DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 3/28/2023. Claims 1-11 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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an operational model creating unit configured to extract” in claim 1, “a tool having a communication unit”, “a total station having a communication unit”, “a distance-measuring unit”, “an angle-measuring unit”, and “a tracking unit”, and “a camera having a communication unit”, and “a control unit in claim 2, “a change point extracting unit” in claim 3, ““a change point extracting unit” in claim 4, “a communication unit”, “a total station having a communication unit”, “a distance-measuring unit”, “an angle-measuring unit”, “a tracking unit”, and “a camera having a communication unit” and “a control unit” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: however there is no corresponding structure described in the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with errors. The following is to be considered exemplary of the many issues present.
Claim 1, line 3 recites “a completion member” and then “a member ID” and “member coordinates”. It is unclear if the member ID and member coordinates are associated with the previously recited completion member or some other member.
Claim 1, lines 5-9 is a run-on phrase which is extremely confusing and difficult to read. It is unknown what “with respect to” is referring to. There appears to be a verb or connecting term missing before the phrase “at least an”. It is unknown if the limitation is worded backwards. Significant correction is required.
Claim 1, lines 10-11 recites “extract, as an operation member,…” It is unknown what it would mean for an operation member to ‘extract’, and what an operation member even is. It is unknown if the operation member is a user using the system.
Claim 1, lines 11-12 recites “the environment conditions acquired” which lacks antecedent support.
Claim 2, lines 8-11 recite “wherein coordinates…obtained by the tool work management system are acquired as the environment acquisition coordinates…” It is unclear how coordinates can be ‘acquired as” other coordinates. This phrase is confusing.
Claim 3, line 6 recites “as a change point confirming member” which appears to be a random phrase inserted for seemingly no reason.
Claim 3, lines 6-9 and line 11 recites “extracts coordinates…as “Changed”” and “extracted as “Changed””. It is unknown what these phrases mean.
Claim 4 is identical to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasoning.
All rejections from claim 1 argued above similarly apply to claim 5. In addition, lines 2-9 of claim 5 is a long, run-on phrase which is exceedingly difficult to discern. This limitation should be rewritten to clearly begin with active verbs followed by clear objects. It is unclear why this limitation does not begin with step (A) and why step (A) is the following limitation.
Claim 6, line 2 recites “the step of:” followed by more than one step. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, line 3 begins with “by transmitting and receiving information to and from…” It is unknown why the limitation begins with ‘by’. It is unclear why this limitation is not step (E ) and why step (E) begins in the following step.
Claim 6, lines 10-11 recites “receiving coordinates…as the environment acquisition coordinates”. It is unclear how coordinates can be ‘acquired as” other coordinates. This phrase is confusing.
Claim 6, lines 14-15 recites “the step of (F)” which lacks antecedent support.
All rejections from claims 3 and 4 argued above similarly apply to claims 7 and 8. In addition, claim 7 depends from claim 5. Claim 5 recites steps (A)-(E). However claim 7 recites steps (G), (H), (I), (J). It is unclear why the steps skip steps E and F.
Claim 11 recites “according to any one of Claim 5”, which should be “according to claim 5”.
Due to the extensive issues present, Applicant is encouraged to thoroughly review the claim language prior to submitting a response.
The Examiner requests one marked copy and one clean copy.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an operational model creating unit configured to extract” in claim 1, “a tool having a communication unit”, “a total station having a communication unit”, “a distance-measuring unit”, “an angle-measuring unit”, and “a tracking unit”, and “a camera having a communication unit”, and “a control unit in claim 2, “a change point extracting unit” in claim 3, ““a change point extracting unit” in claim 4, “a communication unit”, “a total station having a communication unit”, “a distance-measuring unit”, “an angle-measuring unit”, “a tracking unit”, and “a camera having a communication unit” and “a control unit” in claim 6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: however there is no corresponding structure described in the specification.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-11, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1 and 5 claim a system and a method. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of machine and a process.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A management system comprising:
a completion database storing, with respect to a completion member of a building, at least a member ID and member coordinates;
an environment database storing, with respect to environment conditions of the building including the completion member after completion or an object related to the completion member, at least an environment acquisition result ID and environment acquisition coordinates;
an operation model creating unit configured to extract, as an operation member, the completion member related to the environment conditions acquired, and create an operation model of the operation member (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
an operation database in which, with respect to the operation member, an operation member ID, the member ID, operation member coordinates, and an operation member shape are stored based on the operation model.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves extracting a completion member and creating an operation model of an operation member. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing operation member model. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “a completion database storing…” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “an environment database storing…” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “an operation model creating unit configured to extract ” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “an operation database in which, with respect to the operation member, an operation member ID, the member ID, operation member coordinates, and an operation member shape are stored based on the operation model” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)).
Accordingly, 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.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards, generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements: “a completion database storing…”, “an environment database storing…” and “an operation database in which, with respect to the operation member, an operation member ID, the member ID, operation member coordinates, and an operation member shape are stored based on the operation model” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting and data outputting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 2-4.
Claims 2-4 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing operation member model. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components. Accordingly, 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 claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 5 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A management method comprising the steps of:
by transmitting and receiving information to and from a completion database storing, with respect to a completion member of a building, at least a member ID and member coordinates, and an environment database storing, with respect to environment conditions of the building including the completion member or an object related to the completion member, at least an environment acquisition result ID and environment acquisition coordinates,
(A) acquiring the environment conditions from the environment database;
(B) extracting, as an operation member, the completion member related to the environment conditions acquired in Step (A) (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
(C) creating, with respect to the operation member, an operation model by applying shape correction to a completion model created from the completion database by using data on the environment conditions (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
(D) storing, with respect to the operation member, an operation member ID, the member ID, operation member coordinates, and an operation member shape in an operation database based on the operation model.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves extracting a completion member and creating an operation model of an operation member. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing operation member model. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components and extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “by transmitting and receiving information to and from a completion database storing, with respect to…”(generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “an environment database storing, with respect …” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “(A) acquiring the environment conditions from the environment database” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering/output MPEP 2106.05(g)), “(D) storing, with respect … in an operation database based on the operation model” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)).
Accordingly, 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.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements: “by transmitting and receiving information to and from a completion database storing, with respect to…”, “an environment database storing, with respect …” , “(A) acquiring the environment conditions from the environment database”, and “(D) storing, with respect … in an operation database based on the operation model” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting, transmitting and storing is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 6-11.
Claims 6-11 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing operation member model. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components. Accordingly, 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 claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites “A storage medium storing a computer program” which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. While Applicant’s specification may or may not provide examples of a medium as claimed, such examples do not explicitly define the term.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, particularly when the specification is silent of an explicit definition. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim is not statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1496 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[a] signal with embedded supplemental data” require some carrier of information, since “signal” implies conveyance of information, which in turn requires physical carrier, such as electromagnetic wave, on which information is embedded; however, claims do not specify what carrier element is to be used, since limitations address signal's informational content alone, and therefore any tangible means of information carriage, such as electrical signals, modulated electronic waves, or pulses in fiber optic cable, will suffice for all claims at issue.) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009, p.2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 in this situation, the USPTO suggest the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals – Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
According to the current guidance, a proper medium that qualifies as a patent eligible process under 35 USC 101 must be non- transitory storage medium that is also a recording medium and should not include propagation media. Because the instant claims include medium that could involve propagation media, the claims are being held as non-statutory under 35 USC 101.
It is recommended that the claims be amended to recite “A non-transitory storage medium”.
Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4 are drawn to “management system”. The system could be interpreted to comprise only software elements. According to the current guidance, a system that qualifies as a patent eligible system under 35 USC 101 cannot consist only of software per se. If the system consists only of software per se, the system is not a patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Because the instant claims could comprise software per se, the claims are being held as non-statutory under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Any indication of allowable subject matter is being held in abeyance pending the responses to the extensive rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112(b).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
US 20230315927 A1: invention supports a routine work related to operation of a building to be performed by a manager of the building after completion of building construction. A management system includes a completion database storing, an environment database storing, a rule database including a rule table storing, with respect to an operation rule of the building, a rule ID of the operation rule, rule attributes of the operation rule, and a rule element of the operation rule, and an object table storing the rule ID and related member attributes of a related member related to the rule ID, an operation database including an operation rule table storing the rule ID, a member list of the related member, and an operation rule element based on the rule element, and an operation rule creating unit configured to create the operation rule table.
US 20210256679 A1: includes virtual material information, which includes virtual material position information, on attributes for each virtual material of a virtual building. The physical material data, which includes physical material position data, is generated based on measured data of a physical building constructed based on the design data, relates to the attributes for each physical material. The material associating processor generates pairs of virtual and physical materials by determining an association between the virtual and physical materials based on the virtual material position information and the physical material position data. For each of the pairs, the attribute associating processor determines an association between the virtual material information and the physical material data in accordance with the attributes.
US 11953891 B2: a work management system enabling real-time inspection by simultaneously performing work and measurements. The work management system includes a tool including a communication unit and a trigger switch, a camera unit including a communication unit, a camera capable of identifying 3D camera coordinates from an image, a posture detecting device configured to acquire camera posture information, a control unit, and a prism, and a surveying instrument including a communication unit, a tracking unit, a distance-measuring unit, an angle-measuring unit, and a control unit, wherein upon detection that the trigger switch has been used, the camera unit collects camera posture information by the posture detecting device, a tool image by the camera, position coordinates of the prism measured by the surveying instrument, and orientation information of the camera unit viewed from the surveying instrument, and obtains and stores position coordinates of a tip end position of the tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights