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 .
Claims 2, 4, 9, 12, 13, 16-18 are cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are added new.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 14-15, 19-22 are pending in this Final Office Action.
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, 5-8, 10-11, 14-15, 19-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. The claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories except for claim 8.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically transitory signals per se.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir., 2007). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (or machine readable medium) typically covers transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent.
Although Applicant’s specification describes exemplary computer readable media in paragraph [0117] “The project management program P is supplied in the computer-readable recording medium MD such as a compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disc-read only memory (DVD-ROM), and a semiconductor memory. The project management program P may be supplied as a data signal through the network NW”, Examiner asserts that it is silent regarding excluding transitory signals. Furthermore even if the applicant intends for the computer- readable medium to be interpreted as "storage" or "tangible," merely adding the terms "storage" or "physical" or "tangible" would not suffice since signals are considered to be physical or tangible. Although directed toward a computer program product, claims 9-12 do not exclude transitory signals, thus are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In order to overcome the rejection, the Examiner suggests amending the claims to disclose that the computer readable medium is non-transitory. Examiner suggests amending both specification and claims using the term "non-transitory computer readable medium."
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claims 7-8 for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 1, 7-8:
A project management method for managing a project of constructing an installation object comprising:
acquiring an on-site image obtained by photographing a construction site in which the installation object is to be constructed; acquiring engineering model data on each of a plurality of components forming the installation object;
generating a composite image by superimposing the engineering model data on the on-site image and displaying the composite image on a display apparatus; and displaying, based on an operation performed on the composite image by a user, the user to input information relating to progress of a first work unit, which is a work unit containing a work of a first component being a component corresponding to the engineering model data selected by the user,
user to input a progress state;
calculate the work volume based on the progress state input by the user and display the calculated work volume.
The underlined claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people because the claimed steps recite managing a project. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). Claims 1 and 7-8 include the following additional elements:
An apparatus;
Memory, hardware processor configured to acquire [data];
Display apparatus configured to display [data];
Receive [data];
Display screen for causing user input on the display apparatus, display [data]
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and comparing data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers receiving, storing and updating data, and displaying or transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for all of dependent claims, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. Furthermore dependent claims comprise the following additional elements:
GPS receiver and gyroscope. These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 14-15, 19-22 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the 112f and prior art rejection, however the 101 rejection is being maintained.
Applicant argues, “These limitations define a specific graphical interaction mechanism that links real-world imagery with engineering model data. Specifically, the interaction mechanism constitutes a technological improvement to graphical user interfaces used for managing construction data, enabling users to interact directly with components represented in a composite image rather than searching through large lists of component identifiers. This mechanism solves a technical problem arising in construction management systems: when a project contains thousands of components, it becomes difficult for users to identify the correct component and update its progress through traditional list-based interfaces. The claimed invention addresses this problem by enabling visual selection of components directly within a composite image of the construction site, thereby improving the manner in which the computer system retrieves and updates construction data. “ Examiner disagrees. The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and comparing data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
US 20120047420 Method and system for directed documentation of construction projects
US 20060242419 Method And System For Directed Documentation Of Construction Projects
Hyeon-seung Kim, Chang-hak Kim, Hyoun-seok Moon, So-yeong Moon, Young-hwan Kim and L. -s. Kang, "Application of augmented reality object in construction project," 2013 Third World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies (WICT 2013), Hanoi, 2013, pp. 117-120, doi: 10.1109/WICT.2013.7113121.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights