Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 12/31/24 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this 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 1-7, 9-13, 15-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of managing the maintenance of property (road, building) by determining treatment approaches and/or by displaying information about defects on a map. Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 10 and 17, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
store a plurality of different treatment approaches in a memory;
receive survey data from a property, wherein the survey data comprises geospatial information for each of a plurality of property defects of the property; and wherein the survey data comprises digital imagery for each of the plurality of property defects; and
based on the survey data, determine a quantitative detail for each of the plurality of property defects, wherein the quantitative detail of at least one of the plurality of property defects is a dimensional detail;
select a treatment approach from the plurality of treatment approaches for each of the plurality of property defects,
wherein for each of the plurality of property defects, the selected treatment approach is based at least partially on the quantitative detail of the property defect; and
visually convey on a map of the property geographic locations of each of the plurality of property defects
and automatically generate a populated bid package, wherein the populated bid package is based on the survey data and identifies at least one of the plurality of property defects and the selected treatment approach for the at least one of the plurality of property defects, wherein the populated bid package comprises a map of the property showing the at least one of the plurality of property defects at scale [for use with digital takeoff estimating software]
Note: The intended use of the map in terms of being able to be used by digital takeoff estimating software is not a further limitation to the claimed invention. This language is directed to the intended use of the “to scale: map and is not a step or function required by the system. This is purely intended use language.
The examiner notes that independent claim 10 is slightly broader than the above example for claim 1 but the claim is still considered to be reciting an abstract idea for the reasons set forth below.
The above limitations are reciting a method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. The claims are reciting steps taken in the context of a commercial practice where road maintenance needs are being determined and that includes the generation of a bid package that allows contractors to bid on the road repairs. Claim 7 further defines that the cost of treatment is accounted for when determining the selected treatment approach. Determining defects and determining the costs associated with road repairs and selecting a treatment approach based on cost is considered to be reciting a fundamental economic practice and/or a commercial interaction in the form of sales activities. Road maintenance has been something that is known to be practiced by people long before the invention of modern day computing devices. The above noted claim limitations identified by the examiner can also be construed as being a fundamental economic practice of determining what repairs needs to be performed for roads, and allowing others to bid on the job(s), and/or by considering cost in the selected treatment approach. Additionally, the examiner notes that the claimed steps can be performed by human beings where information is stored using pen and paper. A person can use a map on paper to visually convey locations of defects. Nothing is claimed that operates to improve technology or a technical field. While the independent claims are more broadly recited than the dependent claims, they are found to be broadly reciting a process by which road maintenance needs are determined and treatment approaches are selected with conveyance of the information on a map. The claimed subject matter is considered to fall into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities.
The additional elements of the claims are:
at least one processor and non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon which when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: (claim 1)
defect management computing system, instructions stored in a memory (claims 10, ).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory, to perform steps that define the abstract idea. The fact that the imagery is “digital” being an instruction for one to practice the invention using a computer. A person can receive image data via paper images like was done before the invention of digital cameras and digital image files so the further recitation to “digital” is taken as a mere instruction for one to practice the invention using a computer and does not impart eligibility to the claimed invention, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The above elements do not amount to anything more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer and is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application; therefore, the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea, and using “digital images”. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. This is consistent with the recently issued 2019 PEG.
For claim 2, reciting the manner in which the geospatial information was collected (past tense) is not reciting anything further to the system of claim 1, which is directed to the system that processes the received information and does not include any remote devices, etc.. Claim 1 recites that the computing system has instructions that causes a processor(s) to receive survey data (geospatial information) from a paved property, but in claim 2 nothing is further claimed about the instructions that are executed by the pavement defect management computing system. Additionally and alternatively, using a GPS device to note GPS locations is considered to be using GPS for its only purpose and is simply using a known device in its ordinary and customary manner (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(II).). This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more at step 2B as this is just an instruction for one to use GPS to obtain GPS coordinates and appears to be the situation addressed in 2106.05(f)(II).
For claims 3, 11, 18, the further recitation to the pre-survey data and the claimed characteristics of a building location or pavement segmentations or labels or traffic conditions is found to be reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was set forth for claims 1, 10, 17. Nothing additional is claimed because the further description of the data being used for the abstract idea is reciting the abstract idea. There is nothing for the examiner to consider as an additional element at the 2nd prong or at step 2B.
For claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, 20, reciting that the survey data is classification information that comprises a severity rating is reciting more about the same abstract idea of claims 1, 10, 17. The claimed survey data of classification information is part of the abstract idea of the claims and is not considered to be an additional element for consideration at the 2nd prong or at step 2B.
For claims 6, 15, 21, the imagery for the defects that is received is considered to be part of the abstract idea, with the fact that the imagery is “digital” being an instruction for one to practice the invention using a computer. A person can receive image data via paper images like was done before the invention of digital cameras and digital image files so the further recitation to “digital” is taken as a mere instruction for one to practice the invention using a computer and does not impart eligibility to the claimed invention, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claims 7, 16, as was addressed with claims 1, 10, 17, the cost of treatment is considered to be part of the claimed abstract idea. Nothing is claimed that is considered to be an additional element for consideration at the 2nd prong or at step 2B.
For claim 9, reciting that the survey data is from a roof and the defect is a crack or gutter defect, etc., is a further recitation to the same abstract idea of claim 1. The survey data is part of the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-21, are found to be directed to an abstract idea without a practical application and/or without reciting significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deaton et al. (20060235611) in view of examiner official notice.
For claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 15, 17, 21, Deaton discloses a roof inspection system that receives inspection data (survey data) from a property. Deaton discloses that a user employs a handheld GPS enabled device to walk a roof to determine the area of the roof, see paragraphs 057, 125. GPS location data (geospatial data) is collected and is used to determine quantitative details such as area of the roof (paragraph 059). Paragraphs 029, 065, 124, 130, disclose the inspection data (the claimed survey data) that is collected and that includes images as claimed. The selection of a treatment approach is disclosed in paragraphs 086, 115. The system is disclosed as being able to analyze the received survey data to make recommendations for repairs and/or maintenance. This satisfies the claimed treatment approach that is being stored and that is selected based on the noted defects, their size, etc.. The use of a map to visually convey the location of each of the defects is disclosed in paragraphs 089 and 106. The use of a map that shows the locations of defects is taught by Deaton.
Not disclosed by Deaton is that a bid package is generated based on the survey data and that identifies the defects and the selected treatment approach, and that includes a map with locations of the property defects.
In the specification the applicant has disclosed conducting of a reverse auction for performing the repairs and/or by soliciting bids from providers. This is known in the art as being a request for quote (RFQ) and/or reads on conducting a reverse auction. Reverse auctions and RFQs are well known in the art and the examiner takes official notice of this fact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to outsource the actual repair and maintenance of the road defects, one way to do this is to conduct a reverse auction where suppliers bid on the work or by soliciting RFQs. This requires information identifying the services requested (road repairs desired) so that the service providers will be made aware of the service they are bidding or on that they are submitting quotes for. Reverse auctions and RFQs are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of supplying services. Generating a bid package setting forth the desired service that the suppliers are supposed to bid one would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the inclusion of a map that shows the location of the defects, the content of the bid package itself in terms of what it says or what it includes, is directed to printed matter that is akin to reciting non-functional descriptive material. This does not serve as a patentably distinguishing limitation that would define over the prior art. The “to scale” map is just part of the content of the bid package in the form of static data .
For claims 3, 11, 18, the claimed pre-survey data is satisfied by the building location data that is taught in paragraph 123. The address for a property is disclosed as being stored by the system and this satisfies the claimed building location.
For claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, 20, see paragraph 087 that discloses the use of the severity of the defect. Defects are classified based on their type such as a seam split or a problem with a drain (see paragraph 089).
For claims 7, 16, Deaton teaches that a cost estimate is generated, see paragraphs 094, 126.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Villalobos et al. (20080082347) in view of Cronin et al. (9416499) and further in view of official notice of reverse auctions.
For claim 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, Villalobos discloses a road defect management system 100 (computer with processor) and method for management of road maintenance and for road defect identification. A road with defects satisfies the claimed limitation to a property. A road is “property” that is capable of being owned by somebody or an entity. Disclosed is paragraph 003 is the fact that road defects are known to exist and that they need to be repaired. Villalobos discloses that survey data is received from a data collection device 50 that is used to log entries manually entered by a person. The data is received by system 100. Disclosed is that a driver of a vehicle manually enters information associated with the condition of a road, such as the type of defect encountered and the criticality or severity of the defect. This is disclosed in paragraph 018. Disclosed is that the defects can be categorized (classified) into defect types, such as pot holes, road corrugations, rutting, surface cracks, etc.. The severity of the defect is described by using a scale from 1 to 5. Paragraph 019 discloses that there may be an electronic device in the operator cab that is used by the person to manually enter the defect data. This aspect of Villalobos is the same as has been claimed and disclosed in the specification, in the sense that a person is the one that is determining and manually entering the information associated with and that describes the road defect. Paragraph 019 discloses that the GPS location for the defect is determined by linking the GPS location to the defect in a data storage. Also see paragraphs 017-019. This satisfies the claimed receiving of survey data where the survey data comprises geospatial information for the defects.
Villalobos discloses that after the data regarding the defect is received, the data is used to determine the proper maintenance to be conducted. Paragraph 028 discloses that the received data may trigger a maintenance operation to be performed. Also disclosed is that an economic analysis may be conducted to optimize the road maintenance (cost). Reports are also disclosed as being generated in paragraph 031. Paragraph 032 discloses that after conducting an analysis of the survey data, recommended road repairs are listed. This is considered to satisfy the claimed determining of a treatment approach. Also, in paragraph 033 Villalobos discloses that the survey data is used to prioritize and schedule road maintenance. The treatment approach can be something as simple as determining whether or not to repair a given defect at the present time, such as is done by the trigger disclosed in paragraph 028. This is based on the data regarding the road defects. However, this limitation is also rendered obvious in view of Cronin as is set forth below with respect to the limitation of storing the plurality of treatment approaches in memory.
For claims 1, 10, 17, not disclosed by Villalobos is that digital imagery for the defects is received as part of the survey data. Not disclosed is determining the dimensional detail is determined for the pavement defect, such as the length or area for a defect.
For claims 1, 10, 17, not disclosed by Villalobos is that the locations of the defects are displayed on a map.
For claims 1, 17, not disclosed by Villalobos is that a plurality of treatment approaches are stored in memory, such that a treatment approach can be selected based on the quantitative detail.
For claims 1, 10, 17, not disclosed by Villalobos is that a bid package is generated based on the survey data and that identifies the road defects and the selected treatment approach.
Cronin discloses a system and method for assessing and tracking the condition of a roadway such as a paved road, see column 1, lines 25-48. Cronin discloses that survey data is received, which is the received data regarding potholes. See column 3, lines 4-18; column 5, lines 7-25 where Cronin discloses that data such as pothole location and the depth and severity of the pothole is received. Also see column 5, lines 38-46 where Cronin discloses that users provide data regarding a pothole and that this includes location and width, 2-d dimensional or 3-d dimensional shape, contours, and depth profile. Cronin also discloses that the locations of the potholes can be displayed on a map, see column 2, lines 21-31; column 3, lines 4-18, and column 12, lines 19-24. Cronin discloses in column 8, lines 56-61 that the system is able to determine one or more preferred methods of repair for a given roadway defect. This requires that methods of repair (treatment approaches) are stored by the system so that the system is able to select a preferred method of repair.
With respect to having the locations of the pavement defects displayed on a map as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Villalobos with the ability to display the locations of the road defects on a map, as taught by Cronin, so that a user could easily be able to determine the locations of road defects by looking on a map. Maps are well known as being a way that one can visually display locations relative to other locations, and this is specifically known to be used to display road defects as is taught by Cronin. To provide the use of a map as claimed to display the locations of the road defects would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to storing a plurality of treatment approaches in memory (claims 1, 17), Cronin teaches in column 8, lines 56-61 that a data analysis module of the computer system is able to determine one or more preferred methods of repair for given road defects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the claimed invention to provide Villalobos with the further ability to store repair methods (treatment approaches) in memory so that the survey data that is received can be analyzed to determine a recommended or preferred repair method, as taught by Cronin. This yields the predictable result of having the computer system determine the correct or preferred treatment approach (repair method) for the given road defect.
With respect to determining a quantitative detail, Cronin teaches that it is desirable to receive data about the width, shape, contour, and depth of a defect, see column 5, lines 38-46; column 7, lines 54-end. Cronin teaches that the dimensional details of a road defect are important, such as width, 2-d or 3-d shape, contours, and/or depth. Width is a measure of length. In the event that the defect is a linear crack, it would have been obvious to provide Villalobos with the ability to determine the length of the crack so that the size is known. It is considered to be obvious to determine the length of the defect because the length of a crack is surely to be of interest to those concerned with road maintenance and repair. In the event that the defect is a polygon shaped defect such as a pothole, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes and understands that this takes up some “area” of the road. A larger sized pothole takes up more area as opposed to smaller and less damaging potholes and requires more materials to fix than a smaller pothole (logical common sense). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to also determine the area of the defect when it is a pothole. This would be desirable so that the full extent of the pothole is known in terms of its size (its area that it occupies in the road).
With respect to the claimed receiving of the digital imagery for each of the defects, Cronin discloses in column 6, lines 38-46 that additional data in the form of defect imagery data is also received and used. This is disclosed as being photographic data collected via an aerial platform. Also disclosed is column 6 is the use of satellites and how they are used to obtain photographic data for road defects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Villalobos with the ability to also receive survey data in the form of digital imagery data that can be used to further assist in managing and schedule repairs for road defects.
With respect to the claimed bid package is generated based on the survey data and that identifies the road defects and the selected treatment approach, in the specification the applicant has disclosed conducting of a reverse auction for performing the road repairs and/or by soliciting bids from providers. This is known in the art as being a request for quote (RFQ) and/or reads on conducting a reverse auction. Reverse auctions and RFQs are well known in the art and the examiner takes official notice of this fact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to outsource the actual repair and maintenance of the road defects, one way to do this is to conduct a reverse auction where suppliers bid on the work or by soliciting RFQs. This requires information identifying the services requested (road repairs desired) so that the service providers will be made aware of the service they are bidding or on that they are submitting quotes for. Reverse auctions and RFQs are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of supplying services. Generating a bid package setting forth the desired service that the suppliers are supposed to bid one would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For claims 3, 11, 18, the applicant recites the receipt of pre-survey data. The pre-survey data is claimed as identifying one or more characteristics, such as a building location or a pavement segmentation or facility labels (words). The prior art combination arrives at the displaying of the locations of the road defects using a map. One of ordinary skill in the art of maps knows that maps of roads include locations of where roads end or begin, and understands that maps use labels. The claimed pre-survey data is taken as being the map data that is used in displaying the locations of the road defects. This flows from the prior art combination of record and the use of a map as explained by the examiner.
For claims 7, 16, Villalobos discloses that an economic analysis occurs for the road treatments in terms of determining the cost of repair road defects, including at different times. Not disclosed is that the cost is based on the dimensional detail for the defect (size, length, area). Because the cost to repair a defect is dependent on the type and size of the defect (small defects such as cracks are cheaper to fix than large potholes), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Villalobos with the ability to determine cost to repair that is based on the dimensional detail as claimed. This is just taking into account the size of a defect (length, area, depth) so that the determined cost will accurately reflect the true cost to repair the defect at hand based on the size or area of the defect that needs to be repaired.
For claim 9, reciting where the survey data comes from as far as being from a rood does not further define anything to the claimed system or to the claimed survey data itself. This is taken as descriptive material that does not serve as a limitation. The recitation to the defect being a crack is satisfied by what has been addressed for claim 1. The claim is attempting to recite an intended use for the system but what has been recited does not define anything further to what has been claimed. The claimed roof for the property can be concrete or other material that is disclosed by Villalobos due to the breadth of the claim scope.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Villalobos et al. (20080082347) in view of Cronin et al. (9416499), in view of examiner official notice, and further in view of Poer (20080255902).
For claim 2, not disclosed by Villalobos is that the data collection device is a handheld GPS enabled handheld computing device. Villalobos discloses that the data collection device can be placed into the operator cab but nothing further is disclosed about it being a handheld device.
Poer discloses a system and method for asset maintenance management that is disclosed as being used for roadways and their maintenance and repair, see paragraphs 018 and 019. Poer discloses that survey data is received about an asset such as a roadway and the condition of an asset is determined. Poer discloses that GPS location is used, see paragraph 031. In paragraph 021, Poer discloses that the computer device that is used in the method can be a handheld device. This is a teaching that a handheld device can be used for roadway maintenance and condition assessment. Poer teaches and equates a general purpose computing device to handheld computing devices for roadway maintenance management and oversight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Villalobos with a handheld GPS enabled device in the operator cab as opposed to having a permanently mounted computing device in the operating cab. In other words, taking the device in Villalobos that is employed by the user to manually enter the road defect data and making it a handheld device as it taught by Poer (and therefore a mobile device) is something that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Simply making the device in the operator cab of Villalobos be handheld and mobile does not involve anything more than ordinary skill in the art.
Response to arguments
For the double patenting rejection, in view of the amended claims the pending claims are no longer anticipated by the patented claims and the rejection has been withdrawn.
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 7 of the reply the applicant argues that the invention is a sophisticated solution to the problem of property defect management (which is not technology). The applicant argues that the claimed invention provides for technological improvements and goes well beyond conventional methods. These allegations are not persuasive as they are simply general allegations. The field of defect management for property such as roads is not technology and is not technical in nature. This is a certain method of organizing human activities that is something known to be done by people manually. The claimed invention does not result in an improvement to any technology. Even if the alleged process of managing property defects is novel or non-obvious, any improvement lies in the abstract idea itself and not in technology being improved. Any advantages in terms of an improvement over manual processes (as argued), this is a result of automation and using computers to perform the abstract idea. This does not render the claims eligible.
The applicant argues that the claims recite a specific process for defect identification and management. What has been argued is the abstract idea of the claims. This is not a technical solution but is a recitation to the abstract idea. At step 2A, the claims recite an abstract idea as set forth by the examiner. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive.
For the 2nd prong arguments, the applicant has argued that the invention provides a novel methodology that is citing the claimed elements as the novel methodology. The applicant argues that the invention integrates components to solve a real world problem to property maintenance that is more accurate than before. This is not persuasive. As to the argument that the claims are novel or non-obvious (which the examiner disagrees with), the examiner notes that in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court stated that:
"abstract ideas, no matter how groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, are outside what the statute means by "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", and reference is made to Myriad by the court for this position. Also stated in buySAFE is "In defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303. The Court in Mayo rejected the contention that the very narrow scope of the natural law at issue was a reason to find patent eligibility, explaining the point with reference to both natural laws and one kind of abstract idea, namely, mathematical concepts.
From SAP AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. INVESTPIC, LLC:
We affirm. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.
Therefore, the argument for the 2nd prong is not persuasive. The claims have not been integrated into a practical application. Any improvement is a result of the abstract idea and is not an improvement to technology. Just because a claim recites a process that solves a problem for property maintenance management, does not mean that the claims are eligible. The narrowness of the judicial exception is not dispositive of the eligibility inquiry.
For step 2B, the applicant has argued that the claims provide significantly more. The applicant argues that the invention is not just implementing the invention on a computer, but creates a new technological solution. This is not persuasive and is in essence arguing that because the claimed steps are done with a computer, it results in a technological solution. This is not persuasive. Technology is not being improved. The applicant largely argues the elements that serve to define the abstract idea and alleges that the claims are a technological improvement because of the steps. The claims are not improving technology in any manner. The claims result in a bid package being assembled so that service providers can bid on providing repairs for property defects. This is not an improvement to technology. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea, and using “digital images”. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The argument on page 8 that the claims provide for a concrete, technically sophisticated system that is an advancement in property defect management technology is not persuasive for reasons already addressed. Eligibility is not determined by looking to see if a claim has a concreate, technically sophisticated system. The argued standard for claim eligibility is not reflected in MPEP 2106 and is not persuasive. Also, as stated above, the examiner again notes that the claims are not improving technology in any manner. The claims result in a bid package being assembled so that service providers can bid on providing repairs for defects. This is not an improvement to technology. The argument is not persuasive.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained as the arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art rejection under 35 USC 103 and the examiner taking official notice of reverse auctions and requests for quote, the applicant has challenged the examiner taking official notice that reverse auctions are known in the art. The applicant has argued they are not aware of a reverse auction or a request for quote. While this is dubious considering the applicant only generally refers to reverse auctions as being used in the specification, indicating that the applicant was aware of their existence. The examiner has provided evidence in the form of available prior art that supports the assertion from the examiner. The prior art teaches that those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when one is looking for a service or a good, one can either use a request for quote (RFQ) and/or a reverse auction where both involve bids being made. This is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Buyers send out a bid package that explains what they are looking to procure as far as goods or services is concerned, and sellers submit bids. This is something that is very obvious to even those of less than ordinary skill in the art. The traversal is not persuasive for these reasons and the applicant is referred to the cited prior art of record that supports the taking of official notice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited in support of the taking of official notice. The references support the assertion from the examiner that using a reverse auction and a request for quote are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art of procurement.
NPL reference “Reaping big cost savings with reverse auctions” discloses that it is known in the art to use a reverse auction for procurement of goods where suppliers will compete against other with the bids lowering as times goes on.
NPL reference “Reverse auctions and the staffing industry” teaches that reverse auctions are known in the art as a way for buyers to get competitive prices from suppliers. This reference teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art knowns that a reverse auction can be used in a procurement process.
NPL reference “The procurement process-Implementing the plan: A tutorial” teaches that it is known in the art of procurement to use a RFQ (request for quote) that is sent to suppliers, and where bids are obtained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626