DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
[2] 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 January 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 21 January 2026. It is noted that this application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/508,244 filed 22 October 2021, now United States Patent No. 11,853,939. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 19, and 20 have been amended. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 22 August 2025 and 3 October 2025 have been entered and considered. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[4] Applicant's remarks filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 (now claims 1 and 3-20 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 29 July 2025, Applicant remarks:
“…Applicant had also emphasized, however, that certain past arguments made by the Applicant that were dismissed by the Examiner essentially matched the contents of the August 2025 Guidance memo from the Deputy Commissioner, which discussed certain errors commonly made by the Examining Corps and certain arguments that should be considered compelling…Applicant emphasized that the Guidance memorandum's discussion of what it meant for a claim to "recite" a "mathematical concept" appeared to be completely in line with Applicant's characterization…”
With respect to any recited ineligible mathematical concepts, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to both mental processes and organizing human actions and activities as maintained below. Therefore, the identification of processes directed in ineligible mathematical concepts is not required to establish that the claimed invention is directed to ineligible subject matter under Step 2 Prong 1. However, with respect to Applicant’s contention that the present claims do not recite ineligible mathematical processes/concepts in light of the August 2025 Guidance, Examiner agrees that in the context of the exemplary machine learning training example referenced in the noted guidance, that general processes which rely on an unspecified/generalized manner on mathematics, e.g., a generic machine-learning training function, are determine not to recite ineligible mathematical processes. However, in contrast to a general process which utilizes mathematics (training an ML model), the present claims specifically recite a step of “performing tailored calculations”. The tailored calculations are reasonably understood to constitute mathematical calculations.
Specifically, with respect to ineligible Mathematical Concepts, representative claim 19 recites limitations including:
“…conducting at least one selected analysis…select the at least one analysis from a plurality of multiple structural analysis methods of a roof support system based upon the geolocated jobsite factors and perform tailored calculations reflecting a combination of the geolocated jobsite factors…”
While Applicant remarks that an equation is not recited in the claims and that the identified analysis step is therefore not directed to recitation of an ineligible recitation of a mathematical concept, Examiner notes that the claimed “analysis” is further specified to include a step of “perform tailored calculations reflecting a combination of the geolocated jobsite factors”. Examiner respectfully notes that included in identified ineligible mathematical concepts are claims reasonably conveying mathematical relationships including manipulating data using mathematical functions and processes of organizing information through mathematical correlations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Respectfully, performing tailored calculations reflecting factors is reasonably an embodiment of processing organizing information through mathematical correlations.
Applicant additionally remarks:
"…the Office Action asserts that a relevant "human activity" would be replicated. In particular, this is characterized as a "commercial interaction.'…the present claims pertain to a service which may be sold commercially, and which currently is sold commercially -- namely, planning a solar installation job -- does not make them recite a "commercial activity." (Any product or service may be sold commercially.) Neither does the fact that the claimed steps automate a process that would otherwise have to have been performed by humans, or which, at a very high level, would be comparable to a set of steps or instructions a human operator follows to perform a job…”
Applicant further remarks:
“…the specific steps of the present claims do not organize human activity. Applicant again emphasizes, for example, Examples 37-39. The "gist" of Example 39, for instance, is identifying objects via vision, something that humans are certainly able to do (and presumably even implicitly do when practicing Example 39, since there is a step of correcting the machine learning software based on what it has misidentified), but the Guidance explicitly demonstrates that the analysis is focused on what is recited rather than whether a person could perform a somewhat analogous process. The Office Action attempts to distinguish these examples on the grounds that they recite "improvements to technology,"³ but Applicant respectfully notes that Example 37(2), Example 38, and Example 39 are all patent-eligible at Step 2A, Prong One, and no "improvement to technology" analysis under Prong Two is conducted or needs to be conducted. It is meaningful that these examples do not recite "certain methods of organizing human activity," and neither do the present claims…”
In response, Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims as presented remain directed to ineligible subject matter. Under Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04):
With respect to Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job, which Examiner maintains is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity, representative claim 19 retains limitations including:
“…receiving…user input…comprising job information entered through the user device describing the at least one solar installation job, and further comprising geolocation information…restricting access of the user prior to validation, and validating the user based on at least the geolocation information…”, “…after validating the user, retrieving, from among a plurality of stored projects, a jobsite corresponding to the job information…”, and “…selecting data…for geolocated jobsite factors…based on automatic matching of the jobsite to the at least one jobsite factor database based on the geographic location;…”
Respectfully, a solar installation job, and the planning of the job, are reasonably considered to be jobs and/or planning activities that are performed by human actors to assemble plans and certifications for an installation job, i.e., an organization of human activity. While Examiner agrees that the claims recite steps that are indeed useful for planning a solar installation job, as noted by Applicant, Examiner disagrees that it follows from this utility that the claims are not directed to the organization of human actions of activities. To the contrary, the steps recited in the claim and identified by Applicant as “useful” for planning the installation job are themselves a sequence of steps or instructions a human operator follows to plan the installation job. Specifically, the above noted recitations constitute a sequence of job planning actions including acquiring information relevant to a job, analyzing the information, planning and certifying the job, and obtaining authorizations to perform the installation. Respectfully, Examiner maintains that considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process in which human actors acquire information relevant to a job, analyze the information, plan and certify the job, and obtain authorizations to perform the installation, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: commercial or interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to ineligible processes performable by Human Mental Processing, representative claim 19 as presented by amendment recites limitations including:
“…selects to provide the jobsite…and selects not to provide a different project among the plurality of stored projects based on comparison of the location information to the geolocation data…automatically querying and selecting data…being particularized to the jobsite, based on automatic matching of the jobsite to the at least one jobsite factor database based on the geographic location; after retrieving the geolocated jobsite factors particularized to the jobsite…”, “…automatically providing a limited set of possible analyses based on the query and selection of data from the at least one jobsite factor database, said providing comprising identifying, based on local environmental conditions including the at least one environmental risk, at least one analysis relating to the at least one environmental risk and automatically including said at least one analysis, and automatically excluding at least one other analysis based on environmental conditions not matching the local environmental conditions, and, from the set of possible analyses, determining at least one analysis required by the geolocated jobsite factors to be conducted with the job information by comparing at least one predetermined list stored by the system to the set of possible analyses, said at least one predetermined list comprising one or more analyses stored in a user profile…”,“…based on automatically determining the at least one analysis required by the jobsite factors, automatically querying and selecting at least one second set of data from at least one other jobsite factor database, and automatically populating the at least one second set of data in the jobsite…”, “…conducting at least one selected analysis…select the at least one analysis from a plurality of multiple structural analysis methods of a roof support system based upon the geolocated jobsite factors and perform tailored calculations reflecting a combination of the geolocated jobsite factors, wherein the at least one selected analysis is selected from a set including at least: a frame structural analysis, an International Building Code structural analysis, and a finite element structural analysis…”, and “…comparing at least one analysis result to a threshold, and, based on comparison of the at least one analysis result to a threshold, perform one of: determining that a revision is required and triggering provision of a notification…and determining that no revision is required and triggering final processing of the at least one selected analysis…”
While Applicant remarks that the claims are not directed to mental processes because the steps identified are performed by the system and therefore cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Further, Applicant specifically identifies the login and location check as performed in the dependent claims as incapable of practically being performed in the human mind. In response, Examiner respectfully notes that the listed steps noted by Applicant are not reasonably limited to system performed functions nor do they identify particular actions performed by the system to achieve the stated functions. Rather, the noted functions are identified as generally tied to the use of the recited server and or user device in a general an unspecified manner. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited server and user device, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably relied upon to select data based on comparisons of geographic location data, make determinations based on the data, and perform the analyses and calculations given the requisite data and mathematical relationships using pen and paper and/or employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101) or by utilizing a generic computing system as a tool to assist in the performance of the noted calculations and/or observations, determinations, or judgements (see at least MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to any similarity between the analysis and output of a determination as to whether a revision is required generated by the instant claims and the processes found eligible in Example(s) 37-39, Examiner respectfully notes that each of Examples 37, 38, and 39 output a modification to a technical component or element which realizes an improvement to underlying technology (e.g., a GUI is reconfigured based on usage analysis, a digital simulation of an analog circuit is improved, and accuracy of computerized facial recognition is improved). In contrast to the output of the instant claims is a structural plan for a solar installation and an associated determination as to whether a revision is required. While the instant claims serve to generate a useful plan for a solar installation, the instant claims do not provide for any improvement in the underlying locating technology. Rather, the analysis and planning benefit from commercially available technology at the time of the invention, at least as presently claimed. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is respectfully maintained.
Applicant remarks:
"… The Office Action here characterizes all of the actions taken by the system as being mere instances of applying the judicial exception using a computer, which does not require more than receiving and sending data in a computer network, storing and receiving information from a generic memory, and performing repetitive calculations using the information or data amendments to the claims as discussed above in order to incorporate dependent claim 2 and add further detail on top of this claim in order to ensure that the claims appropriately clarify the functions performed by the system components to perform the geolocation check, such that the data retrievals and tailoring of analyses can be subsequently performed based on the geolocation check. No new matter has been added. Based on at least this amendment, the claims are believed to be eligible at least Step 2A, Prong 2 of the modified Alice test…"
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to considerations under Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)):
As presented by amendment, representative claim 19 recites additional elements limited to: “server”, “system”, “user device”, “database”, and “dashboard”. Claims depending from system claim 1 further include using IP addresses of the user device (claim 5) applying an electronic signature and encrypting documents (claims 14-16) and a “user interface” (claim 18). With respect to these potential additional elements, the servers, user devices, system configuration, and database are identified as generally engaged in transmitting messages and data, retrieving information from storage, and performing analyses and calculations.
As presented by amendment, claim 19 further clarifies that the previous recited “user input” further includes/comprises “…a user login attempt, comprising job information entered through the user device describing the at least one solar installation job, and further comprising geolocation information…” and the subsequent user validation is comprising “…in response to the user login attempt, automatically triggering a geolocation check, wherein geolocation data of the user is derived from at least one of: matching an IP address of the user device to a geolocation, obtaining geolocation data of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) through which the user device is connected, or querying Global Positioning System (GPS) data of the user device…”.
With respect to the newly added “…dashboard…”, claim 19 has been further amended to specify “…after validating the user, retrieving, from among a plurality of stored projects, a jobsite corresponding to the job information, and presenting the jobsite to the user on a dashboard comprising a plurality of interface elements selectable by the user to respectively trigger interface operations…wherein the system selects to provide the jobsite on the dashboard and selects not to provide a different project among the plurality of stored projects based on comparison of the location information to the geolocation data…”.
With respect to the login validation process, as presented, the retrieval of an IP address, obtaining data from an ISP and/or querying and retrieving GPS data from the device are reasonably forms of mere data gathering that constitute insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of selectively providing jobsite information based on a comparison of location information constitutes a process performable by applying human mental processing including observing and matching sets of location information. But for the recitation of the generic computer components, i.e., “system”, the comparison of location information to determine whether a locations match or do not match is/are performable in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to the recited “dashboard” comprising “interface elements selectable by the user to respectively trigger interface operations”, the claim as amended mere states that the jobsite information is displayed and the dashboard includes interface elements to trigger interface operations. The claim presents no further functions other than these general indications that jobsite information is displayed and the display includes elements. Accordingly, as presently constructed the display of jobsite information and the general indication that elements on the display/dashboard provide unspecified “interface operations” are functions reasonably performed by a generic computer display capable of displaying general information pertaining to a jobsite.
NOTE: For Applicant’s Benefit, While Examiner maintains that, as presently constructed, the present amendments are limited to technical elements utilizing generic computer functions of retrieval and display of stored data or information, Examiner notes paragraphs [0036][0045] and [0060] considered in conjunction with Figs. 3 and 8. In the noted disclosure, the system and dashboard/interface appear to provide functionality to allow a user to designate/select different structural analysis to apply to different section/segments of a diagramed roof framing associated with the designated solar jobsite. Examiner suggests that amendments to include these system functions and/or any adaptive configuring of the dashboard responsive to the geolocation check (e.g., clarification of differential functionality of the interface components based on the login process/geolocation check) could assist in overcoming the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner to discuss amendments to this effect.
However, as presented, the general indication that the method is performed by a server and relevant information is retrieved from a database, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “server”, “database(s), and “device” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a server” absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it” and/or constitutes a general linking to a technical environment. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., messages and queries); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., job site information and job factors); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., jobsite information and “elements”) and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., comparisons/matching of location information, query and select information and perform general analyses and calculations) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
With respect to any similarity between the analysis and output of a determination as to whether a revision is required generated by the instant claims and the processes found eligible in Example(s) 40, Examiner respectfully notes Example 40 recites a process which adaptively monitors network traffic which is limited or triggered by high flow conditions. This enables a more efficient use of processing capacity by limiting monitoring and storing traffic data only when conditions dictate that network performance may decline. In contrast to the output of the instant claims is a structural plan for a solar installation and an associated determination as to whether a revision is required. While the instant claims serve to generate a useful plan for a solar installation, the instant claims do not provide for any improvement in the underlying locating technology. Rather, the analysis and planning benefit from commercially available technology at the time of the invention, at least as presently claimed. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is respectfully maintained.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains that claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment, e.g., generic devices capable of storing and retrieving information from computer memory, transmitting and receiving information over a computer network, and performing known calculations otherwise performable by human mental processing and/or using pen and paper. The claimed planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
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.
[5] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-20 (now claims 1 and 3-20 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The statement of rejection below is reiterated as originally presented in the previous Office Action mailed 29 July 2025. The present amendments and remarks are addressed above under “Response to Remarks/Amendment”.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are directed to a system, a method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 19, and 20 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 19, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed serves to assist a commercial solar installer in planning a solar installation job and receive a validation of the project from a reviewer/customer, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: commercial or interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 19. In particular, claim 19 includes:
“…receiving…user input…comprising job information entered through the user device describing the at least one solar installation job, and further comprising geolocation information…restricting access of the user prior to validation, and validating the user based on at least the geolocation information…”, “…after validating the user, retrieving, from among a plurality of stored projects, a jobsite corresponding to the job information…”, and “…selecting data…for geolocated jobsite factors…based on automatic matching of the jobsite to the at least one jobsite factor database based on the geographic location;…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 19 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: commercial or interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) and processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to the implementation of Mathematical Concepts as ineligible abstract ideas (See at least Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978)). Further, the courts consider steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to Mathematical Concepts, representative claim 19 recites:
“…conducting at least one selected analysis…select the at least one analysis from a plurality of multiple structural analysis methods of a roof support system based upon the geolocated jobsite factors and perform tailored calculations reflecting a combination of the geolocated jobsite factors…”
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 19 recites:
“…automatically querying and selecting data…being particularized to the jobsite, based on automatic matching of the jobsite to the at least one jobsite factor database based on the geographic location; after retrieving the geolocated jobsite factors particularized to the jobsite…”, “…automatically limiting a set of possible analyses based on the query and selection of data from the at least one jobsite factor database, and, from the set of possible analyses, determining at least one analysis required by the geolocated jobsite factors to be conducted with the job information by comparing at least one predetermined list…to the set of possible analyses…”, “…based on automatically determining the at least one analysis required by the jobsite factors, automatically querying and selecting at least one second set of data from at least one other jobsite factor database, and automatically populating the at least one second set of data in the jobsite…”, “…conducting at least one selected analysis…select the at least one analysis from a plurality of multiple structural analysis methods of a roof support system based upon the geolocated jobsite factors and perform tailored calculations reflecting a combination of the geolocated jobsite factors, wherein the at least one selected analysis is selected from a set including at least: a frame structural analysis, an International Building Code structural analysis, and a finite element structural analysis…”, and “…comparing at least one analysis result to a threshold, and, based on comparison of the at least one analysis result to a threshold, perform one of: determining that a revision is required and triggering provision of a notification…and determining that no revision is required and triggering final processing of the at least one selected analysis…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited server and user device, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably relied upon to select data, make the claimed determinations, and perform the analyses and calculations given the requisite data and mathematical relationships using pen and paper and/or employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
The technical elements identified in claim 19 include: “server”, “system”, “user device”, and “database”. Claims depending from system claim 1 further include using IP addresses of the user device (claim 5) applying an electronic signature and encrypting documents (claims 14-16) and a “user interface” (claim 18). With respect to these potential additional elements, the servers, user devices, system configuration, and database are identified as generally engaged in transmitting messages and data, retrieving information from storage, and performing analyses and calculations. These technical elements and the recited functions constitute technical features which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional elements of claim 19 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject matter include: “server”, “system”, “user device”, and “database”. Claims depending from system claim 1 further include using IP addresses of the user device (claim 5) applying an electronic signature and encrypting documents (claims 14-16) and a “user interface” (claim 18). With respect to these potential additional elements, the servers, user devices, system configuration, and database are identified as generally engaged in transmitting messages and data, retrieving information from storage, and performing analyses and calculations.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., job information is received, databases are queried, analysis is performed, reports are received etc.) as associated with a respective “server” or “user device”. Beyond the general indication that the method is performed by a server and relevant information is retrieved from a database, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “server”, “database(s), and “device” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a server” absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it” and/or constitutes a general linking to a technical environment. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., messages and queries); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., job factors); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., query and select information and perform analyses and calculations) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 19 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0017]-[0018] and [0078]-[0082]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include: “server”, “system”, “user device”, and “database”. Claims depending from system claim 1 further include using IP addresses of the user device (claim 5) applying an electronic signature and encrypting documents (claims 14-16) and a “user interface” (claim 18). With respect to these potential additional elements, the servers, user devices, system configuration, and database are identified as generally engaged in transmitting messages and data, retrieving information from storage, and performing analyses and calculations. While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., messages and queries); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., job factors); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., query and select information and perform analyses and calculations).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of planning a solar installation job and securing a customer/reviewer commitment to the job benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 1 and 20, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-18, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Subject Matter Overcoming Art of Record
[6] The most closely applicable prior art of record is presented herein as ‘cited not applied’ to Gregg et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0025343). Gregg et al. provides system and method which solar panel layout design and installation. The system and method include consideration of location-based criteria for generating user options for designing solar panel layouts based on retrieved information corresponding to the location.
While Gregg et al. is similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. While Gregg discloses accessing climate data and designs for similar projects from databases to generate design options based on the location of a current project, Gregg et al. fail to match the project to stored projects to direct project data collection to specified network addresses of jobsite specific factors based on the stored projects. Further, while the design options presented by Gregg et al. include structural considerations, they are not reasonably a selection from a plurality of multiple structural analysis methods of a roof support system based upon the geolocated jobsite factors including generating and performing tailored calculations reflecting a combination of the geolocated jobsite factors when considered in the context of the instant application. The analysis of Gregg does not include tailoring of calculations based on selected geolocated factors based on multiple structural analysis methods applied to different areas and framing conditions within the project.
Conclusion
[7] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McClure et al., SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY ENGINEERING, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0331972, paragraphs [0031]-[0032]: Relevant Teachings: McClure discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions to provide a design interface and a set of databases to facilitate and support the design of an optimized solar array based on location and geographic considerations.
Dershowitz et al., SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPTIMIZED AUTOMATED LAYOUT OF SOLAR PANELS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0246010, paragraphs [0094]-[0096]: Relevant Teachings: Dershowitz discloses a system/method that provides functionality to design a solar array based on geographic and roof design considerations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625