DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a final action in reply to the application filed on June 9, 2023.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 13-14 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The previously pending rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. However, new grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 112 (b) are presented below.
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-14 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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 and 3-11 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.
Claim 4 recite the limitation "the management attribute". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-07.2022]. Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1 and 3-12 fall within statutory class of a machine, claim 13 falls within statutory class of a process and claim 14 falls within statutory class of an article of manufacturing. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, per MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022]. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claims 1, 13 and 14:
a memory storing instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire management information indicating a management state of an infrastructure of each of a plurality of companies, a value of a company attribute of each of the plurality of companies, and a coefficient according to the value of the company attribute of each of the plurality of companies;
calculate a score regarding the management state of each of the plurality of companies based on the management information of each of the plurality of companies;
correct the score of each of the plurality of companies using the coefficient according to the value of the company attribute of each of the plurality of companies
create rankings of the plurality of companies according to the calculated score; and
display a company name and the rankings of each of the plurality of companies on a display device in order of the ranking, wherein the company name of a company that makes a ranking request is displayed without being anonymized and the company name of a company other than the company that makes the ranking requests is displayed being anonymized.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The memory, one or more processors and display device is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing and processing system. This memory, one or more processors and display device is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing devices each comprising at least a processor, memory and display device. Further, processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] is directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of a memory, one or more processors and display device. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic memory, one or more processors and display device type structure at paragraphs 0132: “ Referring to FIG. 25 , the computer 500 includes, for example, a central processing unit (CPU) 501, a read only memory (ROM) 502, a random access memory (RAM) 503, a program 504, a storage device 505, a drive device 507, a communication interface 508, an input device 509, an output device 510, an input/output interface 511, and a bus 512.” See also figure 25.
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims 3-12 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 3 further limit the abstract idea that the infrastructure is a road, and the company attribute includes at least one of an attribute related to climate of an area including a road managed by each of the plurality of companies, an attribute related to a terrain of the area, an attribute related to a road length managed by the plurality of companies, and an attribute related to a road category of a road managed by the plurality of companies (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limit the abstract idea that the infrastructure includes a plurality of management targets, any of a plurality of values of a predetermined management attribute is assigned to each of the plurality of management targets, and the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate, for each of the plurality of values of the management attribute of each of the plurality of companies, a score of a management target to which the value is assigned, and calculate a score of each of the plurality of companies by summing scores calculated for each of the plurality of values (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limit the abstract idea that the infrastructure is a road, the management target is a section of the road, and the predetermined management attribute includes at least one of an attribute related to a road category of the section, an attribute related to a material of a road surface of the section, an attribute related to climate of an area including the section, and an attribute related to a terrain of the area (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limit the abstract idea that upon receiving a ranking request from a terminal device of one company, create rankings of the plurality of companies including the one company (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limit the abstract idea by displaying the rankings of each of the plurality of companies, display companies other than the one company anonymously on the display device (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limit the abstract idea by displaying the rankings of each of the plurality of companies, display a message according to a ranking of the one company on the display device (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limit the abstract idea by displaying the rankings of each of the plurality of companies, display a message according to a change in a ranking of the one company based on a history of the rankings of each of the plurality of companies on the display device (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limit the abstract idea by selecting a company whose value of a predetermined company attribute designated by the one company is the same as a value of the one company or within a predetermined range from the value of the one company from among a plurality of candidate companies, and set the selected company and the one company as the plurality of companies (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limit the abstract idea that the infrastructure is a road, and the management information is information related to degradation of the road (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). And claim 12 further limit the abstract idea that the road includes one or more routes, and the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a score related to a management state of each route of the plurality of companies, and create rankings of the routes of the plurality of companies according to the calculated score, and display the rankings of the routes of the plurality of companies on the display device (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).The identified recitation of the dependents claims falls within the Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant argues that “the claims recites a practical application of the alleged Abstract Idea” (Remarks, pages 8-9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The memory, one or more processors and display device. is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving/determining/transmitting data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Considering the claims as a whole, these additional limitations merely add generic computer activities i.e., receiving/determining/transmitting such as receiving inputs (management information, value of a company attribute, a coefficient of the value of the company), analyzing/determining the inputs in order to calculate/correct a score and transmitting/displaying the analysis (ranking of the companies). The recited memory, one or more processors and display device, merely links the abstract idea to a computer environment. In this way, the memory, one or more processors and display device. involvement is merely a field of use which only contributes nominally and insignificantly to the recited method, which indicates absence of integration. Claim 1 uses the memory, one or more processors and display device. as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. As to this level of computer involvement, mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not necessarily indicate a patent-eligible improvement in computer technology. Considered as a whole, the claimed method does not improve the functioning of the computer itself (user interface) or any other technology or technical field. Further, a processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data to a device is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same rationale applies to claims 13 and 14.
In addition, Subject Matter Eligibility Example 37 is directed to rearranging program icons on a graphical user interface wherein the most frequently used icon are automatically positioned closest to the start icon of the computer system, More specifically the claimed computer automatically tracked the number of times each icon was selected or how much memory has been allocated to the individual processes associated with each program icon for the purpose of improving display on a mobile device having a smaller screen. The independent claims do not recite any limitations which suggest that the ranking of the companies can be rearranged on a graphical user interface based on the amount of time spent during the analysis and calculation. The claims recites that a company name is displayed with a ranking with other anonymous companies ranking on a user interface. The claims merely recite displaying the analysis of the plurality of companies. The rejection is maintained.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. Applicant argues that “neither Maston nor Bai, alone or in combination, disclose or suggest a processor configured to "acquire management information indicating a management state of an infrastructure of each of a plurality of companies, a value of a company attribute of each of the plurality of companies, and a coefficient according to the value of the company attribute of each of the plurality of companies; calculate a score regarding the management state of each of the plurality of companies based on the management information of each of the plurality of companies; correct the score of each of the plurality of companies using the coefficient according to the value of the company attribute of each of the plurality of companies; create rankings of the plurality of companies according to the calculated score," as recited in claim 1.” (Remarks, pages 10-12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated rejection below as necessitated by amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maston et al., (US 2014/0062725 A1) hereinafter “Maston” in both view of Ramlet et al., (US 2017/0351653 A1) hereinafter “Ramlet” and Davar et al., (US 2016/0132901 A1) hereinafter “Davar”.
Claim 1:
Maston as shown discloses a computer-implemented method, the method:
a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: (¶ 0098: “ Computing environment 900 includes a computer 902, the computer 902 including a processing unit 904, a system memory 906”);
acquire management information indicating a management state of an infrastructure of each of a plurality of companies, (¶ 0065: “Different crews, shifts and municipalities can be provided with detailed information about when and where maintenance was performed, […] Historical information coupled with recent updates about road conditions can indicate road sections with increased risk or different rates of degradation in given conditions, allowing maintenance crews to prioritize areas requiring first or most frequent attention” and Abstract “ Information regarding road conditions at given times and locations can facilitate road maintenance coordination and route planning”);
Maston teaches in ¶ 0060: “a scoring system can be used (e.g., by interface component 128, control component 302, etc.) to determine a score or grade that can summarize the quality of one or more measured road conditions, and can be numeric, such as 0 to 10, 0 to 100, a percentage, etc.; letter based such as A through F, etc.; described qualitatively such as excellent, good, fair, poor, terrible, unknown, etc.; color coding (e.g., green, yellow, red, etc.); icons indicating potential dangers or lack thereof, etc. Such a score can be associated with a location, a road, a section of road, a collection of roads or road sections near a location, a region, a planned or current route of travel or a subset thereof, etc.” Maston is silent with regard to the following limitations. However Ramlet in an analogous art of data analysis management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
a value of a company attribute of each of the plurality of companies, (page 9, see Table 1 which describes a plurality of values of a company attribute “their corresponding data values for each type of aggregated data”);
and a coefficient according to the value of the company attribute of each of the plurality of companies (¶ 0026: “may present one or more selectable options that cause one or more of the types of data to be weighted, or weighted differently, to achieve an overall brand score.”);
calculate a score regarding the management state of each of the plurality of companies based on the management information of each of the plurality of companies (Figure 14, note the Favorability Score, see also ¶ 0060: “ entity scoring engine 230 may generate a score that relates to an entity based on the aggregated data.”);
correct the score of each of the plurality of companies using the coefficient according to the value of the company attribute of each of the plurality of companies (¶ 0026: “may present one or more selectable options that cause one or more of the types of data to be weighted, or weighted differently, to achieve an overall brand score. […] users may be able to fine-tune their own brand scores according to their needs. Alternatively or additionally, the system may enable each user to predefine the weights so that they are provided with customized brand scores.” See also ¶ 0137: “For weighted averages, each sub-score may be weighted according to a level of importance in brand scores. For example, polling data may be weighted most heavily with a scaling factor of 0.7, social media data may be weighted with a scaling factor of 0.2, and regular media data may be weighted with a scaling factor of 0.1.”);
create rankings of the plurality of companies according to the calculated score; and display a company name and the rankings of each of the plurality of companies on a display device in order of the rankings (Figure 14. Note the rankings of each of the plurality of companies with their calculated score);
Both Maston and Ramlet teach data analysis management. Maston teaches in ¶ 0046: “ The results of such analysis can be disseminated via server component 132 to one or more entities.” Ramlet teaches in ¶ 0018 “once the different types of data have been analyzed and characterized as described above, the system may generate a brand score for an entity based on the analysis.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ramlet would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ramlet to the teaching of Maston would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as a value of a company attribute of each of the plurality of companies, and a coefficient according to the value of the company attribute of each of the plurality of companies; calculate a score regarding the management state of each of the plurality of companies based on the management information of each of the plurality of companies; correct the score of each of the plurality of companies using the coefficient according to the value of the company attribute of each of the plurality of companies; create rankings of the plurality of companies according to the calculated score; and display a company name and the rankings of each of the plurality of companies on a display device in order of the rankings into similar systems. Further, as noted by Ramlet “may be used to generate brand scores relating to entities and generate various interfaces for displaying the brand scores and metrics.” (Ramlet, ¶ 0048).
Maston in view of Ramlet score and rank the plurality of companies as explained above. Maston in view of Bai is silent with regard to the following limitations. However Davar in an analogous art of ranking analysis for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the company name of a company that makes a ranking request is displayed without being anonymized and the company name of a company other than the company that makes the ranking request is displayed being anonymized (¶ 0040: “FIG. 3, the database is structured to record a plurality of relationships 35 with data about the relationships such as the nature of the relationship, attributes 32 about the organizations 38, and identification data (such as a name). A code may be used in the database to indicate that a party is a visible party 39 or an anonymous party 36.” See also ¶ 0071: “The interface provides for an option to mark the other organization as ‘anonymous’,” and ¶ 0052: “The vendors are displayed in rank order”);
Both Maston and Davar teach data analysis management. Maston teaches in ¶ 0060: “a scoring system.” Davar teaches in ¶ 0053 “These added or amended data will improve the vendor score and possibly ranking to the extent that these are relevant to the web page selection criteria and ranking algorithms.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Davar would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Davar to the teaching of Maston in view of Ramlet would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as wherein the company name of a company that makes a ranking request is displayed without being anonymized and the company name of a company other than the company that makes the ranking request is displayed being anonymized into similar systems. Further, as noted by Davar “provide a narrowed set of relevant results to a user that is fact-driven, whilst including the businesses being search in the process.” (Davar, ¶ 0005).
Claims 13 and 14:
The limitations of claims 13 and 14 (¶ 0028) encompass substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 1, as described above.
Claim 3:
Maston as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the infrastructure is a road, (¶ 0009: “discovering, measuring, transmitting, receiving, estimating, and presenting road conditions, and the utilization of road condition information.”);
and the company attribute includes at least one of an attribute related to climate of an area including a road managed by each of the plurality of companies, an attribute related to a terrain of the area, an attribute related to a road length managed by the plurality of companies, and an attribute related to a road category of a road managed by the pluralities of companies (¶ 0057: statistical, environmental, and/or inferential technologies can be employed to estimate conditions where actual conditions are unknown. For example, a weather report, alone or combined with historical weather reports and associated road conditions in similar weather, can be employed to estimate road conditions where no recent data is available.” See also ¶ 0003: “cities and municipalities often maintain fleets of vehicles that are instrumental to providing services throughout the community. One such service is maintenance of the roads themselves.”);
Claim 4:
Maston as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the infrastructure includes a plurality of management targets (¶ 0065: “Historical information coupled with recent updates about road conditions can indicate road sections with increased risk or different rates of degradation in given conditions”);
any of a plurality of values of a predetermined management attribute is assigned to each of the plurality of management targets, and the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate, for each of the plurality of values of the management attribute of each of the plurality of companies, a score of a management target to which the value is assigned, and calculate a score of the pluralities of companies by summing scores calculated for each of the plurality of values (¶ 0060: “Such a score can be associated with a location, a road, a section of road, a collection of roads or road sections near a location, a region, a planned or current route of travel or a subset thereof, etc. […], such a score could reflect one measured road condition or reflect a combination of multiple road conditions. Such a score that reflects multiple conditions can be obtained in a variety of ways, such as by representing a lowest score out of a set of scores associated with the multiple conditions (e.g., if the visibility is excellent and the road temperature is fine, but there is heavy flooding, a low composite score can reflect these difficulties despite other favorable road conditions; etc.). In other aspects, a score for multiple conditions can be lowered (e.g., from a maximum potential score, etc.) for each road condition that may present a dangerous condition. For example, if two or more conditions (e.g., road temperature and visibility, etc.) are potentially dangerous, the score for the combination can be lower than if only one were potentially dangerous. In other aspects, a low score can be accompanied by one or more indicia (e.g., color, icon, letters, words, numbers, etc.) that can represent specific potential dangers (e.g., all road conditions below a threshold score, one or more lowest scoring road conditions, etc.), for example, a risk of flooding could be represented by a score and an indicator of potential flooding, such as a colored (e.g., red) icon (e.g., a droplet), a number or letter indicating the score accompanied by an icon, descriptively with words (e.g., “road condition poor (flooding risk),” etc.), in differing combinations of representations of scores and conditions as described herein, or in substantially any other manner as would be apparent to a person of skill in the art in light of the teachings herein.”);
Claim 5:
Maston as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the infrastructure is a road, (¶ 0009: “discovering, measuring, transmitting, receiving, estimating, and presenting road conditions, and the utilization of road condition information.”);
the management target is a section of the road (¶ 0065: “Historical information coupled with recent updates about road conditions can indicate road sections with increased risk or different rates of degradation in given conditions”);
the predetermined management attribute includes at least one of an attribute related to a road category of the section, an attribute related to a material of a road surface of the section, an attribute related to climate of an area including the section, and an attribute related to a terrain of the area (¶ 0040: “road conditions can include acute or chronic hazard areas that do not reflect larger trends for the roadway or region. For example, areas that freeze atypically fast, such as bridges, areas that receive limited sunlight (e.g., shaded areas of roadway), and areas with high amounts of condensation can be detected, recorded, and understood with greater certainty. In some aspects, one or more permanently or temporarily fixed sensor components 112 can be placed (alone or with one or more other components) at such locations (e.g., bridges, shaded areas, areas with mountain or hill run-offs, other dangerous areas or areas likely to freeze unexpectedly or earlier than most road surface, areas where freezing presents an increased risk (e.g., due to likely ice, etc.), etc.). see also ¶ 0057);
Claim 7:
Maston in view of Ramlet score and rank the plurality of companies as explained above. Maston in view of Ramlet is silent with regard to the following limitations. However Davar in an analogous art of ranking analysis for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the one or more processors (Figure 1) are further configured to execute the instructions to: in displaying the rankings of each of the plurality of companies, display companies other than the one company anonymously on the display device (¶ 0040: “FIG. 3, the database is structured to record a plurality of relationships 35 with data about the relationships such as the nature of the relationship, attributes 32 about the organizations 38, and identification data (such as a name). A code may be used in the database to indicate that a party is a visible party 39 or an anonymous party 36.” See also ¶ 0071: “The interface provides for an option to mark the other organization as ‘anonymous’,” and ¶ 0052: “The vendors are displayed in rank order”);
Both Maston and Davar teach data analysis management. Maston teaches in ¶ 0060: “a scoring system.” Davar teaches in ¶ 0053 “These added or amended data will improve the vendor score and possibly ranking to the extent that these are relevant to the web page selection criteria and ranking algorithms.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Davar would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Davar to the teaching of Maston in view of Ramlet would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as by displaying the rankings of each of the plurality of companies, display companies other than the one company anonymously on the display device into similar systems. Further, as noted by Davar “provide a narrowed set of relevant results to a user that is fact-driven, whilst including the businesses being search in the process.” (Davar, ¶ 0005).
Claim 8:
Maston teaches data analysis i.e., management information in order to provide the rankings of each of the plurality of companies as explained above. Maston is silent with regard to the following limitations. However Ramlet in an analogous art of data analysis management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: in displaying the rankings of each of the plurality of companies, display a message according to a ranking of the one company on the display device (Figure 14, note the different rankings for each company with a message according to the rankings);
Both Maston and Ramlet teach data analysis management. Maston teaches in ¶ 0046: “ The results of such analysis can be disseminated via server component 132 to one or more entities.” Ramlet teaches in ¶ 0018 “once the different types of data have been analyzed and characterized as described above, the system may generate a brand score for an entity based on the analysis.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ramlet would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ramlet to the teaching of Maston would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as by displaying the rankings of each of the plurality of companies, display a message according to a ranking of the one company on the display device
into similar systems. Further, as noted by Ramlet “may be used to generate brand scores relating to entities and generate various interfaces for displaying the brand scores and metrics.” (Ramlet, ¶ 0048).
Claim 9:
Maston is silent with regard to the following limitations. However Ramlet in an analogous art of data analysis management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: in displaying the rankings of each of the plurality of companies, display a message according to a change in a ranking of the one company based on a history of the rankings of each of the plurality of companies on the display device (¶ 0142: “elect to receive alerts when the brand score (or any of the sub-scores) for the company has changed, when any score relating to its competitors have changed, when a sector score has changed or when an industry score has changed. In this manner, the alert may provide the registrant (e.g., the registrant's device such as an end user device 140) even if the registrant's device is not connected to the system (e.g., system 102). For example, when back online or otherwise logged on, the alert may cause the registrant's device to provide a message to the registrant that the alert is available. In some instances, the alert may cause the registrant's device to logon to a website or other interface that accesses the various reports described herein.”);
Both Maston and Ramlet teach data analysis management. Maston teaches in ¶ 0046: “ The results of such analysis can be disseminated via server component 132 to one or more entities.” Ramlet teaches in ¶ 0018 “once the different types of data have been analyzed and characterized as described above, the system may generate a brand score for an entity based on the analysis.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ramlet would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ramlet to the teaching of Maston would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as by displaying the rankings of each of the plurality of companies, display a message according to a change in a ranking of the one company based on a history of the rankings of each of the plurality of companies on the display device into similar systems. Further, as noted by Ramlet “may be used to generate brand scores relating to entities and generate various interfaces for displaying the brand scores and metrics.” (Ramlet, ¶ 0048).
Claim 11:
Maston as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the infrastructure is a road, (¶ 0009: “discovering, measuring, transmitting, receiving, estimating, and presenting road conditions, and the utilization of road condition information.”);
and the management information is information related to degradation of the road (¶ 0065: “Historical information coupled with recent updates about road conditions can indicate road sections with increased risk or different rates of degradation in given conditions, allowing maintenance crews to prioritize areas requiring first or most frequent attention.”);
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maston et al., (US 2014/0062725 A1) hereinafter “Maston” in both view of Ramlet et al., (US 2017/0351653 A1) hereinafter “Ramlet” and Davar et al., (US 2016/0132901 A1) hereinafter “Davar” as applied above in claims 1 and 11, further in view of Bai et al., (US 2020/0262438 A1) hereinafter “Bai”.
Claim 6:
Ramlet teaches in Figure 14 rankings of the plurality of companies. Davar teaches ranking of vendors. Maston in view of Ramlet and Davar is silent with regard to the following limitations. However Bai in an analogous art of road maintenance for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: upon receiving a ranking request from a terminal device of one company, create rankings of the plurality of companies including the one company (¶ 0050: “ determining a priority level. […] the classification and the roadway data can be used to determine a priority level (e.g., to be used by the roadway manager for maintenance). […], the priority level indicates a level of severity and/or a level of urgency. As an illustrative example, a stop sign (e.g., a regulatory sign) that is partially obstructed can have a higher maintenance priority level as compared to a point of interest sign (e.g., a guide sign) that is partially obstructed.” See also ¶ 0052: “the roadway manager system 104 can control and deploy roadway manager vehicles 112 based on the roadway data, condition, and/or priority level.”);
Both Maston and Bai teach road maintenance. Maston teaches in the Abstract “discover and present to a user road conditions.” Bai teaches in the Abstract “ road condition monitoring including receiving roadway data.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Bai would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Bai to the teaching of Maston in view of Ramlet and Davar would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as upon receiving a ranking request from a terminal device of one company, create rankings of the plurality of companies including the one company into similar systems. Further, as noted by Bai “Timely detection of the various conditions can improve awareness of road conditions and improve the efficiency of road maintenance operation.” (Bai, ¶ 0002).
Claim 12:
Maston as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the road includes one or more routes, and (¶ 0030: “A “route” can be a single road, or a series of roads that can be reached by one another.”);
the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a score related to a management state of each route of the plurality of companies, and (¶ 0060: “Such a score can be associated with a location, a road, a section of road, a collection of roads or road sections near a location, a region, a planned or current route of travel or a subset thereof, etc.”);
Maston in view of Ramlet and Davar is silent with regard to the following limitations. However Bai in an analogous art of road maintenance for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
create rankings of the routes of the plurality of companies according to the calculated score, and (¶ 0050: “ determining a priority level. […] the classification and the roadway data can be used to determine a priority level (e.g., to be used by the roadway manager for maintenance). […], the priority level indicates a level of severity and/or a level of urgency. As an illustrative example, a stop sign (e.g., a regulatory sign) that is partially obstructed can have a higher maintenance priority level as compared to a point of interest sign (e.g., a guide sign) that is partially obstructed.” See also ¶ 0052: “the roadway manager system 104 can control and deploy roadway manager vehicles 112 based on the roadway data, condition, and/or priority level.” And ¶ 0075: “salt truck routing and distribution can be controlled based on the roadway data and classification/levels determined by the road condition monitoring system 102.”);
Both Maston and Bai teach road maintenance. Maston teaches in the Abstract “discover and present to a user road conditions.” Bai teaches in the Abstract “ road condition monitoring including receiving roadway data.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Bai would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Bai to the teaching of Maston in view of Ramlet and Davar would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as upon receiving a ranking request from a terminal device of one company, create rankings of the plurality of companies including the one company into similar systems. Further, as noted by Bai “Timely detection of the various conditions can improve awareness of road conditions and improve the efficiency of road maintenance operation.” (Bai, ¶ 0002).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maston et al., (US 2014/0062725 A1) hereinafter “Maston”, Ramlet et al., (US 2017/0351653 A1) hereinafter “Ramlet”, Davar et al., (US 2016/0132901 A1) hereinafter “Davar” and Bai et al., (US 2020/0262438 A1) hereinafter “Bai” as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Segal et al., Contracting for Road and Highway Maintenance, February 28, 2003 https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/2003/03/344b410e2504a3e41d4f08174311e2b2.pdf hereinafter “Segal”.
Claim 10:
Maston in view of Ramlet, Davar and Bai is silent with regard to the following limitations. However Seagal in an analogous art of road management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as sh