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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/654,499 filed on 05/03/2024, claims Priority from US Provisional Application 63/500,142 filed on 05/04/2023.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 05/04/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claims 5 and 12, the limitation “or any combination thereof,” should be removed because the limitation does not add additional meanings to the claim and is considered as a clutter.
As per claim 11, the limitations “send the measurement data” should be replaced with “send the measurement data … to a computing device” or with an appropriate phrase for clarity.
As per claim 12-20, claims are also objected because base claim 11 is objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A method (1.A) comprising:
determining, by a computing device, one or more identifiers associated with one or more assets; (1.B)
determining, based on the one or more identifiers, measurement data associated with each asset of the one or more assets; (1.C)
determining, based on the measurement data, one or more parameters associated with each asset of the one or more assets; (1.D)
and outputting the one or more parameters associated with each asset of the one or more assets.”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process - Method).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.B)-(1.D) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or Mental Processing grouping as the limitations show Mathematical Relationship or involve Mental observation/judgement.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A method”, “by a computing device” and “outputting the one or more parameters”;
In Claim 2: “the one or more assets comprise one or more wooden structures”;
In Claim 5: “wherein the one or more sensor devices comprise one or more of a resistance sensor-enabled drill, an imaging device, a sampling device, an acoustic sensor”:
In Claim 8: “causing an output of the aggregated one or more parameters”;
In Claim 9: “outputting the measurement data”;
In Claim 10: “outputting … one or more notifications, one of recommendations or an indication”;
In Claim 11: “A system”, “one or more sensor devices”, “send the measurement data” and “receive the measurement data”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A method” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation even fails to link the method with a particular operation or a field of use. The limitation “by a computing device” represents a use of a general computer and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation/step “outputting the one or more parameters” represents a standard result report step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 2, the limitations/elements “wooden structures” in “the one or more assets comprise one or more wooden structures” are not particular in the art.
As per claim 5, the limitations/elements “a resistance sensor-enabled drill”, “an imaging device”, “a sampling device”, and “an acoustic sensor” in “wherein the one or more sensor devices comprise one or more of a resistance sensor-enabled drill, an imaging device, a sampling device, an acoustic sensor” represent a list of standard tools in the art and they are not particular.
As per claim 8, the limitation/step “causing an output of the aggregated one or more parameters” represents a standard result report step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity in the art to the judicial exception.
As per claim 9, the limitation/step “outputting the measurement data” represents a standard result report step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity in the art to the judicial exception.
As per claim 10, the limitation/step “outputting … one or more notifications, one of recommendations or an indication” represents a standard result report step in the art and only add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 11, the additional element in the preamble “A system” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation even fails to link the system with a particular operation or a field of use. The limitations/elements “one or more sensor devices” are not particular in the art. The limitations/steps “send the measurement data” and “receive the measurement data” represent standard data communication steps in the art and only add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements except those treated as patent eligible, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Strebel, Tal, Wang, Chillar, Shapiro, Riedy and others in the list of prior art of record)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strebel (US 20170358068 A1), hereinafter ‘Strebel’.
As per claim 1, Strebel discloses
A method (method [abs, 0004]) comprising:
determining, by a computing device, one or more identifiers associated with one or more assets; (processing, by the computing device, the sensor data to identify an infrastructure asset [abs, 0004-0006], identifiers of assets [0022, 0031], infrastructure asset(s) [abs, 0002-0006])
determining, based on the one or more identifiers, measurement data associated with each asset of the one or more assets; (report may be a table that identifies assets and their identifiers, locations, and damage. In embodiments, the report may be a map or satellite view with information regarding asset damage overlaid on the map [0031], sensor data can be accessed in order for assets to be identified, located, and assessed for damaged [0043])
determining, based on the measurement data, one or more parameters associated with each asset of the one or more assets; (determining, by the computing device, a condition of the infrastructure asset based on processing the sensor data [abs, 0004], analyzes the attributes of an object based on, e.g. the shape, dimensions, etc., and identifies which objects are of assets of interest [0051])
and outputting the one or more parameters associated with each asset of the one or more assets. (outputting, by the computing device, information regarding the condition of the infrastructure asset [abs, 0004-0005])
As per claim 11, Strebel discloses
A system (a system [0006], systems and methods [0022]) comprising:
one or more sensor devices, (a set of sensors [0005]) wherein the one or more sensor devices are configured to:
determine measurement data associated with one or more assets, wherein each asset of the one or more assets is associated with an identifier of one or more identifiers; (sensor data collected by a set of sensors [0005])
associate the measurement data from each asset with each identifier; (report, a satellite view of geographic area, assessment information [0030], a table identifies assets and … identifiers [0031])
send the measurement data associated with each identifier of the one or more identifiers; (sensors, server, device, network [0033, Fig. 2], additional devices and networks … perform one or more functions, devices of the environment … interconnect [0038], computing device is in communication with external I/O device/resource [0041, Figs. 2-3], communications, sensor data, sensors, via network [0048])
and a computing device in communication with the one or more sensor devices, wherein the computing device is configured to: (computing device to receive sensor data collected by a set of sensors [0005], receives sensor data from the sensors , communications, sensor data, sensors, via network [0048])
Strebel further discloses remaining limitations ash shown in claim 1 above.
As per claims 3 and 13, Strebel discloses claims 1 and 11 set forth above.
Strebel further discloses determining, based on a mission plan associated with the one or more assets, the one or more identifiers associated with the one or more assets, (flight plan, assessment of the asset condition [0093, Figs. 14-16])
wherein the mission plan comprises data indicative of an identification of the measurement data to be collected for each asset of the one or more assets, (flight path from which sensor data is collected [0093], summary of flight path and a table indicating identifiers of assets [0094, Fig. 15]) an order for determining the measurement data of each asset, (sort or prioritize sensor data sets based on the best expected or centered view of assets, prioritized for analysis [0071]) and one or more criteria for processing the measurement data. (assessment of asset condition, asset condition [0093], The status of the assets indicates whether the assets are damaged or not damaged ‘e.g., “normal”’ as well as the type of damage ‘e.g. “leaning, “tree/branch impact”’ [0095]).
As per claims 4 and 14, Strebel discloses claims 3 and 13 set forth above.
Strebel discloses the order for determining the measurement data of each asset of the one or more assets is based on a priority of each asset of the one or more assets, (sort or prioritize sensor data sets based on the best expected or centered view of assets, prioritized for analysis [0071]) and
the one or more criteria comprises one or more of one or more parameters to be determined from the measurement data, one or more algorithms for analyzing the measurement data, or one or more thresholds associated with the measurement data. (assessment of asset condition, asset condition [0093], The status of the assets indicates whether the assets are damaged or not damaged ‘e.g., “normal”’ as well as the type of damage ‘e.g. “leaning, “tree/branch impact”’ [0095], search criteria ‘e.g., known criteria relating to the shape infrastructure assets’, line finding algorithms to the fused imagery [0050], damage assessment, algorithms [0073], attributes of assets, multiple algorithms [0079, Fig. 7], threshold [0051, 0080-0081, Figs. 7 and 8]).
As per claims 5 and 15, Strebel discloses claims 1 and 11 set forth above.
Strebel discloses receiving the measurement data from one or more of a second computing device or one or more sensor devices, (a table that identifies assets and their identifiers [0031], sensors, server, device, network [0033, Fig. 2], additional devices and networks … perform one or more functions, devices of the environment … interconnect [0038], receives sensor data from the sensors , communications, sensor data, sensors, via network [0048]) wherein the one or more sensor devices comprise one or more of a resistance sensor-enabled drill, an imaging device, a sampling device, an acoustic sensor, or any combination thereof. (imaging sensor [0034])
As per claims 6 and 16, Strebel discloses claims 1 and 11 set forth above.
Strebel discloses the measurement data is evaluated, (assessing , sensor data, infrastructure asset [0005]) filtered, (sensor data, filter out, identify objects, types [0028, 0035], adaptive filters [0050]) and aggregated (collect adjacent points of the sensor data to determine three dimensional candidate shapes [0050]) according to each identifier of the one or more identifiers. (identify objects, types [0028, 0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebel in view of Tal (US 20230421732 A1), hereinafter ‘Tal’.
As per claim 2, Strebel discloses claim 1 set forth above.
Strebel further discloses assets include utility poles (utility poles [0002, 0022-0025]. which are usually made out of wood, but fails to explicitly recite the one or more assets comprise one or more wooden structures.
Tal recites a wooden power line pole [0065, Fig. 1]).
Tal is in the same asset related data processing art as Strebel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Strebel in view of Tal to explicitly recite the one or more assets comprise one or more wooden structures with a rationale for easy status assessment on various assets and ensuring their safe operation (see Strebel - utilizing sensor and imagery data to automatically assess infrastructure damage [0001], infrastructure assets, utility poles, may become damaged as a result of natural disasters [0002], repairing damaged infrastructure, safety concerns [0003]).
As per claim 12, Strebel discloses claim 1a set forth above.
Strebel further discloses the one or more sensor devices comprise one or more of a resistance sensor-enabled drill, an imaging device, a sampling device, an acoustic sensor, or any combination thereof, (imaging sensor [0034]) and assets include utility poles (utility poles [0002, 0022-0025]. which are usually made out of wood, but fails to explicitly recite the one or more assets comprise one or more wooden structures.
Tal recites a wooden power line pole [0065, Fig. 1]). Tal is in the same asset related data processing art as Strebel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Strebel in view of Tal to explicitly recite the one or more assets comprise one or more wooden structures with a rationale for easy status assessment on various assets and ensuring their safe operation.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebel in view of Wang (US 20220373515 A1), hereinafter ‘Wang’.
As per claims 7 and 17, Strebel discloses claims 1 and 11 set forth above.
Strebel is silent regarding the one or more parameters comprise information indicative of one or more of a structural integrity of each asset, potential areas of internal decay of each asset, potential areas of surface decay of each asset, a thickness of each asset, a strength value of each asset, a density value of each asset, a level of resistance to penetration of each asset, or a remaining wall thickness of each asset.
Wang discloses the above limitation (monitoring the condition and integrity of structural assets [0002-0003], corrosion of the structural asset [0063], thickness of the structural asset [0064, 0108]).
Wang is also concerned about structural assets integrity for safe operation like Strebel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Strebel in view of Wang to have the one or more parameters comprise information indicative of one or more of a structural integrity of each asset, potential areas of internal decay of each asset, potential areas of surface decay of each asset,
a thickness of each asset, a strength value of each asset, a density value of each asset,
a level of resistance to penetration of each asset, or a remaining wall thickness of each asset with a rationale for easy status assessment on various assets and ensuring their safe operation.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebel in view of Chillar (US 20230266733 A1), hereinafter ‘Chillar’.
As per claims 8 and 18, Strebel discloses claims 1 and 11 set forth above.
Strebel is silent regarding “aggregating one or more parameters for each asset of the one or more assets; and causing an output of the aggregated one or more parameters”.
Chillar disclose the above limitations (the data aggregation component 1604 organizes the formatted version of the asset data 1614 based on a time series mapping of attributes for the asset data, aggregation data, aggregation metric, asset type metric [0132, 0138, 1042], output parameters linked to the appropriate attributes of the asset [0108]).
Chillar is also concerned about operating assets with safety like Strebel (see Chillar - monitoring the operations and properly maintaining assets at a manufacturing plant, storage warehouse, or other commercial or industrial facility are important to a facilities manager who may be responsible for maintaining or increasing production output and managing a safe work environment [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Strebel in view of Chillar to aggregate one or more parameters for each asset of the one or more assets and cause an output of the aggregated one or more parameters with a rationale for easy status assessment on various assets and ensuring their safe operation.
As per claims 9 and 19, Strebel discloses claims 1 and 11 set forth above.
Strebel is silent regarding outputting the measurement data, wherein the measurement data is output based on an aggregation of the measurement data according to each asset of the one or more assets.
Chillar discloses outputting the measurement data, wherein the measurement data is output based on an aggregation of the measurement data according to each asset of the one or more assets. (IoT platform, receiving the data from the edge devices 1461a-1461n directly [0106], data pipeline, data calculations/aggregations [0107], input and output [0108], stores and/or analyzes data that is aggregated from one or more assets and/or one or more data sources associated with an enterprise system [0119], obtain aggregated data associated with the portfolio of assets based on the one or more attributes, the one or more labels, the one or more tags, the one or more classifications, output data from the … model [0142], input/output device(s), input/output interface(s) [0150]).
Chillar is also concerned about operation of assets with safety like Strebel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Strebel in view of Chillar to output the measurement data, wherein the measurement data is output based on an aggregation of the measurement data according to each asset of the one or more assets with a rationale for easy status assessment on various assets and ensuring their safe operation.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebel in view of Shapiro (US 20190003929 A1).
As per claims 10 and 20, Strebel discloses claims 1 and 11 set forth above.
Strebel further discloses determining if one or more parameters of each asset satisfies a threshold; (locations in which the density of assets satisfies a particular threshold [0081, Fig. 8])
and outputting, based on the one or more parameters of each asset satisfying the threshold, one or more notifications, (asset can be classified ‘e.g., as a utility pole with electrical wires’ and assessed for damage [0082, Figs. 8-10], satellite image with the notations of actual locations versus expected locations may be presented in a display of the user device 215 [0089, Fig. 12], a damage assessment report 1500 may display a summary of a flight path and a table indicating identifiers of assets ‘e.g., utility poles’ [0094, Fig. 15]).
However, Strebel is silent regarding wherein the one or more notifications comprise at least one of a recommendation to replace at least one asset of the one or more assets, a recommendation to repair at least one asset of the one or more assets, or an indication that additional measurement data is needed for at least one asset.
Shapiro discloses wherein the one or more notifications comprise at least one of a recommendation to replace at least one asset of the one or more assets, a recommendation to repair at least one asset of the one or more assets, or an indication that additional measurement data is needed for at least one asset. (recommended operating mode for the given asset falls within a given category, carry out remedial action that comprises one or more of … output an indication of one or more recommended repairs to the given asset, (c) causing the given asset to modify its operation, and (d) transmitting, to a parts-ordering system, part-order data to facilitate causing the parts-ordering system to order a component of the given asset [claims 9 and 18]).
Shapiro is also concerned about safe management of assets like Strebel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Strebel in view of Shapiro to output the one or more notifications comprising at least one of a recommendation to replace at least one asset of the one or more assets, a recommendation to repair at least one asset of the one or more assets, or an indication that additional measurement data is needed for at least one asset with a rationale for easy status assessment on various assets and ensuring their safe operation.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Riedy (US 20230052343 A1) discloses use of management platform for autonomous drone operations (executing a mission by an autonomous device to inspect an asset [abs]).
Hallihole (US 20240354684 A1) discloses recommended mitigation actions for poor performing assets (generating asset diagnostic information, and investigating, repairing, and/or servicing one or more asset [0060]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights