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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/24/23 the information disclosure statement was considered by initialing the PTO Form 1449.
Drawings
The Examiner has approved drawings filed on 8/24/23 .
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.
Claim 20, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter ( an abstract idea without significantly more). The claims recite(s) assessment of a roof structures .
Step 1:
With regards to step(1), claim 20, is directed to a non-transitory computer … , i.e. to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A -1: Yes
With regards to 2A-1, the limitation as specified in the independent claim 20, recites ” receive an image of a structure having an outline and a roof with one or more characteristic, the image having pixels with first pixel values depicting the structure”, as drafted , is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the elements in the mind as mental process using a generic processor and a memory as a tool to perform an abstract idea -see (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similarly, the limitation of “ assess one or more characteristic of the roof based at least in part on the first pixel values with a machine learning algorithm and resulting in a plurality of probabilities, with each of the probabilities for a respective roof condition classification category, and determining a composite probability based upon the plurality of probabilities so as to classify the one or more characteristic of the roof ”, as drafted , is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mathematical calculations from mathematical relationships using a generic processor components ( processor and memory) a tool to perform an abstract idea-- (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to judicial exception – an abstract idea belong to the group of mental process and can perform interpretation, covers performance of the elements in the mind as a mathematical calculation . Particularly, steps assessment of a roof structure’s to be inspected can be performed mentally . For example, “ receiving ” “ accessing ” ( step is a data gathering ) in step may be performed by processes, which may be practically performed in human mind and are examples of “mental processes” include observations , evaluations , judgments and opinion fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Reference may be made to the July 2024 PEG and those various limitations drawn to the mental processing grouping(s),to include those of example 47 claim 2 .The claims/limitations in question are recited at a high level of generality and lack any specifics precluding such ‘performing’, ‘determining’, ‘implementing’, ‘executing’, etc., from being interpreted under the mental processes grouping practically performed in the mind. As identified in the most recent PEG, even a form of automating that broadly/generically involves the use of a machine learning model, would fail to preclude the limitations in question from being drawn to the mental processes grouping ( see guidance with respect to ‘apply it’ consideration of MPEP2106.05(F)). Hence , the limitations of receiving an image of roof structure and assessing characteristic of the roof to combining a probability for multiple roof classification categories is directed to mathematical relationships and calculations or covers performance of the element in the mind (Mental Processes) then it falls within the grouping of the abstract idea . Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A -2: No
The above -identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As recited in steps receiving and assessing is mere data gathering and thus are insignificant extract- solution activity. Limitations as recited in the claims are being performed by a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations only recite the outcome result based on the assessment of a roof structure’s to be inspected and determining the roof classification based on characteristic of the roof, without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished . The claims recite an abstract .
Step 2B: No
Because the claim fails under(2A) , the claim is further evaluated under(2B). The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements of a memory and a processor taken separately or in combination perform conventional computer functions that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components “MPEP2106.05(f)”. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Independent claim 20 is therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 20, recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer to execute ( instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practical the abstract idea. Claim 20, it is interpreted and thus rejected for 101.
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 - 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 16 “assess one or more characteristics if the roof” and line 20 should be “assess the one or more characteristics of the roof”.
Claim 1, it lacks clarity with regard to “a machine learning algorithm” recited in lines 8-9 and “a second machine learning algorithm” recited in line 17.
Regarding claim 8, “the machine learning algorithm” and “second machine algorithm” should make the connection to claim 1. Note that claim 1 already has “second machine algorithm”, other claim sets should be similarly rejected as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, similarly reject as claim 1.
Claim 20 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
It is unclear with regard to claim limitations “resulting in a plurality of probabilities”. What is it referred to? How is it obtained? Is it referred to the result/output of the machine learning algorithm? .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shreve et al., (US PGPUB NO. 2017352100 A1).
As to claim 20, Shreve disclose a non-transitory computer ( see para 24) readable medium storing computer executable code that when executed by one or more processor ( see para 25) cause the one or more processors ( see para 30, 73) to:
receive an image of a structure ( fig 1, 101 see para 29) , the structure ( see para 29) having an outline ( see para 4, para 53, 60) and a roof ( fig 5A , 501 ) with one or more ( see 42, 43) characteristic ( see para 53) , the image having pixels with first pixel values (see para 58, fig 4, see 60 , 65) depicting the structure; ( see para 07, 57, 58, note, roof corresponds to said structure and the other elements of the frame correspond to background ); and
assess one or more characteristic( see para 07, 37). of the roof based at least in part on the first pixel ( see para 58, 60, 65) values ( see para 9, 11) with a machine learning ( see para 35 37 ) algorithm ( see para 58) and resulting in a plurality of probabilities ( see para 38) , with each of the probabilities ( see para 55) for a respective roof condition classification category ( see para 39, 43), and determining a composite ( see para 56) probability based upon the plurality of probabilities so as to classify ( see para 39, 67) the one or more characteristic of the roof ( see para 42, 43 ).
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and there is no prior art to reject the claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEELA C CHAWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7446. The examiner can normally be reached M- F 8 am -5.00 pm Flex.
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, Park Chan can be reached at 571-272-7409. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHEELA C CHAWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669