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 .
Objections
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being a multiple dependent claim and shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent. A multiple dependent claim which depends from another multiple dependent claim is improper. Claim 4-8 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 1-15 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. Claims 1-14 are directed to a statutory category, however claim 15 is not.
Claim 15 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 mentions a computer readable medium, it is only cursory as a plurality of instructions in paragraph [0023]. 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, claim 15 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 9 for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 9 and 15: Facilitating the performance of a building inspection:
receiving, associated with a building inspector, information regarding a building inspection, the information including a building inspection agreement that describes at least the purpose of the building inspection accessible by the building inspector;
storing details pertaining to a plurality of modules with each module relevant to a particular aspect of a forthcoming building inspection; receiving, least the following inputs associated with the building inspector: a selection of one or more modules from the plurality of modules relevant to the forthcoming inspection, any one or more of notes, parameter selection, images and/or sound recordings regarding the forthcoming inspection, and one or more parameters for tailoring the format of one or more building inspection reports to accord with the requirements of one or more intended recipients of the one or more building inspection reports;
receiving input from the building inspector whilst conducting inspection of the building from the one or more devices associated with the building inspector, the input including any one or more of further notes parameter selections, images and/or sound recordings;
automatically generating based on either the selected one or more modules, the received input or both and performing an analysis of same using one or more intelligence techniques, building inspection reports for the intended recipients that accord with a tailored format configured for the intended recipient; and subsequent to the generation of the one or more building inspection reports, transmitting the one or more building inspection reports to the one or more intended recipients upon instruction of the building inspector and/or one or more other users.
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 an inspector inspecting a building. 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.
Alternatively, the underlined claim limitations recite “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, which can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation. The limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea as they can be accomplished by including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion based on doing a building inspection.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). The independent claims include the following additional elements:
A computer-implemented system, the system including: one or more processors in communication with one or more devices, the one or more processors configured to receive information; one or more databases in communication with the one or more processors configured to store details pertaining to a plurality of modules; the one or more processors further configured to receive at least the following inputs from the one or more devices: a selection of one or more modules from the plurality of modules; parameter selections, images and/or sound recordings [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.
Additionally, the one or more processors configured to receive information; one or more databases in communication with the one or more processors configured to store details pertaining to a plurality of modules; the one or more processors further configured to receive at least the following inputs from the one or more devices: a selection of one or more modules from the plurality of modules; parameter selections, images and/or sound recordings [data] amounts to data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, thus does not add any meaningful limitations, and since receiving, storing and transmitting data is considered one of the most basic functions of a computer, these additional elements are deemed as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The legal precedent in Electric Power Group and Ultramercial cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis and display, and requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, are all insignificant extra-solution activity.
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).
Additionally, re-evaluating the insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, it is determined that they are also well-understood, routine, and conventional, as well. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Ultramercial, Versata, Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory, as well as receipt and transmission of information over a computer network, and updating an activity log are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities) and also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive”).
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 storing and updating data, and receiving and 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 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: a user device, one or more regulatory databases. 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 1-15 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Note: In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey (US 20120216106) in view of Obaji (US 20200076871).
Regarding Claim 1, 9 and 15,
Casey discloses:
A system, method and computer readable medium to facilitate the performance of a building inspection (Abstract, Figs 1-9 and Summary), comprising:
one or more processors in communication with one or more devices associated with a building inspector; one or more databases in communication with the one or more processors configured to store details pertaining to a plurality of modules with each module relevant to a particular aspect of a building inspection, receive information regarding a building inspection, the information including a building inspection agreement describing at least the purpose of the building inspection accessible by the building inspector through use of one or more devices associated with the building inspector (Fig. 1; server and database, inspection forms, [0043-0046], [0009-00015] A system for conducting inspections and generating reports comprising a field worker enters data into the inspection form, the client application creates one or more records based on the data entered by the field worker, and the Web services layer transmits the record(s) to the server in real time if Internet access is available; and wherein the Web application enables a user to view records in real time and create reports based on the records transmitted to the server.);
receive at least the following inputs from the one or more devices associated with the building inspector: a selection of one or more modules from the plurality of modules relevant to a forthcoming building inspection; any one or more of notes, parameter selections, images and/or sound recordings regarding the forthcoming inspection; and one or more parameters for tailoring the format of one or more building inspection reports to accord with the requirements of one or more intended recipients of the one or more building inspection reports; receive input from the building inspector whilst conducting an inspection of the building from the one or more devices associated with the building inspector, the input including any one or more of further notes, parameter selections, images and/or sound recordings ([0011-0014], [0030], [0054-0058] and [0069] user inputs and uploading images for the inspection and formatting the report according the requirements)
automatically generate, based on either the selected one or more modules, the received input or both and performing an analysis of same, building inspection reports for the intended recipients that accord with a tailored format configured for each intended recipient and subsequent to generation of the one or more building inspection reports, transmit the one or more building inspection reports to the one or more intended recipients upon instruction of the building inspector and/or one or more other users ([0030-0039, 0051, 0081-0082] generating the inspection report with the desired format and notifying and transmitting the report to the recipient);
Although all of the limitations are taught above, Casey does not specify yet Obaji discloses using natural language processing or AI techniques such as parsing the information ([0027] For the inspection report, information can be parsed and create database entries for each inspection report file received based on the metadata 328 associated with the images included in the master file, wherein the AI techniques in Applicant’s specification point to only natural language processing and equivalent concepts such as parsing without any technical details).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the invention, to modify the Casey to incorporate Obaji’s natural language processing and parsing of the information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include natural language processing such as parsing for the benefit of applying natural language processing in order to enhance the accuracy of the inspection report.
Claims 2 & 10. Modified Casey discloses further configured to enable a user device associated with each of the one or more other users to interface with the system and thereby access the information associated with the intended building inspection and inputs of the building inspector associated with the building inspection upon completion of the building inspection and/or as a building inspection progresses (Casey; [0009-00015] A system for conducting inspections and generating reports comprising a field worker enters data into the inspection form, the client application creates one or more records based on the data entered by the field worker, and the Web services layer transmits the record(s) to the server in real time; and wherein the Web application enables a user to view and sharing records in real time and create reports based on the records transmitted to the server, [0030-0033] creation and uploading of forms and maintaining in databases associated with the system).
Claim 3 & 11. Modified Casey discloses further configured to enable communication between the one or more devices associated with the building inspector and each of the devices associated with the one or more other users substantially in real-time (Casey; Fig. 1; server and database, inspection forms, [0043-0046] communication between inspector devices and he server, [0009-0015] notification and sharing reports in real time based on the records transmitted to the server).
Claim 4. Modified Casey discloses further configured to enable the creation of forms, and upload and maintain same in one or more databases associated with the system (Casey; [0030-0039, 0051, 0081-0082] generating the inspection report with the desired format and notifying and transmitting the report to the recipient).
Claims 7 & 13. Modified Casey discloses further including GPS location functionality and a timestamping facility to verify the location and time at which any image(s) are captured and/or included in a building inspection report (Casey; [0006] GPS location functionality and time to verify location and time of uploaded images for the inspection report generation).
Claims 5-6, 8, 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey (US 20120216106) in view of Obaji (US 20200076871) in further view of Bowman (US 20180211262).
Claim 5. Modified Casey discloses yet Bowman further discloses: enable existing information stored in the system to be reviewed and/or approved substantially in real-time by the building inspector and/or the one or more other users (Fig 9, 97 real-time information reviewed and approved in real-time).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to incorporate Bowman’s real-time review and approval process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these features for the benefit of “communicating between the project design professional, contractor, and jurisdiction in a real-time, efficient manner at the point of inspection in terms of approvals or disapprovals” (Bowman; [0019]).
Claims 6 & 12. Modified Casey discloses further including calendar functionality configured to receive details regarding scheduled inspections and generate one or more notifications to the building inspector and/or the one or more other users ([0122, 0139 and Fig. 16; calendar and scheduling functionality to receive scheduled information and generating notifications to the users).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to incorporate Bowman’s calendar functionality configured to receive details regarding scheduled inspections and generate one or more notifications process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these features for the benefit of “communicating between the project design professional, contractor, and jurisdiction in a real-time, efficient manner at the point of inspection in terms of approvals or disapprovals” (Bowman; [0019]).
Claims 8 & 14. Modified Casey discloses further configured to interface with one or more regulatory databases to update regulatory information stored in one or more databases as a result of any changes in the regulatory information ([0162] database updated with regulatory and legal information when any law or regulatory updates or changes occur).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to incorporate Bowman’s interface with one or more regulatory databases to update regulatory information process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these features for the benefit of “communicating between the project design professional, contractor, and jurisdiction in a real-time, efficient manner at the point of inspection in terms of approvals or disapprovals” (Bowman; [0019]).
Conclusion
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 20170116669 Real estate construction loan management system with field inspector interface and geotag verification.
Y. Wang, "Design and implementation of a process control system for product inspection," 2016 5th International Conference on Computer Science and Network Technology (ICCSNT), Changchun, China, 2016, pp. 191-195, doi: 10.1109/ICCSNT.2016.8070146.
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