DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 07/23/2025, Applicant on 10/23/2025, amended Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 16, 25, cancelled Claims 2, 17, 26, and added Claims 28-30. Claims 1, 3-16, 18-25, 27-30 are now pending and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. The rejections have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Applicants’ amendments render moot the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action in view of new and updated grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments, as set forth below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that even if the claims involve an abstract idea, which Applicant disputes, the claims are integrated into a practical application and additionally represent significantly more per Step 2B of the analysis because while some steps may arguably recite an abstract idea, in view of the ordered combination of the steps of using a neural network in an inventive manner and the automation of scheduling follow up operations, the claim as a whole offers meaningful limits on any purported abstract concept. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pursuant to MPEP 2106, in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04.
Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. MPEP 2106.05.
That is, only after determining whether the claims recite limitations that, individually or in combination, that fall within one of the enumerated subject matter groups of abstract ideas in the first prong of Step 2B, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, the steps referred to by Applicant are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, but rather, for the reason detailed in the following paragraphs, the limitations referred to by Applicant are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea because they are recitations of mental
processes that can be practically performed mentally and merely use generic computer components as a tool (i.e., “a neural network”) to implement the mental processes.
As set forth in the MPEP, mere automation of a manual or mental process or a business method being applied on a general purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology, and the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Merely requiring that the claims use generic computer components, such as the generically recited neural network, or automation of particular operations , to implement the recited abstract idea does not make the claims directed to an improvement in technology or otherwise transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
The steps referred to by Applicant do not recite a significant improvement in technology, but rather, the steps referred to by Applicant are recitation of mental processes that can be practically performed mentally and merely use a generic computer components as a tool (i.e., a “neural network” in Claim 1) to implement the mental process. In fact, aside from the generic component used as a tool to implement the steps, the steps referred to by Applicant are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, but, as noted above, they are recitations of mental processes that recite an abstract idea, as well as a certain method for organizing human activity.
Viewing the limitations in combination per the pen and paper test recited in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(iii), a human can mentally receive an inspection request, mentally perform a judgement to schedule a salient task, mentally receive data and perform judgements to coordinate the logistics of the performance of tasks, and mentally schedule follow up tasks, the particulars and need of such follow-up tasks being arrived at by a human mentally performing a judgement.
In combination, these steps do not reflect an improvement in computer technology, but rather a mental process of coordinating an inspection workflow.
As detailed below with respect to the second prong of Step 2A, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical Application because the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea merely use generic computer components as a tool to apply the recited abstract idea.
As set forth in the MPEP, mere automation of a manual or mental process or a business method being applied on a general purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology, and the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Merely requiring that the claims use generic computer components, such as the generically recited neural network, to implement the recited abstract idea does not make the claims directed to an improvement in technology or otherwise transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention. Further, with respect to automating certain operations, such as scheduling certain tasks in Claim 1, this can not be said to reasonably comprise a “meaningful limit” on recited abstract ideas.
Like in Electric Power Group, the claims are not focused on a specific improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas that simply use computers as tools. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A,, et al., No. 2015-1778, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016); MPEP 2106.05(a).
Similarly, the limitations referred to by Applicant in Claims 3-16, 18-15, 27-30 are merely recitations of mental processes that can be performed by a human mentally performing a judgement using mentally observed information.
The rejections have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejections necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
With respect to amended independent Claims 1, 16, and 25, Applicant argues that Race cannot be said to recite using a classification model to classify “details that indicate whether the building passed or failed inspection”. Applicant assert that race detects defects directly, and does not serve to analyze details pertaining to the inspection results to arrive at a passing or failing judgement. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims are examined in light of their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification; limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claims. In Race, the result of performing an inspection are images that later produce pass/fail outputs. It is disclosed we can segment a drone-recorded image, one such output of an inspection, into constituent objects. In [0048], "In the example of FIG. 4C, the trained detection model of this disclosure implements object detection on the image of tape 14 as applied to substrate 16. According to the object detection-based techniques shown in FIG. 4C, the trained detection model of this disclosure returns rectangular bounding boxes (bounding boxes 22) around areas of the image that show defects in tape 14 as applied to substrate 16, and for which the trained detection model of this disclosure returns respective “fail” results as model outputs. As shown in the non-limiting example of FIG. 4C, the trained detection model may implement object detection to return multiple (and potentially, as in the case of FIG. 4C, overlapping) bounding boxes 22". We construe this segmentation to be a form of producing a description of an inspection result, after which the detection model can output the classification of pass/fail. The description of the result is not necessarily the final pass/fail outcome; we understand the output of the classification model to be such. This interpretation of Race is supported by what would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Dependent Claim 22, Examiner notes that the search for the Procore non patent literature was performed by filtering dates through Google Search; the date most apparently visible in the original document is the date of access, not the date when the website would have been available to the public or the prior art date. Clarification has been provided on Page 11 of the newly attached Procore Non-Patent Literature reference.
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-16, 18-25, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claim is directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a request for an inspection of a building; scheduling, at a first worker device, a first pre-inspection task for the building in response to receiving the request for the inspection of the building; receiving, from the first worker device, a confirmation that the first pre-inspection task was performed; notifying a manager device that the building is ready for the inspection in response to receiving the confirmation that the first pre-inspection task was performed; obtaining a result of the inspection of the building, the result of the inspection of the building comprising details that indicate whether the building passed or failed inspection; and scheduling, at the first worker device, a follow-up task for the building, the follow-up task being automatically scheduled based on the result of the inspection of the building, wherein scheduling the follow-up task for the building comprises: determining a classification of the result of the inspection using a classification model, the classification model comprising a neural network that is trained to automatically classify the details of the result: and creating the follow-up task based on the classification of the result of the inspection.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process.
“A…method comprising: receiving a request for an inspection of a building”, “scheduling…a first pre-inspection task for the building”, “receiving…a confirmation that the first pre-inspection task was performed”, “notifying…that the building is ready for the inspection”, “obtaining a result of the inspection of the building”, “scheduling…a follow-up task for the building” recite abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract. As these limitations are concerned with managing the behavior of building inspectors and associated workers, we additionally take them to be certain methods of organizing human activity – namely, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a request for an inspection of a building; scheduling, at a first worker device, a first pre-inspection task for the building in response to receiving the request for the inspection of the building; receiving, from the first worker device, a confirmation that the first pre-inspection task was performed; notifying a manager device that the building is ready for the inspection in response to receiving the confirmation that the first pre-inspection task was performed; obtaining a result of the inspection of the building, the result of the inspection of the building comprising details that indicate whether the building passed or failed inspection; and scheduling, at the first worker device, a follow-up task for the building, the follow-up task being automatically scheduled based on the result of the inspection of the building, wherein scheduling the follow-up task for the building comprises: determining a classification of the result of the inspection using a classification model, the classification model comprising a neural network that is trained to automatically classify the details of the result: and creating the follow-up task based on the classification of the result of the inspection.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include the method being “computer-implemented”, “a first worker device”, a “manager device”, and “a neural network”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Claims 16, 30 additionally recites “a tradesman device”.
Claim 25 additionally recites “a server”, “a processor”, and a “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Claims 5-7, 11-13, 21, 23 recite additional limitations which merely further limit the abstract ideas of Claim 1, and are therefore ineligible. Additional limitations disclosed are as follows:
In Claims 5-6: “a second worker device”.
In Claim 7: “a punchman worker device”, and a “crew worker device”.
In Claims 11, 21: “a second worker device”.
In Claims 12-13: “an application programming interface”. In Claim 23: “an application programming interface (API)”.
The additional limitations of independent Claims 5-7, 11-13, 16, 21, 23, 25, 30 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for analogous reasons.
Claims 3-4, 8-10, 14-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 27-29 do not recite any additional elements beyond those recited in the claims from which they depend, and as a result, Claims 8-10, 14-15, 18-20, 22, 27 do not include any additional elements that integrate under Step 2A Prong II.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Claims 16, 30 additionally recites “a tradesman device”.
Claim 25 additionally recites “a server”, “a processor”, and a “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Claims 5-7, 11-13, 21, 23 recite additional limitations which merely further limit the abstract ideas of Claim 1, and are therefore ineligible. Additional limitations disclosed are as follows:
In Claims 5-6: “a second worker device”.
In Claim 7: “a punchman worker device”, and a “crew worker device”.
In Claims 11, 21: “a second worker device”.
In Claims 12-13: “an application programming interface”. In Claim 23: “an application programming interface (API)”.
The additional limitations of independent Claims 5-7, 11-13, 16, 21, 23, 25, 30 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for analogous reasons.
Claims 3-4, 8-10, 14-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 27-29 do not recite any additional elements beyond those recited in the claims from which they depend, and as a result, Claims 8-10, 14-15, 18-20, 22, 27 do not include any additional elements that integrate under Step 2A Prong II or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, 14-16, 18-21, 24-25, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman (US 9836749 B1) in view of Clemenson (US 20120316930 A1) in further view of Race (WO2022219472A1).
Claims 1, 16, 25
As to Claim 1,
Bowman teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a request for an inspection of a building;
In Col 26 Lines 29-33, " All the inspection requests are subject to pre-qualification, which involves the contractor's verification using his or her own inspection specific checklist to pre-verify that key elements of the design are in place and that the building elements in place comply.".
scheduling, at a first worker device, a first pre-inspection task for the building in response to receiving the request for the inspection of the building;
In Col 26 Lines 14-33, "FIG. 16 is a screen shot view of a handheld computing system inspection route organizer and inspection screen. The Schedule Inspections 41 screen is primarily used by inspectors to organize and navigate to scheduled inspections 158. The inspection date 151 field can be used to select the date 95 of inspections 41. The default date 95 is always the current date 95, unless an alternative date 95 is selected by the inspector....All the inspection requests are subject to pre-qualification, which involves the contractor's verification using his or her own inspection specific checklist to pre-verify that key elements of the design are in place and that the building elements in place comply".
receiving, from the first worker device, a confirmation that the first pre-inspection task was performed;
In Col 9 Lines 50-53, "It is an object of the invention that the completed contractor check-off list may be compiled into a report that is submitted to the jurisdiction and is intended as a prerequisite to the jurisdiction inspection of the check off list items".
in response to receiving the confirmation that the first pre-inspection task was performed;
In Col 26 Lines 51-55, "Real-time record updates 159 are uploaded to the building department server 10, and are accessible to the building official and counter staff. This gives instantaneous results that are also sent via e-mail, immediately following inspections 41, once an inspection report is completed". In Col 32 Lines 16-26, "FIG. 29 is a typical COMPATH™ system pre-inspection inspection report that is used by the sub-contractor to resolve violations that he or she was responsible by virtue of his or her work on the project. A subcontractor version for pre-framing inspection is completed for the contractor in preparation to qualify for re-inspection. The contractor is responsible for verifying the corrections of the subcontractor and calling for re-inspection. The format of the subcontractor pre-inspection checklist is basically identical to the FIG. 28 version for contractors. The only exception is the OK for contractor radio button at the lower portion of the form".
obtaining a result of the inspection of the building, the result of the inspection of the building comprising details that indicate whether the building passed or failed inspection; and scheduling, at the first worker device, a follow-up task for the building, the follow-up task being automatically scheduled based on the result of the inspection of the building.
In Col 26 Lines 51-67 - Col 27 Lines 1-4, "Real-time record updates 159 are uploaded to the building department server 10, and are accessible to the building official and counter staff. This gives instantaneous results that are also sent via e-mail, immediately following inspections 41, once an inspection report is completed. Once invoked, the hyperlinks for inspection and permit information 157 for each of the listed inspections 41 reveal all of the permit information 153 and inspection records. The inspection priority 155 for each inspection is automatically set but the inspector has the capability to do manual arranging based on needs. Approximate inspection times 151a are listed and if changes occur throughout the day, automatic rerouting, & scheduling 153a adjusts the remaining times and transmits the changes back to the network where counter staff and contractors can be instantly updated. The inspector always has the option to add to or update permit information 153. Inspection type and information 156 allows the inspector to consider the priorities that some inspections 41 have such as concrete footing inspections 41 where concrete pours are typically more time-critical than framing inspections 41, as an example". Notably we understand the result of the inspection to be the produced report with relevant details, and not simply a pass/fail result.
wherein scheduling the follow-up task for the building comprises: …
and creating the follow-up task
In Col 23 Line 66 - Col 24 Lines 1-9, "The Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink provides a list of all inspections 41 that have been performed by the inspector over a specified period that require follow-up interactions with the project. The “Tracking” embedded hyperlink in the Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink flags projects that have problems or that have been disapproved and have pre-set follow-up dates. The “Reports” embedded hyperlink in the Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink provides strict access to all inspection reports associated with building jurisdiction inspections 41". Given the, "or", we understand this to anticipate both projects that have been disapproved and those with issues that may have been flagged outside the bounds of what is necessary for approval, with the pre-set follow up dates would disclose the scheduling aspect.
Bowman does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations. However, Clemenson teaches:
notifying a manager device that the building is ready for the inspection
In [0118], "System 100 includes a status system 106 that is used to send alerts during construction phases of various construction projects. Once a construction project reaches a predetermined phase, one or more rooms in the project may be ready for inspection by an inspector 110. One or more subcontractors may have performed work on each room. For example, an electrical subcontractor may have completed electrical work. A mechanical subcontractor may have completed mechanical work. Once their work is completed on a room, the owner or general contractor 108 may request an inspection of the work a subcontractor performed. In system 106, the status of each inspection is set to "open" indicating that the inspection is ready for the inspector".
Bowman discloses a system for managing inspections as it pertains to buildings. Clemenson discloses a system for managing inspections as it pertains to construction Each reference discloses means for managing inspections and regulatory compliance in the context of buildings. Extending the alert system of Clemenson to the system of Bowman is applicable to as both are fundamentally concerned with the task of building inspections.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the automated alerts of Clemenson and apply that to the system of Bowman. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting those alerts would streamline communication between stakeholders such as managers, contractors and subcontractors.
Bowman combined with Clemenson does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Race teaches:
determining a classification of the result of the inspection using a classification model, the classification model comprising a neural network that is trained to automatically classify the details of the result:
In Race, the result of performing an inspection are images that later produce pass/fail outputs. It is disclosed we can segment a drone-recorded image, one such output of an inspection, into constituent objects. In [0048], "In the example of FIG. 4C, the trained detection model of this disclosure implements object detection on the image of tape 14 as applied to substrate 16. According to the object detection-based techniques shown in FIG. 4C, the trained detection model of this disclosure returns rectangular bounding boxes (bounding boxes 22) around areas of the image that show defects in tape 14 as applied to substrate 16, and for which the trained detection model of this disclosure returns respective “fail” results as model outputs. As shown in the non-limiting example of FIG. 4C, the trained detection model may implement object detection to return multiple (and potentially, as in the case of FIG. 4C, overlapping) bounding boxes 22". We construe this segmentation to be a form of producing a description of an inspection result, after which the detection model can output the classification of pass/fail. This is supported by the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of this claim, where it is prescribed that the description of the result is not necessarily the final pass/fail outcome; we understand the output of the classification model to be such.
based on the classification of the result of the inspection
In keeping with our interpretation above, our classification is the final pass/fail outcome of Race, the methodology of arriving at such is expounded upon in [0048].
Bowman combined with Clemenson discloses a system for managing inspections as it pertains to buildings. Race discloses a system meant to facilitate building inspection through the usage of image analysis. Each reference discloses means for managing inspections in the context of instruction. Extending the means for image analysis as recorded in Race to the system of Bowman combined with Clemenson is applicable to as both are fundamentally concerned with the task of building inspections.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the image analysis based building inspection as taught in Race and apply that to the system of Bowman combined with Clemenson. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting neural network enabled inspection would enable users to streamline inspection.
Claims 16 and 25 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 25 recites additional elements of “a processor”, and “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions”. See Claim 16 of Bowman, “A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for controlling a computer system to schedule inspector schedules in a jurisdiction, wherein the instructions, upon execution, cause a processor..”.
Claim 3
As to Claim 3, Bowman combined with Clemenson and Race teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Bowman and Clemenson do not expressly disclose the remaining limitations of Claim 3.
Race teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the classification of the result of the inspection comprises classifying an image of the result of the inspection using the classification model, the neural network being trained to automatically classify the image of the result.
In [0047], " In the example of FIG. 4A, a trained classification model of this disclosure implements full image classification on an image of tape 14 as applied to substrate 16. In this example, the processing circuitry of drone 4 or computing system 8 returns a “fail” classification in the form of image label 19. The “fail” result of image label 19 is the result or model output generated by the trained classification model based on detecting at least one defect at any location in the image received from image capture hardware 12". In [0067], "The processing circuitry of drone 4 or computing system 8 may analyze the image(s) received from image capture hardware 12 by executing any of the trained models described above (e.g., one or more of classification models, detection models, or segmentation models) to detect a defect in substrate 16. As described above, in various examples the trained model may be a trained deep neural network, such as a trained CNN. In these and other examples, the trained models of this disclosure may apply computer vision-oriented machine learning technology to detect a defect in substrate 16".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the image analysis based building inspection of Race and apply that to the system of Bowman combined with Clemenson Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined in Claim 1 above.
Claim 4
As to Claim 4, Bowman combined with Clemenson and Race teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Bowman and Clemenson do not expressly disclose the remaining limitations of Claim 4.
Race teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the classification of the result of the inspection comprises classifying a description of the result of the inspection using the classification model, the neural network being trained to automatically classify the description of the result.
In Race, the result of performing an inspection are images that later produce pass/fail outputs. It is disclosed we can segment a drone-recorded image, one such output of an inspection, into constituent objects. [0048], "In the example of FIG. 4C, the trained detection model of this disclosure implements object detection on the image of tape 14 as applied to substrate 16. According to the object detection-based techniques shown in FIG. 4C, the trained detection model of this disclosure returns rectangular bounding boxes (bounding boxes 22) around areas of the image that show defects in tape 14 as applied to substrate 16, and for which the trained detection model of this disclosure returns respective “fail” results as model outputs. As shown in the non-limiting example of FIG. 4C, the trained detection model may implement object detection to return multiple (and potentially, as in the case of FIG. 4C, overlapping) bounding boxes 22". We construe this segmentation to be a form of producing a description of an inspection result, after which the detection model can output the classification of pass/fail. This is supported by the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of this claim, where it is prescribed that the description of the result is not necessarily the final pass/fail outcome; we understand the output of the classification model to be such.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the image analysis based building inspection of Race and apply that to the system of Bowman combined with Clemenson. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined in Claim 1 above.
Claim 5
As to Claim 5, Bowman combined with Clemenson and Race teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Bowman teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: scheduling, at a second worker device, a second pre-inspection task for the building in response to receiving the request for the inspection of the building;
In Col 32 Lines 16-26, "FIG. 29 is a typical COMPATH™ system pre-inspection inspection report that is used by the sub-contractor to resolve violations that he or she was responsible by virtue of his or her work on the project. A subcontractor version for pre-framing inspection is completed for the contractor in preparation to qualify for re-inspection. The contractor is responsible for verifying the corrections of the subcontractor and calling for re-inspection. The format of the subcontractor pre-inspection checklist is basically identical to the FIG. 28 version for contractors. The only exception is the OK for contractor radio button at the lower portion of the form.".
and receiving, from the second worker device, a confirmation that the second pre-inspection task was performed,
In Col 32 Lines 55-62, "As the sub-contractor progresses down the checklist item list, he or she will place checks in the checkboxes. All of these boxes must be checked, which indicates that the items have been corrected. The sub-contractor report exclusively benefits the contractor with his or her results and does not interact or request inspections 41 from the jurisdiction. Only the contractor can make the re-inspection request".
in response to receiving the confirmation that the second pre-inspection task was performed.
In Col 26 Lines 51-55, "Real-time record updates 159 are uploaded to the building department server 10, and are accessible to the building official and counter staff. This gives instantaneous results that are also sent via e-mail, immediately following inspections 41, once an inspection report is completed". In Col 32 Lines 16-26, "FIG. 29 is a typical COMPATH™ system pre-inspection inspection report that is used by the sub-contractor to resolve violations that he or she was responsible by virtue of his or her work on the project. A subcontractor version for pre-framing inspection is completed for the contractor in preparation to qualify for re-inspection. The contractor is responsible for verifying the corrections of the subcontractor and calling for re-inspection. The format of the subcontractor pre-inspection checklist is basically identical to the FIG. 28 version for contractors. The only exception is the OK for contractor radio button at the lower portion of the form".
Bowman does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations. However, Clemenson teaches:
wherein the manager device is notified that the building is ready for the inspection further
In [0118], "System 100 includes a status system 106 that is used to send alerts during construction phases of various construction projects. Once a construction project reaches a predetermined phase, one or more rooms in the project may be ready for inspection by an inspector 110. One or more subcontractors may have performed work on each room. For example, an electrical subcontractor may have completed electrical work. A mechanical subcontractor may have completed mechanical work. Once their work is completed on a room, the owner or general contractor 108 may request an inspection of the work a subcontractor performed. In system 106, the status of each inspection is set to "open" indicating that the inspection is ready for the inspector”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the automated alerts of Clemenson and apply that to the system of Bowman. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined in Claim 1 above.
Claim 8
As to Claim 8, Bowman combined with Clemenson and Race teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Bowman teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the result of the inspection of the building is a failure, and the follow-up task for the building is a re-inspection task for the building.
In Col 23 Line 66 - Col 24 Lines 1-9, "The Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink provides a list of all inspections 41 that have been performed by the inspector over a specified period that require follow-up interactions with the project. The “Tracking” embedded hyperlink in the Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink flags projects that have problems or that have been disapproved and have pre-set follow-up dates. The “Reports” embedded hyperlink in the Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink provides strict access to all inspection reports associated with building jurisdiction inspections 41". Given the, "or", we understand this to anticipate both projects that have been disapproved and those with issues that may have been flagged outside the bounds of what is necessary for approval, with the pre-set follow up dates would disclose the scheduling aspect.
Claim 9
As to Claim 9, Bowman combined with Clemenson and Race teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Bowman teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the result of the inspection of the building is a pass, and the follow-up task for the building is a post-inspection task for the building to be performed after the building passes the inspection.
In Col 23 Line 66 - Col 24 Lines 1-9, "The Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink provides a list of all inspections 41 that have been performed by the inspector over a specified period that require follow-up interactions with the project. The “Tracking” embedded hyperlink in the Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink flags projects that have problems or that have been disapproved and have pre-set follow-up dates. The “Reports” embedded hyperlink in the Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink provides strict access to all inspection reports associated with building jurisdiction inspections 41". Given the, "or", we understand this to anticipate both projects that have been disapproved and those with issues that may have been flagged outside the bounds of what is necessary for approval, with the pre-set follow up dates would disclose the scheduling aspect.
Claim 10
As to Claim 10, Bowman combined with Clemenson and Race teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Bowman does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations of Claim 10.
Clemenson teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the request for the inspection of the building is received from the manager device,
In [0118], "System 100 includes a status system 106 that is used to send alerts during construction phases of various construction projects. Once a construction project reaches a predetermined phase, one or more rooms in the project may be ready for inspection by an inspector 110. One or more subcontractors may have performed work on each room. For example, an electrical subcontractor may have completed electrical work. A mechanical subcontractor may have completed mechanical work. Once their work is completed on a room, the owner or general contractor 108 may request an inspection of the work a subcontractor performed. In system 106, the status of each inspection is set to "open" indicating that the inspection is ready for the inspector".
and the result of the inspection of the building is received from the manager device.
We understand the manager device to be the broader system disclosed. In [0119], "An inspector 110 may inspect the room and determine if any deficiencies exist with the room. If there are one or more deficiencies, these are noted in system 106. The status of the inspection remains open. The subcontractor associated with the inspection must again complete work on the deficiencies and the room is inspected again. If there are no deficiencies, the status of the inspection is changed to "closed" in system 106".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the automated alerts of Clemenson and apply that to the system of Bowman. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined in Claim 1 above.
Claims 11, 21
As to Claim 11, Bowman combined with Clemenson and Race teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Bowman teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the first worker device, a request to reassign the first pre-inspection task to a second worker device; and sending, to the second worker device, the request to reassign the first pre-inspection task.
Here, we understand the delegation of corrections to be the reassignment of tasks from the contractor to a subcontractor, in Col 32 Lines 16-26, "FIG. 29 is a typical COMPATH™ system pre-inspection inspection report that is used by the sub-contractor to resolve violations that he or she was responsible by virtue of his or her work on the project. A subcontractor version for pre-framing inspection is completed for the contractor in preparation to qualify for re-inspection. The contractor is responsible for verifying the corrections of the subcontractor and calling for re-inspection. The format of the subcontractor pre-inspection checklist is basically identical to the FIG. 28 version for contractors. The only exception is the OK for contractor radio button at the lower portion of the form".
Claim 21 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 11.
Claim 14
As to Claim 14, Bowman combined with Clemenson and Race teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Bowman teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the result of the inspection of the building is a failure, and the computer-implemented method further comprises: assigning fault for the failure of the inspection based on details of the result of the inspection.
In Col 32 Lines 16-26, "FIG. 29 is a typical COMPATH™ system pre-inspection inspection report that is used by the sub-contractor to resolve violations that he or she was responsible by virtue of his or her work on the project. A subcontractor version for pre-framing inspection is completed for the contractor in preparation to qualify for re-inspection. The contractor is responsible for verifying the corrections of the subcontractor and calling for re-inspection. The format of the subcontractor pre-inspection checklist is basically identical to the FIG. 28 version for contractors. The only exception is the OK for contractor radio button at the lower portion of the form".
Claims 15, 24
As to Claim 15, Bowman combined with Clemenson and Race teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Bowman teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: updating inspection metrics based on the result of the inspection.
Analogizing metric information to the incorporation of inspection details, in Col 26 Lines 51-67 - Col 27 Lines 1-4, "Real-time record updates 159 are uploaded to the building department server 10, and are accessible to the building official and counter staff. This gives instantaneous results that are also sent via e-mail, immediately following inspections 41, once an inspection report is completed. Once invoked, the hyperlinks for inspection and permit information 157 for each of the listed inspections 41 reveal all of the permit information 153 and inspection records. The inspection priority 155 for each inspection is automatically set but the inspector has the capability to do manual arranging based on needs. Approximate inspection times 151a are listed and if changes occur throughout the day, automatic rerouting, & scheduling 153a adjusts the remaining times and transmits the changes back to the network where counter staff and contractors can be instantly updated. The inspector always has the option to add to or update permit information 153. Inspection type and information 156 allows the inspector to consider the priorities that some inspections 41 have such as concrete footing inspections 41 where concrete pours are typically more time-critical than framing inspections 41, as an example".
Claim 24 is rejected as presenting