to retrieve the plurality of data layers configured for spatial analysis;
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;
form a category matrix using the ticket polygon, the reference polygon, the ticket polygon, the reference polygon, containment relationship, intersection relationship, and non-intersection relationship, wherein the category matrix comprises at least four category scores;
generate another score based on the at least four category scores; and
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;
populating information fields by entering information into the graphical user interface to generate a ticket polygon; and
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.
Claims 3 and 5 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 and 5 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 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
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