DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed August 10, 2026. No claims have been amended. Claims 2 and 8 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that claim 1 “recites a specific, ordered sequence of operations that a computer must perform: arranging the work machine at a virtual arrangement position in a virtual space corresponding to a real-world arrangement position; determining an attitude of the work machine, including a hoist angle and a telescopic length of a boom and/or jib, for conveying the load from a virtual position of the conveyance source to a virtual position of the conveyance destination; and comparing performance data of the work machine corresponding to the determined attitude against the weight of the load. Such a real-time, high-precision physical engineering simulation is realistically impossible to execute via human mental processes or with pen and paper, and does not involve concepts that have merely ‘long been covered’ in university-level engineering courses on statics and dynamics, as the Examiner asserts. It is not merely a thought process or a ‘scenario’; it yields objective engineering results achievable only through computer processing power and a specific, defined algorithm.” The Examiner maintains that the claims do not present specific scenarios in which, aside from a general application of and general link to technology, the underlying algorithm presented in the claims does not necessarily require a computer. Evaluating the effects of load and movement on an object have long been performed by hand. These are concepts that have long been covered by college-level Statics and Dynamics engineering classes, for example. Given that the additional elements are only generally applied to the abstract ideas and are recited at a high level and as general links to technology, the claims do not present specific simulation scenarios that do not find a human analog and/or set forth technical details with any great degree of technical specificity.
Applicant focuses on the following operations as ones that a computer must perform: arranging the work machine at a virtual arrangement position in a virtual space corresponding to a real-world arrangement position; determining an attitude of the work machine, including a hoist angle and a telescopic length of a boom and/or jib, for conveying the load from a virtual position of the conveyance source to a virtual position of the conveyance destination; and comparing performance data of the work machine corresponding to the determined attitude against the weight of the load.
“Arranging the work machine at a virtual arrangement position in a virtual space corresponding to a real-world arrangement position” simply presents a general link to technology. A computer could simply present an image of a work machine, for example. As far as setting up a virtual space goes, there are no specific technical details as to how a virtual space is set up. Additionally, “virtual” does not necessarily have specific technical implications. It could simply refer to something being modeled in theory, for example. Setting up a virtual space could simply involve modeling parameters of a possible space to be evaluated. Even if a “virtual space” were amended to explicitly recite that a virtual space is a representation of a space presented via a graphical user interface (for example), accessing a web site and/or opening up an application with a workspace on a computer are both examples of setting up a virtual space and, without any technical details setting forth how the virtual space is set up, these are examples of generic processing operations.
Aside from the position information being “virtual” (which is addressed above), a human user could, upon visual inspection of a work machine (for example), determine an attitude of the work machine, including a hoist angle and a telescopic length of a boom and/or jib, for conveying the load from a position of the conveyance source to a position of the conveyance destination. The claims do not present any details of operations that incorporate specific functions beyond what a human could perform visually, such as details of sensors within an environment used to detect measurements and other features of the environment to convert this information into a 3D model of the environment that may be used to model movement of a work machine within an environment. (This is just a hypothetical example and is not necessarily one supported by Applicant’s original disclosure.)
A human user can also evaluate and compare gathered information, including performance data of the work machine corresponding to the determined attitude against the weight of the load. This is just information that a human user can assess and process to come up with a decision or determination.
On page 5 of the response, Applicant states (in regard to the McRO decision), “The claimed simulation here likewise uses a defined, limited set of engineering rules, namely arranging the machine at a virtual position, determining its attitude, and comparing its performance to the load, to automatically produce a specific and objectively verifiable technical result: identification of a work machine having the physical capability to safely perform a specified conveyance task.” Again, the Examiner maintains that this information could be observed and evaluated by a human. This is evidenced by the Park reference (Park, Kwang-Phil, et al. "Dynamic Factor Analysis Considering Elastic Boom Effects in Heavy Lifting Operations." Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1100-1113. Available online 8 June 2011), which describes various equations used to estimate the static and dynamic effects of a load on a moving crane and elastic boom. While the calculation of such equations would clearly be facilitated by use of processing components, a human could theoretically perform such calculations. The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Further noted is that the operations of the claimed invention are not used to effect any significant actions in the real world. For example, unlike in the Diamond v. Diehr decision (cited by Applicant on page 5 of the response), there is no control of a device based on continuously performed calculations. While the claimed operations may result in analysis that might be useful in the real world, the general idea of the concept of a solution alone is not sufficient to present an improvement that would overcome the rejection. MPEP § 2106.05(a) states, “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.”
Applicant argues, “Rather than ‘simply data,’ the deformation image information is a visual representation of a physical phenomenon, namely the bending, and resulting stress, of the work machine, generated through complex engineering calculations based on the recited image calculation expression and the stored specification data.” (Page 7 of Applicant’s response) The claims do not explain how the data is only useful when implemented by a processor, for example. In other words, a human user could also use data describing the bending and stress of the work machine to manually draw out a picture of the work machine, including the bending and other effects on the work machine. A human user could also depict multiple states of the work machine (such as a state with a load and a state without a load) and compare the two. A human user can also illustrate the work machine in a work environment. The claims do not present specific technical details that are only useful in a technical environment or that convey an unconventional use of technology.
On pages 9-10 of the response, Applicant argues that “the claim defines a specific, multi-stage, event-driven process, not simply a static URL reference: an operator's display instruction input at the terminal identifies particular model information; that model information specifies a corresponding work machine image; and the URI corresponding to that specific work machine image is then dynamically acquired and included, together with the deformation-image request, in the request sent to the performance information server. This is not the passive use of a static hyperlink to "locate existing information of interest," as the Office Action suggests…” It is not clear which claim details convey a process for dynamically generating a URI. Exemplary claim 1 recites “the request including a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) of the performance information server, and the URI being included in the request by acquiring the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.” The URI is simply associated with a work machine identified by its model information. This just describes the nature of the URI and not any active, dynamic process for creating a URI on-the-fly.
Applicant states, “Although the server, storage, and control unit individually consist of general-purpose computer parts, in the claimed invention they are configured and interact in a specific manner to serve the invention's particular purpose, and thereby constitute a special-purpose technical apparatus that goes beyond the mere execution of an abstract idea on a general-purpose computer.” (Page 11 of Applicant’s response) The Examiner does not see any details in the claims that present "specific technical configurations” that go beyond generic processing operations. The independent claims simply store various pieces of information; there is no specifical technical manner in which storage is performed in the claims. The claims generally automate the performance of calculations that could otherwise be performed by hand. As far as setting up a virtual space goes, there are no specific technical details as to how a virtual space is set up. Additionally, “virtual” does not necessarily have specific technical implications. It could simply refer to something being modeled in theory, for example. Setting up a virtual space could simply involve modeling parameters of a possible space to be evaluated. The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Applicant’s claims simply program specific operations. Applicant has presented no evidence that a general-purpose machine programmed to perform the recited operations could not be used to implement the claimed invention.
On page 12 of the response, “Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed combination, coordinating virtual-space conveyance simulation, engineering-based deformation calculation, and operator-driven URI-based resource acquisition, all keyed to a common stored specification-data/model-information mapping, is not routine or conventional.” Again, the URI simply incorporates information regarding the model information of the work machine. There is no special dynamic manner in which the URI is generated within the scope of the claims.
Applicant argues that “the claimed invention addresses a problem specific to computer-implemented work-machine planning: how to automatically and reliably determine, using stored specification data for numerous candidate work machines and a specific, defined virtual-space simulation, which work machine is physically capable of safely completing a specific proposed conveyance task, and further, how to generate and deliver, in a specific technical format and resolved via a specific operator-driven URI-acquisition mechanism, a visual representation of that work machine's predicted physical deformation under the proposed load.” (Page 13 of the response) Aside from generally using processing elements to generally facilitate the recited operations and access information at specified storage locations, a human can evaluate data to determine which work machine to use for certain tasks.
On page 14 of the response, Applicant submits that “the claimed invention enables an operator to visually confirm, in advance, whether the deformed equipment will interfere with a nearby structure (see paragraphs [0424] and [0465]), directly bearing on the physical safety of the conveyance operation.” The fact that a human operator can “visually confirm, in advance, whether the deformed equipment will interfere with a nearby structure” (as admitted by Applicant) further supports the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims as incorporating a mental process.
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, 3-7, and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to “a method for providing model information, a method for acquiring model information, and a model information acquisition system” (Spec: ¶ 1) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 14-15, 19-20), Apparatus (claims 1, 3-6, 16-17, 21), Article of Manufacture (claims 7, 9-13, 18)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims perform the following:
[Claim 1] display an image including at least one work machine;
store specification data of the at least one work machine in mapping with model information of the at least one work machine;
acquire a request including a conveyance condition under which the at least one work machine conveys a load,
calculate model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load under the conveyance condition based on the acquired request and the stored specification data and performing a simulation of conveyance to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request; and
generate a response including the calculated model information to transmit the response,
wherein the conveyance condition includes information on a weight of the load, information on a position of a conveyance source of the load, information on a position of a conveyance destination of the load, and information on an arrangement position of a work machine,
the simulation comprises arranging the work machine at a virtual arrangement position in the virtual space corresponding to the arrangement position of the work machine, determining an attitude including a hoist angle and a telescopic length of a boom and/or jib of the work machine for conveying the load from a virtual position of the conveyance source to a virtual position of the conveyance destination, and comparing performance data of the work machine corresponding to the determined attitude with the weight of the load,
the request further includes a request for a deformation image of the at least one work machine, the deformation image being an image reflecting a bending of the respective work machine in a state of conveyance of the load, the request including a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) of the performance information server, and the URI being included in the request by acquiring the URI corresponding to a work machine image;
the storage further stores an image calculation expression for calculating numerical data used for display of the deformation image of the at least one work machine,
calculate deformation image information of the work machine corresponding to a work state of the work machine, by calculating the numerical data for generating the deformation image of the work machine based on the image calculation expression and the specification data stored in the storage, and
further include the calculated deformation image information in the response to be generated,
the deformation image is different from a work machine image of the work machine specified by the model information and for which the deformation image information is not reflected.
[Claim 7] sending a request including a conveyance condition under which the at least one work machine conveys a load, the conveyance condition including information on a weight of the load information on a position of a conveyance source of the load, information on a position of a conveyance destination of the load, and information on an arrangement position of a work machine, the request further including a request for a deformation image of the at least one work machine, the deformation image being an image reflecting a bending of the respective work machine in a state of conveyance of the load, and the request including a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) of the performance information server, and the URI being included in the request by acquiring the URI corresponding to a work machine image;
acquiring a response including model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load under the conveyance condition and deformation image information of the work machine corresponding to a work state of the work machine, wherein the model information of the work machine is calculated by performing simulation of conveyance to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request, the simulation comprises arranging the work machine at a virtual arrangement position in the virtual space corresponding to the arrangement position of the work machine, determining an attitude including a hoist angle and a telescopic length of a boom and/or jib of the work machine for conveying the load from a virtual position of the conveyance source to a virtual position of the conveyance destination, and comparing performance data of the work machine corresponding to the determined attitude with the weight of the load, and the deformation image information of the work machine is calculated by calculating numerical data for generating the deformation image of the work machine based on an image calculation expression and specification data of the at least one work machine stored in the performance information server, the image calculation expression being for calculating the numerical data used for display of the deformation image of the at least one work machine, the deformation image being different from a work machine image of the work machine specified by the model information and for which the deformation image information is not reflected; and
reflecting contents of the acquired response on a display.
[Claim 14] A method for providing model information, the method comprising:
storing specification data of the at least one work machine in mapping with model information of the at least one work machine, as well as an image calculation expression for calculating numerical data used for display of a deformation image of the at least one work machine;
acquiring a request including a conveyance condition, under which the at least one work machine conveys a load, the conveyance condition including information on a weight of the load, information on a position of a conveyance source of the load, information on a position of a conveyance destination of the load, and information on an arrangement position of a work machine, the request further including a request for the deformation image of the at least one work machine, the deformation image being an image reflecting a bending of the respective work machine in a state of conveyance of the load, and the request including a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) of the performance information server, and the URI being included in the request by acquiring the URI corresponding to a work machine image;
calculating model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load under the conveyance condition based on the acquired request and the stored specification data, by performing simulation of conveyance to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request, wherein the simulation comprises arranging the work machine at a virtual arrangement position in the virtual space corresponding to the arrangement position of the work machine, determining an attitude including a hoist angle and a telescopic length of a boom and/or jib of the work machine for conveying the load from a virtual position of the conveyance source to a virtual position of the conveyance destination, and comparing performance data of the work machine corresponding to the determined attitude with the weight of the load;
calculating deformation image information of the work machine corresponding to a work state of the work machine, by calculating the numerical data for generating the deformation image of the work machine based on the stored image calculation expression and the stored specification data; and
generating a response including the calculated model information and the calculated deformation image information to transmit the response, wherein
the deformation image is different from a work machine image of the work machine specified by the model information and for which the deformation image information is not reflected.
[Claim 15] A method for acquiring model information, comprising:
receiving input of a conveyance condition under which the at least one work machine conveys a load and a request for a deformation image of the at least one work machine, the conveyance condition including information on a weight of the load, information on a position of a conveyance source of the load, information on a position of a conveyance destination of the load, and information on an arrangement position of a work machine;
sending a request including the conveyance condition, the request further including the request for the deformation image of the at least one work machine, the deformation image being an image reflecting a bending of the respective work machine in a state of conveyance of the load, and the request including a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) of the performance information server, and the URI being included in the request by acquiring the URI corresponding to a work machine image; and
receiving a response including model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load under the conveyance condition and deformation image information of the work machine corresponding to a work state of the work machine, wherein the model information of the work machine is calculated by performing simulation of conveyance to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request, the simulation comprises arranging the work machine at a virtual arrangement position in the virtual space corresponding to the arrangement position of the work machine, determining an attitude including a hoist angle and a telescopic length of a boom and/or jib of the work machine for conveying the load from a virtual position of the conveyance source to a virtual position of the conveyance destination, and comparing performance data of the work machine corresponding to the determined attitude with the weight of the load, and the deformation image information of the work machine is calculated by calculating numerical data for generating the deformation image of the work machine based on an image calculation expression and specification data of the at least one work machine stored in the performance information server, the image calculation expression being for calculating the numerical data used for display of the deformation image of the at least one work machine, the deformation image being different from a work machine image of the work machine specified by the model information and for which the deformation image information is not reflected.
[Claim 16] receives input of a conveyance condition under which the at least one work machine conveys a load and a request for a deformation image of the at least one work machine, the conveyance condition including information on a weight of the load, information on a position of a conveyance source of the load, information on a position of a conveyance destination of the load, and information on an arrangement position of a work machine, the deformation image being an image reflecting a bending of the respective work machine in a state of conveyance of the load, and the request including a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) of the performance information server, and the URI being included in the request by acquiring the URI corresponding to a work machine image, and
sends a request including the conveyance condition, the request further including the request for the deformation image of the at least one work machine, and
stores specification data of the at least one work machine in mapping with model information of the at least one work machine, as well as an image calculation expression for calculating numerical data used for display of the deformation image of the at least one work machine,
acquires the request,
calculates model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load under the conveyance condition based on the acquired request and the stored specification data, by performing simulation of conveyance to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request, wherein the simulation comprises arranging the work machine at a virtual arrangement position in the virtual space corresponding to the arrangement position of the work machine, determining an attitude including a hoist angle and a telescopic length of a boom and/or jib of the work machine for conveying the load from a virtual position of the conveyance source to a virtual position of the conveyance destination, and comparing performance data of the work machine corresponding to the determined attitude with the weight of the load,
calculates deformation image information of the work machine corresponding to a work state of the work machine, by calculating the numerical data for generating the deformation image of the work machine based on the stored image calculation expression and the stored specification data, and
generates a response including the calculated model information and the calculated deformation image information to transmit the response, wherein
the deformation image is different from a work machine image of the work machine specified by the model information and for which the deformation image information is not reflected.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a human user can gather, send, and receive information, perform analysis on the information to make the types of decisions recited in the claims, and present, send, and display responses, mentally and with the use of pen and paper. A human user can also perform the claimed calculations and transmit the results. A human user can take a deformation image into account to determine a bend and a human can convey URI information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “a method for providing model information, a method for acquiring model information” (Spec: ¶ 1) and instructions may be provided to a user to engage in the process (e.g., as seen in claim 13), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of following rules or instructions (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 includes a performance information server that is connected to a terminal on which a work machine display operation application operations, the terminal being capable of displaying an image including at least one work machine, the performance server comprising: a storage that stores specification data of the at least one work machine in mapping with model information of the at least one work machine; and a control unit (implemented via at least one processor) to generally implement the abstract ideas. Claim 1 also sets up a virtual space and performs simulation of conveyance in the virtual space to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request. Additionally, claim 1 transmits the response to the terminal.
Claim 1 recites that the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information is acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.
Claim 7 includes a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a work machine display operation application which, when executed by a terminal capable of displaying an image including at least one work machine, and connected to a performance information server, causes the terminal to generally implement the abstract ideas. Claim 7 further includes setting up a virtual space and performing simulation of conveyance in the virtual space to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request. Additionally, claim 7 includes a performance information server to generally implement the abstract ideas and also reflects contexts on a display of the terminal.
Claim 7 recites that the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information is acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.
Claim 14 includes a performance information server connected to a terminal where a work machine display operation application capable of displaying an image of a work machine on a display unit operates, wherein the performance information server pre-stores specification data of a work machine in mapping with model information of a work machine to generally implement the abstract ideas. Claim 14 further includes setting up a virtual space and performing simulation of conveyance in the virtual space to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request. Claim 14 also transmits the response to the terminal.
Claim 14 recites that the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information is acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.
Claim 15 includes a work machine display operation application capable of displaying an image of a work machine on a display unit and a performance information server connected to the work machine display operation application to generally implement the abstract ideas. Claim 15 further includes setting up a virtual space and performing simulation of conveyance in the virtual space to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request. Additionally, claim 15 includes a performance information server to generally implement the abstract ideas.
Claim 15 recites that the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information is acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.
Claim 16 includes a model information acquisition system, comprising: a work machine display operation application operating on a terminal capable of displaying an image including a work machine; and a performance information server connected to the terminal to generally implement the abstract ideas. Claim 16 further includes setting up a virtual space and performing simulation of conveyance in the virtual space to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request. Claim 16 also transmits the response to the terminal.
Claim 16 recites that the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information is acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.
The use of a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) to access an image is a general link to technology and to a field of use. The server is only generally used at a high level to convey data that a human user could otherwise convey. A URI is just data. Even if used as an active electronic link to an image, it is a general link to technology and to a field of use.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 155-168).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims perform the following:
[Claim 3] the request further includes information on an image of a building as the conveyance condition; and
the calculation is performed to acquire the model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load without interfering with the building under the conveyance condition.
[Claim 4] the request further includes information on a conveyance route of the load as the conveyance condition; and
calculation is performed to acquire the model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load through the conveyance route under the conveyance condition.
[Claim 5] the request further includes a threshold regarding a safety factor that is a value obtained by dividing a rated total load of the at least one work machine by a weight of the load; and
calculation is performed to acquire the model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load with a safety factor during conveyance being at or above the threshold of the safety factor included in the request under the conveyance condition.
[Claim 6] the request further includes at least one of a condition of the at least one work machine and a condition regarding a manufacturer of the at least one work machine as a model condition; and
the calculation is performed to acquire the model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load under the conveyance condition and satisfying the model condition.
[Claim 17] wherein the work machine is a crane, and the bending of the work machine is a bending of the boom and/or jib of the crane.
[Claim 9] the request further includes information on an image of a building as the conveyance condition; and
the response acquired further includes the model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load without interfering with the building under the conveyance condition.
[Claim 10] the reflecting of the contents includes selecting, from one or more work machines corresponding to the model information included in the acquired response, a work machine having a capability to convey the load without interfering with a building under the conveyance condition.
[Claim 11] the request further includes information on a conveyance route of the load as the conveyance condition; and
the response acquired includes the model information of a work machine having a capability to convey the load through the conveyance route under the conveyance condition.
[Claim 12] the sending of the request includes sequentially sending the request; and
the acquiring of the response including acquiring the response from another location.
[Claim 13] the reflecting of the contents includes displaying the model information included in the acquired response as a list, and causing an image of a work machine corresponding to model information selected by a user from the list to be displayed at the arrangement position of the work machine corresponding to the selected model information.
[Claim 18] wherein the work machine is a crane, and the bending of the work machine is a bending of the boom and/or jib of the crane.
[Claim 19] wherein the work machine is a crane, and the bending of the work machine is a bending of the boom and/or jib of the crane.
[Claim 20] wherein the work machine is a crane, and the bending of the work machine is a bending of the boom and/or jib of the crane.
[Claim 21] wherein the work machine is a crane, and the bending of the work machine is a bending of the boom and/or jib of the crane.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims above.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a human user can gather, send, and receive information, perform analysis on the information to make the types of decisions recited in the claims, and present, send, and display responses, mentally and with the use of pen and paper. A human user can also perform the claimed calculations and transmit the results. A human user can take a deformation image into account to determine a bend and a human can convey URI information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “a method for providing model information, a method for acquiring model information” (Spec: ¶ 1) and instructions may be provided to a user to engage in the process (e.g., as seen in claim 13), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of following rules or instructions (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims incorporate the additional elements of the independent claim from which each depends.
Claim 1 includes a performance information server that is connected to a terminal on which a work machine display operation application operations, the terminal being capable of displaying an image including at least one work machine, the performance server comprising: a storage that stores specification data of the at least one work machine in mapping with model information of the at least one work machine; and a control unit (implemented via at least one processor) to generally implement the abstract ideas. Claim 1 also sets up a virtual space and performs simulation of conveyance in the virtual space to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request. Additionally, claim 1 transmits the response to the terminal.
Claim 1 recites that the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information is acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.
Claims 3-6 additionally use the control unit to generally implement the abstract ideas.
Claim 7 includes a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a work machine display operation application which, when executed by a terminal capable of displaying an image including at least one work machine, and connected to a performance information server, causes the terminal to generally implement the abstract ideas. Claim 7 further includes setting up a virtual space and performing simulation of conveyance in the virtual space to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request. Additionally, claim 7 includes a performance information server to generally implement the abstract ideas and also reflects contexts on a display of the terminal.
Claim 7 recites that the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information is acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.
Claims 9-13 additionally use the aforementioned additional elements from claim 7 to generally implement the abstract ideas.
Claim 14 includes a performance information server connected to a terminal where a work machine display operation application capable of displaying an image of a work machine on a display unit operates, wherein the performance information server pre-stores specification data of a work machine in mapping with model information of a work machine to generally implement the abstract ideas. Claim 14 further includes setting up a virtual space and performing simulation of conveyance in the virtual space to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request. Claim 14 also transmits the response to the terminal.
Claim 14 recites that the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information is acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.
Claim 15 includes a work machine display operation application capable of displaying an image of a work machine on a display unit and a performance information server connected to the work machine display operation application to generally implement the abstract ideas. Claim 15 further includes setting up a virtual space and performing simulation of conveyance in the virtual space to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request. Additionally, claim 15 includes a performance information server to generally implement the abstract ideas.
Claim 15 recites that the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information is acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.
Claim 16 includes a model information acquisition system, comprising: a work machine display operation application operating on a terminal capable of displaying an image including a work machine; and a performance information server connected to the terminal to generally implement the abstract ideas. Claim 16 further includes setting up a virtual space and performing simulation of conveyance in the virtual space to select the work machine that has the capability required to convey the load under the conveyance condition included in the request. Claim 16 also transmits the response to the terminal.
Claim 16 recites that the URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by acquired model information is acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.
The use of a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) to access an image is a general link to technology and to a field of use. The server is only generally used at a high level to convey data that a human user could otherwise convey. A URI is just data. Even if used as an active electronic link to an image, it is a general link to technology and to a field of use.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 155-168).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21 are allowed over the prior art of record. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Bramberger (US 2019/0094834) in view of Ohkura et al. (US 2008/0195365) in view of Hiromatsu et al. (US 2021/0047805) in view of Steib et al. (US 2019/0019430) in view of Fujiwara et al. (US 2022/0207203, the disclosure of which is supported by its foreign parent application, as seen in the English Translation of JP 7208862 B2) most closely address the various concepts recited in each of the independent claims, as seen in the last art rejection of claims 1, 7, and 14-16 in the Office action dated January 12, 2026. Additionally, Eberharter et al. (US 2013/0233820) discusses the evaluation of crane component deformations, including those related to boom elements, based on a suspending load mass, position, and related angles (Eberharter: ¶¶ 16, 18, 27, 36, 38). Delplace (US 2016/0035120) creates 3D animations of events related to the movement of heavy equipment through a job site using data input from a Business Information Modeling (BIM) database and from sensors (Delplace: ¶¶ 17, 19, 43-45, 52-54).
However, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s invention would not have, in light of the teachings of the aforementioned references, found it obvious to create the claimed invention with the level of detail and specific manner of integration of operations as they are presented in each of the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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 SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
Prosecution Insights