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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a non-Final Office Action.
In response to Examiner's communication of 10/1/2025, Applicant responded on 1/22/2026. Amended claims 1, 6, 7, 11. Cancelled Claim 5.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 6, 7, 11 are not sufficient to overcome the35 USC 101 set forth in the previous action.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 6, 7, 11 are sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “...Applicant respectfully submits that the description of "image analysis processing," as now recited in amended independent claim 1, is an element that cannot be said to be included in a mental process. Accordingly, by incorporating the description from claim 5 into claim 1 and adding language such as "processor," Applicant believes that this rejection has been overcome. With regard to the amendments to independent claim 1 in this regard, Applicant refers, for example, to the fifth full paragraph of page 11 of the specification of the present application which teaches that [a]s illustrated in FIG. 2, support device 10 includes obtainer 11, identifier 12, notifier 13, and controller 14 as functional components. The functional components of support device 10 can be implemented by a processor (for example, a central processing unit (CPU)) (not illustrated) included in support device 10 executing a predetermined program using memory (not illustrated)….The processing of identifying the difference by the information processing device as now recited in amended independent claim 1 of the present application cannot be reasonably asserted to be a concept that can practically be performed in the human mind. In this regard, Applicant refers to MPEP § 2106.04(a). This is because the processing recited in amended independent claim 1 now specifically requires "the processor performing information processing of obtaining the measured information regarding the object shown in the image by performing image analysis processing on the image….Applicant thus cited to various portions of the specification at pages 8-10 of the response filed on September 5, 2025 to explain why the subject features could not practically be performed in the human mind and also to support an assertion that the human mind is not equipped to perform such features as such an analysis would require the aid of a special purpose computer programmed to apply the specialized algorithms disclosed in the specification of the present application...Applicant respectfully asserts that at least these indicated portions of the specification of the present application disclose required algorithms for transforming a general purpose computer to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the claimed functions in accordance with the directives of MPEP § 2181(II)(B) as thus particularly recited in claim 1 of the present application…It is evident that the subject features recited in both the previous form of claim 1, and especially as amended in this paper, could not practically be performed in the human mind without the associated hardware and the assistance of a special purpose computer programmed to apply the specialized algorithms disclosed in the specification of the present application and recited in the claims. Therefore, the processing of identifying the difference by the information processing device as now more particularly recited in amended claim 1 is not properly characterized as falling within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, together with the reasons as set forth at pages 7-15 of the response filed on September 5, 2025, amended independent claim 1 is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception under Prong One of the revised Step 2A of the 2019 101 Guidelines…In particular, Enfish recognized that "[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes…[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can," the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determination should turn on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea…Here, however, we are persuaded that the claims reflect such an improvement.... We are persuaded that constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation….In a December 4, 2025 Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps, USPTO Director Squires indicated that he designated the Desjardins decision as precedential to "underscore that improvements in computational performance, learning, storage, data sets and structures, for example, can constitute patent-eligible technological advancements under the Alice framework (emphasis added)… Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 of the present application clearly recites improvements to logical structures and applied processes that result in particular improvements and advantages that directly result from the claimed information processing methods and devices that determine progress of work. These include the improvements and advantages as discussed at pages 17-19 of the response filed on September 5, 2025…Applicant respectfully submits that the improvements in the present application's claimed logical structures and processes as particularly recited in independent claim 1 of the present application bring claim 1 into the realm of patent eligibility as discussed in the above-quoted Ex Parte Desjardins Appeals Review Panel decision...”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Unlike the USPTO Memos, Desjardins, Enfish, the claims and the argued elements, by Applicant’s own admission in Applicant’s remarks, recites and are directed to, …determine progress of work.… the user can check the quality of the work performed on the object by checking the quality of the object. As described above, the information processing method can support efficient management of the quality of work… efficient and automatic management of the quality of work performed at a work site…, which is a business problem directed to organizing human activity (i.e. managing and measuring human work proficiency) and a mental process (i.e. human gathering data regarding work, human evaluating acceptable work reference values, human observing work and work measurements, human notifying human when reference value falls in a given range of upper limit or lower limit of acceptable range of reference value), as established in Step 2A Prong 1. This problem does not specifically arise in the realm of computer technology, but rather, this problem existed and was addressed long before the advent of computers. Thus, the claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem or necessarily roots in computing technologies. Additionally, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer and image analysis, performing extra solution activities, i.e. data gathering, capturing images. Therefore, as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 or amount to significantly more in Step 2B.
The limitations are abstract elements that are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea as described above with respect to the first prong of Step 2A, i.e. mental process and organizing human activities, generally linked to a technical environment, i.e. computer. Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018).
Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at p. 3.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). MPEP 2106.05(f).
Response to Arguments – Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered.
The closest prior art are US Patent Publication to US20180103886A1 to Landau et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Landau”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20170278028A1 to Pettersson et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Pettersson”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20180241936A1 to Li et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
However, the teachings of the references do not teach the specific ordered sequence of limitations of independent claims 1, 11.
obtaining, by the information processing device, design information regarding work, the design information including a reference value and an acceptable range that includes the reference value;
identifying, by the information processing device, a difference between the design information obtained and measured information regarding the work by comparing the design information with the measured information, the measured information being obtained from an image obtained by capturing an object on which the work has been performed; [[and]]
providing, by the information processing device, a notification to a user when the difference identified falls within a given range that is in a neighborhood of an upper limit or a lower limit of the acceptable range; and
capturing the image by controlling an imaging device by the information processing device before the difference is identified, wherein
the identifying of the difference includes:
obtaining, by the information processing device using a processor included in the information processing device, the measured information from the image captured by the imaging device, the processor performing information processing of obtaining the measured information regarding the object shown in the image by performing image analysis processing on the image; and
identifying the difference by the information processing device, using the measured information obtained.
The prior art rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 1-4, 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 (similarly 11) recite, An information processing method executed by an information processing …, the information processing method comprising:
obtaining, by the …, design information regarding work, the design information including a reference value and an acceptable range that includes the reference value;
identifying, by the …, a difference between the design information obtained and measured information regarding the work by comparing the design information with the measured information, the measured information being obtained from an image obtained by capturing an object on which the work has been performed;
providing, by the …, a notification to a user when the difference identified falls within a given range that is in a neighborhood of an upper limit or a lower limit of the acceptable range; and
capturing the image by … before the difference is identified, wherein
the identifying of the difference includes:
obtaining, by the …, the measured information from the image captured by the …, the … performing information processing of obtaining the measured information regarding the object shown in the image by performing image analysis processing on the image; and
identifying the difference by the …, using the measured information obtained.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitations regarding, …obtaining, by the …, design information regarding work, the design information including a reference value and an acceptable range that includes the reference value; identifying, by the …, a difference between the design information obtained and measured information regarding the work by comparing the design information with the measured information, the measured information being obtained from an image obtained by capturing an object on which the work has been performed; providing, by the …, a notification to a user when the difference identified falls within a given range that is in a neighborhood of an upper limit or a lower limit of the acceptable range; and capturing the image by … before the difference is identified, wherein the identifying of the difference includes: obtaining, by the …, the measured information from the image captured by the …, the … performing information processing of obtaining the measured information regarding the object shown in the image by performing image analysis processing on the image; and identifying the difference by the …, using the measured information obtained.…; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can include a human using their mind and using pen and paper to perform the above identified limitations. Therefore, the claims are directed to a mental process.
Further, …obtaining, by the …, design information regarding work, the design information including a reference value and an acceptable range that includes the reference value; identifying, by the …, a difference between the design information obtained and measured information regarding the work by comparing the design information with the measured information, the measured information being obtained from an image obtained by capturing an object on which the work has been performed; providing, by the …, a notification to a user when the difference identified falls within a given range that is in a neighborhood of an upper limit or a lower limit of the acceptable range; and capturing the image by … before the difference is identified, wherein the identifying of the difference includes: obtaining, by the …, the measured information from the image captured by the …, the … performing information processing of obtaining the measured information regarding the object shown in the image by performing image analysis processing on the image; and identifying the difference by the …, using the measured information obtained.…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are managing and measuring human work proficiency, therefore it is, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Thus, the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea identified under Step 2A, Prong 1, such as:
Claim 1, 11: information processing device, controlling an imaging device by the information processing device, a processor included in the information processing device
Claim 7: flying object
Claim 12: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to
, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components.
Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer.
Additionally, with respect to, “obtaining…”, “capturing…”, “…performing information processing of obtaining the measured information…”, “providing a notification…”, these elements do not add a meaningful limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are extra-solution activity, pre and post solution activity - i.e. data gathering – “obtaining…”, “capturing…”, “…performing information processing of obtaining the measured information…”, data output – “providing a notification…”
Analyzing under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because, as an order combination, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it).
Additionally, as an order combination, the additional elements append the recited abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field as individually evinced by the applicant’s own disclosure, as required by the Berkheimer Memo, in at least:
Note that these general or specific aspects may be implemented as a system, a device, an integrated circuit, a computer program, or a computer-readable recording medium such as a CD-ROM, or may be implemented as any combination of systems, devices, integrated circuits, computer programs, and recording media.
Note that FIG. 1 illustrates that imaging device 7 is attached to the ceiling of work site 5, but the present disclosure is not limited to this example. For example, imaging device 7 may be attached to a movable object that travels along the floor, wall, or ceiling, or to a flying object (so-called drone) that flies in the space of work site 5.
As an example, the case where terminal 20 is located in a location different from work site 5 is described, but the present disclosure is not limited to this case. Terminal 20 may be located in work site 5.
Terminal 20 may be a personal computer, a smartphone, or a tablet.
Terminal 20 presents an image of the object that is the target object on which worker P performed work at work site 5 to user U by displaying the image on the display screen. The image is, for example, an image captured by imaging device 7.
As illustrated in FIG. 2, support device 10 includes obtainer 11, identifier 12,notifier 13, and controller 14 as functional components.
The functional components of support device 10 can be implemented by a processor (for example, a central processing unit (CPU)) (not illustrated) included in support device 10 executing a predetermined program using memory (not illustrated).
Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Moreover, the remaining elements of dependent claims do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these remaining elements merely recite further abstract limitations that provide nothing more than simply a narrowing of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components to “apply” the recited abstract idea, perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-4, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO HAN MAX LEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3821. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PO HAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623