DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/20/25 has been entered.
1) Claims amended: claim 1,
2) Claims canceled: 2-3.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-10 are pending. The pending claims comprising of 1 group:
1) Apparatus(system)1: 1, 4-10.
As of 08/20/25, claim 1 is as followed:
Claim 1. A work and function content change determination system configured to determine whether or not to change work content and function content at a civil engineering and construction site, comprising:
[I] a determination device communicably connected to a first terminal and a
second terminal,
wherein the determination device includes:
[1] a work/function change content determination unit configured to receive information on application content of application for change of the work content and function content and an applicant who makes the application for change from the first terminal, and based on the information on the applicant, check whether or not the applicant has an authority to apply for the change of the application content for each application content of application for change;
[2] an authorized person identification unit configured to use the information on the application content of application for change to identify an authorized person who has authority to approve the application for change;
[3] an application content inquiry unit configured to, when the work/function change content determination unit determines that the applicant has the authority to apply for the change, transmit the information on the application content of application for change and authority information on the authorized person identified at the authorized person identification unit to the second terminal, and make an inquiry whether or not to change the work content and function content; and
a permission determination unit configured to acquire a determination result of whether or not to change the application for change by the authorized person from the second terminal;
[4] a work/function content change unit configured to acquire the authority information associated with the work content and function content to be changed from the authorized person identification unit and acquire the determination result of whether or not to change the application for change from the permission determination unit, when the authorized person identified by the second terminal and the authorized person identified at the authorized person identification unit do not match, cause the authorized person identification unit to re-identify the authorized person, cause the application content inquiry unit to transmit the information on the application content of application for change and authority information on the authorized person re-identified to the second terminal and inquire of the authorized person identified at the authorized person identification unit whether or not to change the work content and function content again, and, when the authorized person identified by the second terminal and the authorized person identified at the authorized person identification unit match, check the determination result, if the determination result indicates permitted, change the work content and function content, and if the determination result indicates not permitted, do not change the work content and function content, and
[5] the determination device transmits, to the first terminal, information on whether or not the work content and function content has been changed by the work/function content change unit.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [I]-[III] are added to the beginning of each element.
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, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1, 4-10:
Claim categories:
System1: 1, and 4-10.
Analysis:
Apparatus: claim 1 directed to a system comprising: (1) a determination device, and (2) a first terminal, and (3) a second terminal, to carry out a method for determining whether or not to change work content and function content at a construction site. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Actual Analysis:
Claims 1, 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 (apparatus), as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of a method for determining whether or not to change work content and function content at a construction site when receiving information from an application for change of the work content and function content from the first terminal, the determination device using the information on the application content of application for change to identify an authorized person who has authority to approve the application for change, transmitting the information on the application content of application for change and authority information on the authorized person identified to the second terminal, and making an inquiry to the authorized person whether or not to change the work content and function content, and when receiving information on a determination result permitting the application for change from the second terminal that the identified authorized person has, the determination device changing the work content and function content in accordance with the application content and transmitting the work content and function content changed based on the application for change to the first terminal. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Alternatively, the recited limitations also fall within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to a method determining whether or not to change work content and function content at a construction site. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
As for independent claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for determining whether or not to change work content and function content at a construction site.
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] receive information (data) Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) step.
[2] use the information to identify. Data gathering, IE-SA.
[3] determine applicant has authority. Mental/evaluate/determine authority capability.
[3a] Transmit information to …. Data transmission, IE-SA.
[3b] Make inquiry (info)… Data gathering, IE-SA.
.
[4] acquire a det. result (information) Data gathering, IESA.
[5a] acquire authority information…. Data gathering, IESA.
[5b] matching authority… Mental/determine authority.
[5c] checking determination result. Mental/evaluate result.
[6] transmit information of the change. Transmit data, IESA.
Steps [1], [2], [3a], [3b], [4], [5a], and [6] are data gathering and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [3], [5b] and [5c] are mental or “business activity” step for analysis of data to determine whether or not to change work content and function content and authority permission at a construction site.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a processor for carrying out the analysis steps. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice of a well known business practice for determining whether or not to change work content and function content at a construction site, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[6] above.
Steps [1], [2], [3a], [3b], [4], [5a], and [6] are data gathering and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [3], [5b] and [5c] are mental or “business activity” step for analysis of data to determine whether or not to change work content and function content and authority permission at a construction site.
The means to carry out these steps appear to be generic computer device with generic software elements.
The additional elements do not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. The generic computer components, processor, determination device (34), work/function change content determination unit (25), Authorized person identification unit (26), application content inquiry unit (27), work/function content change unit (28), first terminal (24), second terminal (33), etc., merely perform generic computer functions: receiving data, analyzing data, transmitting data, making inquiry, changing work content (data) or function content (data), and transmitting the contents (data).
Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software application for carrying out a well known business practice for determining whether or not to change work content and function content at a construction site, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for determining whether or not to change work content and function content at a construction site, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [3], [5b] and [5c], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for carrying out the determining whether or not to change work content and function content at a construction site, are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 4-5 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the data about the content and authentication, these further limit the abstract idea of the involved entities and determination analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 4-5 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 6-8 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the data about the work and function contents, these further limit the abstract idea of the content and determination analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 6-8 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 9-10 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the data about the applicant’s activities and changed content, these further limit the abstract idea of the content and determination analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 9-10 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-10 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) 101 Rejections.
Applicant’s comment that even though the current application deals with an abstract idea of “whether to change work and function content with approval authority features,” it passes the subject matter eligibility test because the system interacts between multiple terminals and a determination device and creates a specialized architecture, improving accuracy and security level. This is not found to be persuasive because the additional elements appear to be generic computer components, processor, determination device (34), work/function change content determination unit (25), Authorized person identification unit (26), application content inquiry unit (27), work/function content change unit (28), first terminal (24), second terminal (33), etc., merely perform generic computer functions: receiving data, analyzing data, transmitting data, making inquiry, changing work content (data) or function content (data), and transmitting the contents (data). The additional elements do not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field.
2) 103 Rejections: the amendment of the claims overcome the previous rejection. The rejection of Claims 1, 4-10 (apparatus1) under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over: (1) CN 1,908,969 and (2) JP 2014.127.174 (A) are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689