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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but to an improvement in damage survey technology. Specifically, Applicant asserts it is difficult to manually create the survey plan for tens of thousands of houses in consideration of the conditions and there is a problem that the survey is performed with delay or the survey efficiency is lowered. Examiner notes that an improved plan or schedule for surveying homes is not a technological improvement. 3. Examiner notes that the “sheer size of the problem and management of complex assignment variables” does not transform claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method. As per Planet Bingo (See Planet Bingo LLC v. VKGS LLC U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2013-1663 August 26, 2014) the “real world use, literally thousands, if not millions of preselected Bingo numbers are handled by the claimed computer program,” making it impossible for the invention to be carried out manually but the claimed inventions do not require as much. At most, the claims require “two sets of Bingo numbers,” “a player,” and “a manager.” ′646 patent col. 8 ll. 54-55, col. 9 l. 17; see also ′045 patent col. 9 ll. 5-6. We need not, and do not, address whether a claimed invention requiring many transactions might tip the scales of patent eligibility, as the claims fall far short of capturing an invention that necessarily handles “thousands, if not millions” of bingo numbers or players) does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method. Therefore, even if the mathematical rules, equations and constraints of the claim limitations are difficult or nearly impossible to be carried out manually, the complexity of the mathematical rules, equations and constraints does not transform claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method. Therefore, the “sheer size of the problem and management of complex assignment variables” do not yield improvements to any technical field, the computer itself or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment. Rather the claimed invention is handled by the claimed system merely for computation purposes and performed in the same computational manner or technique as they would manually. Further, as claimed, the claim requires surveying damage to a plurality of buildings. A plurality would only require 2 or more. The acquire, generate, recalculate and update steps can practically be performed by a human with pen and paper and further, the management of a survey plan is certain methods of organizing human activity. Computer elements are merely used to implement the abstract idea. There is no improvement to any technology or technical field. There is no integration into a practical application.
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-9, 11-17 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. Claim(s) 1-9, 11-17 is/are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
7. As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
More specifically, independent claim recite:
generate the survey plan based on the acquired condition, building information, and damage information, wherein the building information includes information on a distinction between a wooden structure and a non-wooden structure for each of the plurality of buildings;
recalculate the productivity of the plurality of surveyors or the productivity of the plurality of survey teams based on survey performances of the plurality of surveyors in a certain period in a survey performed based on the generated survey plan or survey performances of the plurality of survey teams in a certain period; and
update the survey plan based on the recalculated productivity.
The claims recite data analysis steps to generate and update a survey plan. The concept of data analysis is a fundamental business practice long prevalent in our system of commerce, categorized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The use of data analysis is also a building block of ingenuity in corporate planning. Thus, data analysis, like hedging, is an "abstract idea" beyond the scope of §101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2356.
In addition, the claims recite mental processes. The steps of acquiring a condition to be satisfied by the survey plan, generating a survey plan, recalculating productivity and updating the survey plan is a Mental Process that can be practically performed in the mind or with pen and paper.
The nominal recitation of an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
8. Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory. Independent claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer readable tangible recording medium. These amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
9. The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 2 recites generates a plurality of survey plan candidates, displays summary information on the generated plurality of survey plan candidates on a display, and receives selection of the survey plan candidate to be adopted as the survey plan from among the displayed plurality of survey plan candidates by a user. This is a mental process that can practically be performed using pen and paper. Any display by a computer amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 recites summary information on the survey plan candidates includes at least one indicator of a total number of survey days or prediction of the number of persons for each of certain periods. This specifies the summary information which is part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2. The apparatus amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 4 recites generates the plurality of survey plan candidates according to a plurality of optimization criteria. This certain methods of organizing human activity as identified in claim 1 and also mental process as it can be performed by pen and paper. The apparatus amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 recites the survey includes a survey of damage to a plurality of buildings, and the optimization criteria include at least one of a priority to an area in which the damage to the building is large, a priority to an area in which the damage to the building is small, a smallest number of days, or a smallest number of persons. This certain methods of organizing human activity as identified in claim 1 and also mental process as it can be performed by pen and paper. The apparatus amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 recites the survey plan includes at least one of a survey schedule, a survey target building list per day, or allocation information on the surveyors or the survey team. This certain methods of organizing human activity as identified in claim 1 and also mental process as it can be performed by pen and paper. The apparatus amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7 recites displays a survey schedule table for each surveyor or survey team of the survey plan on a display, and receives edition of the displayed survey schedule table by a user. This certain methods of organizing human activity as identified in claim 1 and also mental process as it can be performed by pen and paper. The apparatus and processor display amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 8 recites wherein the at least one processor receives edition of the survey schedule table by a drag-and-drop operation using a pointing device. The edition of a schedule is an abstract idea; a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. Implementation via drag and drop operation with a pointing device using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 9 recites the condition includes at least one of a target number of days, the number of materials, or a priority area. This certain methods of organizing human activity as identified in claim 1 and also mental process as it can be performed by pen and paper. The apparatus amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 10 recites the survey includes a survey of damage to a plurality of buildings, and the at least one processor generates the survey plan based on at least one of building information or damage information for each area. This certain methods of organizing human activity as identified in claim 1 and also mental process as it can be performed by pen and paper. The apparatus and processor amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 11 recites wherein the at least one processor generates the survey plan by using at least one shortest path algorithm of bin packing or Dijkstra's algorithm. Generating a survey plan using an algorithm is certain methods of organizing human activity as identified in claim 1 and also mental process as it can be performed by pen and paper. The algorithm is an abstract mathematical concept. The processor amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 15 recites inputting an image of buildings to a damage determination artificial intelligence which amounts to image analysis by a computer and there is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 16 recite damage information obtained by patrol which is an abstract mental process that can be practically performed by a human with pen and paper. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 17 recite damage information obtained by damage certification survey which is an abstract mental process that can be practically performed by observations and/or by a human with pen and paper. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
10. Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 13, 14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont et al, US 2015/0039619, in view of Randolph, US 2017/0091885.
As per claim 1, Dumont et al discloses a [survey] plan generation apparatus configured to generate a [survey] plan for [surveying damage] a plurality of buildings by a plurality of [surveyors], the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores a command to be executed by the at least one processor [at least 0021],
wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire a condition which is to be satisfied by the [survey] plan and includes productivity of the plurality of [surveyors] or productivity of a plurality of [survey] teams organized by allocating the plurality of [surveyors], respectively ([0017, 0018, 0027, 0028] – optimization of a work schedule for a work crew based on productivity);
generate the [survey] plan based on the acquired condition ([0028-0029] – schedule generated based on optimized output of the optimization module),
recalculate the productivity of the plurality of [surveyors] or the productivity of the plurality of [survey] teams based on [survey] performances of the plurality of [surveyors] in a certain period in a [survey] performed based on the generated [survey] plan or [survey] performances of the plurality of [survey] teams in a certain period ([0032-0033, 0048-0060] – productivity update engine receives productivity updates from work crew and updates work schedules based on the productivity updates); and
update the survey plan based on the recalculated productivity ([0025, 0060] – processes updated job data and provides an updated plan).
Dumont et al, while disclosing an analogous invention for workers and work crews, and describes the work project may refer to any of a number of managed processes involving planning and execution of activities such as construction or building project, demolition or salvage, disaster clean up, etc. [0017] fails to explicitly disclose the claimed invention in the context of surveys and surveyors. Nor does Dumont et al disclose generating the plan based on building information and damage information wherein the building information includes information on a distinction between a wooden structure and a non-wooden structure for each of the buildings. Randolph discloses a building inspection system that schedules properties for inspection visits [0038, 0061]. Additionally, Randolph discloses distinguishing between building materials including brick, stone, wood, vinyl, metal, etc. [0052]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the survey as claimed. The secondary reference discloses inspections relating to building damage and shows scheduling associated inspectors was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the inspectors/inspections of the secondary reference for the workers/work crew of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dumont et al the ability to consider building information and damage as taught by Randolph since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, while Dumont et al fails to explicitly teach surveys and surveyors of building damage, these limitations merely recite various intended uses of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The claimed recitations of intended use neither result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art; therefore, the claimed invention is not deemed to be patentably distinct over the prior art.
As per claim 2, Dumont et al discloses the [survey] plan generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a plurality of [survey] plan candidates ([0029, 0036-0040] – initial set of work schedules are generated); display summary information on the generated plurality of [survey] plan candidates on a display ([0029, 0036-0043] – schedules are displayed with information); and receive selection of the [survey] plan candidate to be adopted as the survey plan from among the displayed plurality of [survey] plan candidates by a user ([0038-0043] – workers can select schedules).
Dumont et al, while disclosing an analogous invention for workers and work crews, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed invention in the context of surveys and surveyors. Randolph discloses a task allocation system that creates schedules for inspectors [0038]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the survey as claimed. The secondary reference discloses inspections relating to building damage and shows scheduling associated inspectors was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the inspectors/inspections of the secondary reference for the workers/work crew of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In addition, while Dumont et al fails to explicitly teach surveys and surveyors of building damage, these limitations merely recite various intended uses of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The claimed recitations of intended use neither result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art; therefore, the claimed invention is not deemed to be patentably distinct over the prior art.
As per claim 3, Dumont et al discloses the [survey] plan generation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the summary information on the [survey] plan candidates includes at least one indicator of a total number of [survey] days or prediction of a number of persons for each of certain periods ([0027-0028] – duration of an activity or task).
Dumont et al, while disclosing an analogous invention for workers and work crews, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed invention in the context of surveys and surveyors. Randolph discloses a task allocation system that creates schedules for inspectors [0038]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the survey as claimed. The secondary reference discloses inspections relating to building damage and shows scheduling associated inspectors was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the inspectors/inspections of the secondary reference for the workers/work crew of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In addition, while Dumont et al fails to explicitly teach surveys and surveyors of building damage, these limitations merely recite various intended uses of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The claimed recitations of intended use neither result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art; therefore, the claimed invention is not deemed to be patentably distinct over the prior art.
As per claim 4, Dumont et al discloses the [survey] plan generation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor generates the plurality of [survey] plan candidates according to a plurality of optimization criteria ([0028] – optimization criteria).
Dumont et al, while disclosing an analogous invention for workers and work crews, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed invention in the context of surveys and surveyors. Randolph discloses a task allocation system that creates schedules for inspectors [0038]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the survey as claimed. The secondary reference discloses inspections relating to building damage and shows scheduling associated inspectors was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the inspectors/inspections of the secondary reference for the workers/work crew of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In addition, while Dumont et al fails to explicitly teach surveys and surveyors of building damage, these limitations merely recite various intended uses of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The claimed recitations of intended use neither result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art; therefore, the claimed invention is not deemed to be patentably distinct over the prior art.
As per claim 5, Dumont et al discloses the survey plan generation apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the optimization criteria include at least one of a priority to an area in which the damage to the building is large, a priority to an area in which the damage to the building is small, a smallest number of days, or a smallest number of persons ([0028] – optimization criteria includes number of workers or duration of task).
Dumont et al, while disclosing an analogous invention for workers and work crews, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed invention in the context of surveys and surveyors. Randolph discloses a task allocation system that creates schedules for inspectors [0038]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the survey as claimed. The secondary reference discloses inspections relating to building damage and shows scheduling associated inspectors was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the inspectors/inspections of the secondary reference for the workers/work crew of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In addition, while Dumont et al fails to explicitly teach surveys and surveyors of building damage, these limitations merely recite various intended uses of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The claimed recitations of intended use neither result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art; therefore, the claimed invention is not deemed to be patentably distinct over the prior art.
As per claim 6, Dumont et al discloses the survey plan generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the [survey] plan includes at least one of a [survey schedule], a [survey] target building list per day, or allocation information on the [surveyors] or the [survey] teams ([0040-0041] – work schedule).
Dumont et al, while disclosing an analogous invention for workers and work crews, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed invention in the context of surveys and surveyors. Randolph discloses a task allocation system that creates schedules for inspectors [0038]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the survey as claimed. The secondary reference discloses inspections relating to building damage and shows scheduling associated inspectors was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the inspectors/inspections of the secondary reference for the workers/work crew of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In addition, while Dumont et al fails to explicitly teach surveys and surveyors of building damage, these limitations merely recite various intended uses of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The claimed recitations of intended use neither result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art; therefore, the claimed invention is not deemed to be patentably distinct over the prior art.
As per claim 7, Dumont et al discloses the survey plan generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: display a [survey] schedule table for each [surveyor or survey] team of the [survey] plan on a display; and receive edition of the displayed [survey] schedule table by a user ([0042-0043] – workers can view and update schedules).
Dumont et al, while disclosing an analogous invention for workers and work crews, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed invention in the context of surveys and surveyors. Randolph discloses a task allocation system that creates schedules for inspectors [0038]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the survey as claimed. The secondary reference discloses inspections relating to building damage and shows scheduling associated inspectors was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the inspectors/inspections of the secondary reference for the workers/work crew of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In addition, while Dumont et al fails to explicitly teach surveys and surveyors of building damage, these limitations merely recite various intended uses of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The claimed recitations of intended use neither result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art; therefore, the claimed invention is not deemed to be patentably distinct over the prior art.
As per claim 9, Dumont et al discloses the survey plan generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the condition includes at least one of a target number of days, the number of materials, or a priority area ([0028] – optimization criteria includes number of workers or duration of task).
Dumont et al, while disclosing an analogous invention for workers and work crews, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed invention in the context of surveys and surveyors. Randolph discloses a task allocation system that creates schedules for inspectors [0038]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the survey as claimed. The secondary reference discloses inspections relating to building damage and shows scheduling associated inspectors was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the inspectors/inspections of the secondary reference for the workers/work crew of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In addition, while Dumont et al fails to explicitly teach surveys and surveyors of building damage, these limitations merely recite various intended uses of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The claimed recitations of intended use neither result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art; therefore, the claimed invention is not deemed to be patentably distinct over the prior art.
As per claim 13, Dumont et al discloses a [survey] plan generation method of generating a [survey] plan for [surveying] a plurality of buildings by a plurality of [surveyors], the method comprising: acquiring a condition which is to be satisfied by the [survey] plan and includes productivity of the plurality of [surveyors] or productivity of a plurality of [survey] teams organized by allocating the plurality of [surveyors], respectively ([0017, 0018, 0027, 0028] – optimization of a work schedule for a work crew based on productivity);
generating the [survey] plan based on the acquired condition; ([0028-0029] – schedule generated based on optimized output of the optimization module),
recalculating the productivity of the plurality of [surveyors] or the productivity of the plurality of [survey] teams based on [survey] performances of the plurality of [surveyors] in a certain period in a [survey] performed based on the generated [survey] plan or [survey] performances of the plurality of [survey] teams in a certain period ([0032-0033, 0048-0060] – productivity update engine receives productivity updates from work crew and updates work schedules based on the productivity updates); and
updating the survey plan based on the recalculated productivity ([0025, 0060] – processes updated job data and provides an updated plan).
Dumont et al, while disclosing an analogous invention for workers and work crews, and describes the work project may refer to any of a number of managed processes involving planning and execution of activities such as construction or building project, demolition or salvage, disaster clean up, etc. [0017] fails to explicitly disclose the claimed invention in the context of surveys and surveyors. Nor does Dumont et al disclose generating the plan based on building information and damage information wherein the building information includes information on a distinction between a wooden structure and a non-wooden structure for each of the buildings. Randolph discloses a building inspection system that schedules properties for inspection visits [0038, 0061]. Additionally, Randolph discloses distinguishing between building materials including brick, stone, wood, vinyl, metal, etc. [0052]. The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference does not disclose the survey as claimed. The secondary reference discloses inspections relating to building damage and shows scheduling associated inspectors was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate reference, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the inspectors/inspections of the secondary reference for the workers/work crew of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dumont et al the ability to consider building information and damage as taught by Randolph since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, while Dumont et al fails to explicitly teach surveys and surveyors of building damage, these limitations merely recite various intended uses of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The claimed recitations of intended use neither result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art; therefore, the claimed invention is not deemed to be patentably distinct over the prior art.
As per claim 14, Dumont et al discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium on which a program for causing, when read by a computer, the computer to execute the survey plan generation method according to claim 13 is recorded ([0022-0026].
As per claim 16, Dumont et al fails to explicitly disclose while Randolph discloses wherein the damage information includes a result obtained by patrol [0052]. Randolph discloses onsite user analysis for a user to input damage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dumont et al and the ability to gather damage information as taught by Randolph since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 17, Dumont et al fails to explicitly disclose while Randolph discloses wherein the damage information includes a result obtained damage certification survey [0052]. Randolph discloses onsite user analysis for a user to input damage (damage survey). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dumont et al and the ability to gather damage information as taught by Randolph since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
14. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont et al, US 2015/0039619, and Randolph, US 2017/0091885, in view of Lee et al, US 2013/0136412.
As per claim 8, Dumont et al discloses the [survey] plan generation apparatus according to claim 7 and various interface interactions [0042-0048] – tap on a touch screen, drop-down menus, text boxes, buttons, etc), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor receives edition of the [survey] schedule table by a drag-and-drop operation using a pointing device. Lee et al discloses a drag-and-drop function to edit a schedule [0079]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dumont et al the ability to edit by drag-and-drop as taught by Lee et al et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
15. Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont et al, US 2015/0039619, and Randolph, US 2017/0091885, in view of Seyyedi Parsa et al, US 2022/0391784.
As per claim 11, Dumont et al discloses the survey plan generation apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor generates the survey plan by using at least one shortest path algorithm of bin packing or Dijkstra's algorithm. Seyyedi Parsa et al disclose generating task schedules for field operators that employs route optimization to calculate shortest path [0061-0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dumont et al the ability to use shortest path as taught by Seyyedi Parsa et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 12, Dumont et al discloses the survey plan generation apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor displays the generated survey plan and a map of an area in which the plurality of buildings are included, on a display. Seyyedi Parsa et al discloses creating a map of the allocated tasks [0012, 0109]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dumont et al the ability to use shortest path as taught by Seyyedi Parsa et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
16. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont et al, US 2015/0039619, in view of Randolph, US 2017/0091885 and Nagatani et al, US 2023/0230371.
As per claim 15, Dumont et al and Randolph fail to explicitly disclose damage information includes a result obtained by inputting an image of the plurality of buildings to a damage determination artificial intelligence. Nagatani et al describes the image showing the disaster-stricken target building and information related to the structure and the portion of the target building can be used as input, and the provisional damage determination result can be obtained by using artificial intelligence (AI) that estimates the damage determination result from these pieces of input information [0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Dumont et al and Randolph the ability to assess damage based on an image input to artificial intelligence as taught by Nagatani et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent art is listed in the PTO-892.
18. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625