DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, and 14-21 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 April 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant states, “It is thus submitted that such specific technical configurations (i.e., the configurations of storing the specification data and the image calculation expression in the storage and setting up the virtual space to perform the conveyance simulation) are qualitatively different from the generic use of a server. In other words, such specific technical configurations are a specific technical solution rooted in computer technologies, as discussed in DDR Holdings V. Hotels.com (Fed. Cir. 2014).” (Page 20 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.
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. Specific technical details might entail how sensors within an environment are 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.)
Argument 2: Applicant argues that “the Examiner overlooks the technical significance of the storage structure of ‘stores specification data in mapping with model information.’ The claimed storage does not merely store data, but has the specific data structure in which the specification data required for the conveyance simulation is mapped to the model information. In other words, the data structure of the claimed ‘storage’ is inextricably linked to the technical processes of the conveyance simulation and the deformation image information calculation, thus having the technical significance different from a mere generic storage.” (Page 20 of Applicant’s response) The stored model information is simply data. The content of the model information may be technical or non-technical in nature and it still does not affect how the storage itself is performed, thereby implying that only generic storage processing steps are required to perform the storage operations presented in the claims.
Argument 3: Applicant states, “However, the Examiner's position of identifying the claimed ‘request acquisition’ as mere information gathering that a human can perform with pen and paper is not appropriate. The claimed ‘request’ is structured data including a ‘request for a deformation image’ and a ‘URI’ in addition to a ‘conveyance condition’ and presupposes network communication between a BIM application and a server. Thus, the claimed ‘request acquisition’ is technically specified as client-server communication between a BIM application and a server, and is essentially different from mere ‘human information gathering.’ In particular, it is submitted that the claimed ‘request acquisition’ constitutes a technical process inherent to a computer network environment, in combination with the configuration including the ‘URI’ in the request.” (Page 21 of Applicant’s response) The URI itself is data indicative of where certain information may be accessed. It is akin to a URL, for example. When seen as an executable link to information (for example), the URI is still simply a reference to data source location, thereby presenting a general link to technology. The claims do not present any technical details as to how a URI is processed in any manner other than generally being used to locate existing information of interest.
Argument 4: Applicant argues:
However, the process of "setting up a virtual space and performing simulation of conveyance in the virtual space" is a physical engineering simulation based on multiple physical parameters including a weight of a load, positions of conveyance source and destination, and an arrangement position of a work machine. This simulation requires immense computational complexity at a level that is realistically impossible for a human to execute with pen and paper. The Examiner oversimplifies the substance of this engineering simulation by regarding such processing as "plan[ning] out scenarios" and fails to properly evaluate the technical substance of the claimed conveyance simulation.
Thus, Applicant submits the following three points in response to the Examiner's position in this regard:
First, the claimed conveyance simulation in a virtual space is an engineering calculation using specification data (e.g., boom length, rated load, turning radius) of multiple crane models and cannot be performed with pen and paper.
Second, this argument can be supported by recent court cases, such as SiOx Tech V. IdealVis (Fed. Cir. 2024), indicating that specific computational processes in specific technical environments do not constitute mental processes.
Third, in Step 2A, Prong 2, the claimed simulation in a virtual space constitutes technical improvements in BIM technical environments (specifically, automation and higher precision of model selection, compared to conventional manual selection), and thus qualifies as a practical application. (Pages 22-23 of Applicant’s response)
The claims do not present specific scenarios that necessarily require “immense computational complexity at a level that is realistically impossible for a human to execute with pen and paper.” 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.
Argument 5: Applicant argues: “However, the Examiner does not fully consider the point that the claimed response includes ‘deformation image information’ in addition to the calculated ‘model information.’ It is submitted that the transmission of such a structured response from the server to the terminal is a process specific to network communications. Thus, the technical content of the claimed response with a combination of a conveyance simulation result and deformation image information constitutes a technical process.” (Page 23 of Applicant’s response) Deformation image information and model information are just data. While the content of the data is related to a potentially technical field of use, it does not require a special technical way of handling the data, for example. Any generic processing elements could handle deformation image information and model information in the manner presented in the claims.
Argument 6: Applicant submits, “Even assuming arguendo that the content of the claimed conveyance condition itself is specific data, and classification as details of an abstract idea may appear to be expected, it is submitted that the Examiner fails to consider the technical context that the claimed conveyance condition comprises parameters to be input into the claimed conveyance simulation in a virtual space.” (Page 24 of Applicant’s response) Again, while the content of the data is related to a potentially technical field of use, it does not require a special technical way of handling the data, for example. Any generic processing elements could handle deformation image information and model information in the manner presented in the claims. The claims do not present specific technical details as to how the recited data is processed in any manner beyond the use of generic processing operations (like performing calculations, gathering information, transmitting information, etc.).
Argument 7: Applicant argues that “the Examiner's position of determining that the URI is just ‘data’ is not appropriate. In the present invention, the claimed URI is dynamically determined through multiple steps: (1) obtaining model information from an operator's display instruction input, (2) obtaining a URI corresponding to a work machine image specified by said model information, and (3) including it in the request. This is not simply a data specification, but a technical resource identification mechanism between the BIM application and the server.” (Page 25 of Applicant’s response) It is noted that the claims do not dynamically determine a URI in the sense of creating a custom URI on-the-fly. Claim 1 recites that “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 specified by acquired model information acquired from a display instruction input into the terminal by an operator.” The URI is presented as existing information that defines where to find data related to a work machine. The URI merely identifies a data location. It is akin to a URL, for example. When seen as an executable link to data (for example), the URI is still simply a reference to data source location, thereby presenting a general link to technology. The claims do not present any technical details as to how a URI is processed in any manner other than generally being used to located existing information of interest.
Argument 8: Applicant asserts that “the image calculation expression is a specific expression for engineering bending calculations, in combination with the next following feature (i.e., calculation of deformation image information), and is a component that contributes to technical improvement.” (Page 26 of Applicant’s response) The claims do not actively present details of a technical improvement. Simply performing calculations to model deformation alone speaks to details of the abstract ideas and possibly a general link to a technical field of use.
Argument 9: Applicant argues the following:
First, the calculation of numerical data based on an image calculation expression is a material mechanics calculation of a bending, and thus is not a mental process.
Second, the technical use of this calculation result to generate a deformation image (an image reflecting a bending of a work machine) is specified.
To assist the Examiner's understanding, explanation is now made in reference to a non-limiting embodiment of Applicant's disclosure, in which, the calculation of specific deformation image information described in the specification (e.g., a deformed curve of a boom/jib expressed by a sine wave or an n-th order function, and inclined straight lines corresponding to deflection angles of respective boom elements; See paragraphs [0448]- [0451] of the specification) is performed using deflection calculations based on well- known specific expressions (e.g., multiple parameters such as specification data of a working machine, a weight of a load, and bending rigidity (Young's modulus X second moment of area)), which is an engineering calculation that would be difficult to perform with pen and paper. This is supported by recent court cases, such as McRO V. Bandai (Fed. Cir. 2016) regarding the application of "specific rules." (Page 27 of Applicant’s response)
Mental processes may include processes performed by humans mentally and/or with pen and paper. Humans have been performing calculations on loads for decades. 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 admits that well-known calculations may be used. Even if such calculations would be difficult to perform by hand, it does not mean that a human could not perform such calculations at all. Additionally, 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)).
Argument 10: Applicant states, “However, regarding at least the latter element, it defines the difference between a deformation image and a normal image of a work machine. Even assuming arguendo that the latter element could be considered details of the abstract idea from the perspective of distinguishing data, it is a limitation that clarifies that the deformation image is an ‘image reflecting a bending of [a] work machine’ (i.e., technically different image), and thus has technical significance.” (Page 28 of Applicant’s response) Having “technical significance” is not necessarily the same as presenting a technical solution to a technical problem. The claims do not present specifical technical details that present a technical solution to a technical problem. On page 29 of the response, Applicant further asserts, “These technical improvements achieve the technical effect that ‘the operator can visually check the deformed image displayed on the display unit to confirm interference between the image of the work equipment, which takes into account the deflection of the boom and the deflection of the jib, and the image of the building’ (See paragraph [0465] of the specification; see also paragraph [0424]), and the additional elements impose meaningful limitations on the abstract idea, integrating the abstract idea into the claim and applying it in a practical way.” Clearly, the claimed invention facilitates generic automation to assist a human operator in making decisions. This does not present, much less guarantee, achievement of a technical solution to a technical problem. As a matter of fact, presenting information to a human operator to making decisions bolsters the Applicant’s determination that the claims incorporate details of a mental process and of organizing human activity.
Regarding the art rejection, the claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
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
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