DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 3/23/2026. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 18-20 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled, while claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 1-7, 9 and 21 are directed to a series of steps, computer-readable media claims 10-19 are directed to storing program instructions, and system claim 20 is directed to one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing program instructions. Thus the claims are directed to a process, manufacture, and machine, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite servicing a building, including creating, augmenting, and facilitating steps.
The limitations of creating, augmenting, and facilitating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite creating a workflow for a service by stitching, building lifecycle data together with enterprise data from a plurality of sources; augmenting the workflow by stitching, into the workflow using specific information associated with a unit of equipment involved in the service, to obtain an augmented workflow comprising a plurality of steps in which a given step of the plurality of steps is augmented to include the specific information, and at least one of an order of the plurality of steps is modified or one or more steps of the plurality of steps is removed; and outputting a steps pane in which the plurality of steps of the augmented workflow are arranged according to the order or (ii) audio representing the plurality of steps arranged according to the workflow, to facilitate completion of the service in accordance with the augmented workflow.
That is, other than reciting one or more processors, a graphical user interface, and at least one artificial intelligence (Al) model, the claim limitations merely cover managing business relations and personal behavior, including following rules or instructions , thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include one or more processors, a graphical user interface, and at least one artificial intelligence (Al) model. The one or more processors, graphical user interface, and at least one artificial intelligence (Al) model in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of one or more processors, a graphical user interface, and at least one artificial intelligence (Al) model amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-5 further describe the stitching the building lifecycle data together, the plurality of sources for the enterprise data, and augmenting the workflow. Claims 6 and 7 recite additional generating and selecting steps, and further describes augmenting the workflow. Claim 9 further describes augmenting the workflow. Claim 21 recites additional receiving and transmitting steps. Similarly, dependent claims 11-18 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, one or more processors, a graphical user interface, and at least one artificial intelligence (Al) model.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0053 of the specification, “Various components of the system 100 or portions thereof can be implemented by one or more processors coupled with or more memory devices (memory). The processors can be a general purpose or specific purpose processors, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), one or more field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), a group of processing components, or other suitable processing components. The processors may be configured to execute computer code and/or instructions stored in the memories or received from other computer readable media (e.g., CDROM, network storage, a remote server, etc.). The processors can be configured in various computer architectures, such as graphics processing units (GPUs), distributed computing architectures, cloud server architectures, client-server architectures, or various combinations thereof. One or more first processors can be implemented by a first device, such as an edge device, and one or more second processors can be implemented by a second device, such as a server or other device that is communicatively coupled with the first device and may have greater processor and/or memory resources.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ettinger et al (US 11216663 B1).
As per claim 1, Ettinger et al disclose a method of servicing a building (i.e., user information goal can comprise one or more of inventory management, health monitoring, damage assessments and condition state determination, condition state progression over time, deficiency identification, technical performance (e.g., coverage area by antenna or load bearing capacity of a building), serviceability, progress monitoring, as-built vs. as-designed discrepancies, engineering drawings or specifications, Building Information Modeling (BIM), column 28, lines 25-37), comprising:
creating, by one or more processors, a workflow for a service by stitching, using at least one artificial intelligence (AI) model, building lifecycle data together with enterprise data from a plurality of sources (i.e., A workflow can be generated that is associated with the user activity expressly identified by the user, and the attendant sensor data viewport, column 29, lines 16-20, wherein a “user activity” can be building information modeling (BIM). As would be appreciated, BIM is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility, building, space, etc., which will necessarily incorporate information about objects present therein. BIM is associated with a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its lifecycle, column 27, lines 56-63. User selection and action with respect to a scene including one or more objects, components, or features of interest can be incorporated into machine learning systems to improve subsequent processes. Such user behavior can be used to improve subsequent 2D and 3D information displays to users. Further, such user behavior can be used to improve acquisition plans for sensor data. Still further, such user behavior can be used to generate user workflows associated with each user activity, column 56, lines 1-10);
augmenting the workflow, by the one or more processors, by stitching, into the workflow using the at least Al model, specific information associated with a unit of equipment involved in the service, to obtain an augmented workflow comprising a plurality of steps in which a given step of the plurality of steps is augmented to include the specific information, and at least one of an order of the plurality of steps is modified or one or more steps of the plurality of steps is removed (i.e., Existing database information can also be incorporated to seed and inform machine learning models that can be deployed to provide information relevant to completing a user activity and associated user information goals, such as whether the user activity and/or user information goals can be achieved in context. As a further example, historical performance information indicating that a type of mechanical equipment often present on a commercial roof is often subject to failure can be incorporated in a machine learning library that is used to enhance the user navigation around and evaluation of objects, components, and features of interest, such as by populating a directed user workflow, column 57, lines 3-17, wherein inspection as a user task will likely be associated with review of the various equipment to assess functionality, attachment, and the like. As the user is navigating through and around the concurrently displayed viewports for which the user has identified an activity, the information provided to the user can be associated with the information relevant to such activities, with the specific information so provided can be, at least in part, determined by the information typically associated with the identified user activity, column 36, lines 9-17); and
outputting, by the one or more processors, at least one of (i) a graphical user interface comprising a steps pane in which the plurality of steps of the augmented workflow are arranged according to the order or (ii) audio representing the plurality of steps arranged according to the workflow to facilitate completion of the service in accordance with the augmented workflow (i.e., A workflow can be generated that is associated with the user activity expressly identified by the user, and the attendant sensor data viewport (e.g., 3D point clouds, 2D imagery, thermal imagery, semantic imagery etc.) can be provided to the user on his display that is appropriate for such identified user activity, column 29, lines 16-21, wherein The user display 1650 can include one or more viewports (e.g., viewports 1653a, 1653b, 1653c) for visualization of acquired sensor data for objects, components, or features of interest in a scene. For example, information about an object 1656 in a scene or location can be displayed in the viewports 1653 in a combination of renderings such as, e.g., a 3D rendering, a 2D image, etc., column 64, lines 30-37).
As per claim 2, Ettinger et al disclose stitching the building lifecycle data together with the enterprise data from the plurality of sources comprises customizing the workflow for the building based on relationships between equipment and spaces in the building represented in the building lifecycle data and at least one of a service action, troubleshooting task, or test value generated from the enterprise data based on the relationships from the building lifecycle data (i.e., a “user activity” can be building information modeling (BIM). As would be appreciated, BIM is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility, building, space, etc., which will necessarily incorporate information about objects present therein. BIM is associated with a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its lifecycle, column 27, lines 56-63).
As per claim 3, Ettinger et al disclose the plurality of sources for the enterprise data comprise service data relating to other buildings and product literature relating to the service, and wherein the building lifecycle data comprises sales data, engineering data, and installation data (i.e., an object that may be of interest for an activity or task in the future, such as an inspection, can be associated with a digital identification provided by a manufacturer or supplier, where the digital identification will be durably associated with that object over the lifecycle thereof, column 13, lines 47-51).
As per claim 4, Ettinger et al disclose automatically identifying the unit of equipment involved in the service based on location data from a client device and a digital twin of the building virtually representing locations of equipment at the building (i.e., Each digital twin or collection of digital twins have utility herein for the simulation of the operation of a physical asset of interest at a specific time, over one or more time periods, and over a lifecycle of the asset(s) or at the location in which an asset of interest is associated with (e.g., a building, infrastructure element, etc.), column 10, lines 14-19);
generating, by the at least one AI model, the specific information associated with the unit of equipment by learning from natural language data comprising historical service records for the building, operational data and natural language data comprising at least one of product literature and service records for other buildings (i.e., Existing database information can also be incorporated to seed and inform machine learning models that can be deployed to provide information relevant to completing a user activity and associated user information goals, such as whether the user activity and/or user information goals can be achieved in context. As a further example, historical performance information indicating that a type of mechanical equipment often present on a commercial roof is often subject to failure can be incorporated in a machine learning library that is used to enhance the user navigation around and evaluation of objects, components, and features of interest, such as by populating a directed user workflow, column 57, lines 3-17); and
integrating the specific information into a corresponding step of the workflow (i.e., a machine learning library that is used to enhance the user navigation around and evaluation of objects, components, and features of interest, such as by populating a directed user workflow, column 57, lines 14-17).
As per claim 5, Ettinger et al disclose the at least one AI model comprises a generative AI model (i.e., Existing database information can also be incorporated to seed and inform machine learning models that can be deployed to provide information relevant to completing a user activity and associated user information goals, such as whether the user activity and/or user information goals can be achieved in context, column 57, lines 3-17).
As per claim 6, Ettinger et al disclose repeating the creating and augmenting steps for different types of services to pre-generate a library of selectable workflows comprising the augmented workflow, wherein facilitating completion of the service comprises calling, from the library of selectable workflows, the augmented workflow and loading the workflow into a template for the graphical user interface (i.e., As a further example, historical performance information indicating that a type of mechanical equipment often present on a commercial roof is often subject to failure can be incorporated in a machine learning library that is used to enhance the user navigation around and evaluation of objects, components, and features of interest, such as by populating a directed user workflow, column 57, lines 3-17).
As per claim 7, Ettinger et al disclose selecting the workflow from the library of selectable workflows based on the service being a first type of service, and wherein augmenting the workflow comprises customizing the workflow for the unit of equipment (i.e., As a further example, historical performance information indicating that a type of mechanical equipment often present on a commercial roof is often subject to failure can be incorporated in a machine learning library that is used to enhance the user navigation around and evaluation of objects, components, and features of interest, such as by populating a directed user workflow, column 57, lines 3-17).
As per claim 9, Ettinger et al disclose the augmenting the workflow is performed responsive to determining that the user is to perform the service on the unit of equipment (i.e., A workflow can be generated that is associated with the user activity expressly identified by the user, and the attendant sensor data viewport (e.g., 3D point clouds, 2D imagery, thermal imagery, semantic imagery etc.) can be provided to the user on his display that is appropriate for such identified user activity, column 29, lines 16-21).
As per claim 19, Ettinger et al disclose guiding the user through the augmented workflow comprises controlling equipment to provide a step of the augmented workflow (i.e., As a further example, historical performance information indicating that a type of mechanical equipment often present on a commercial roof is often subject to failure can be incorporated in a machine learning library that is used to enhance the user navigation around and evaluation of objects, components, and features of interest, such as by populating a directed user workflow, column 57, lines 3-17).
Claims 10-18 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-9, respectively, since they are the computer-readable media claims corresponding to the method claims. Additionally, Ettinger et al disclose A workflow can be generated that is associated with the user activity expressly identified by the user, and the attendant sensor data viewport (e.g., 3D point clouds, 2D imagery, thermal imagery, semantic imagery etc.) can be provided to the user on his display that is appropriate for such identified user activity, column 29, lines 16-21.
Claim 20 is rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1, since it is the system claim corresponding to the method claim.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettinger et al (US 11216663 B1) in view of Reichl (US 20230417439 A1).
As per claim 21, Ettinger et al does not disclose receiving, by the one or more processors via the graphical user interface, an input to adjust a setting, of the item of building equipment, corresponding to one or more steps of the augmented workflow; and transmit a control signal to the item of equipment to adjust, according to the input, the setting of the item of building equipment.
Reichl discloses Fault detection and diagnostics (FDD) layer 416 can be configured to provide on-going fault detection for building subsystems 428, building subsystem devices (i.e., building equipment), and control algorithms used by demand response layer 414 and integrated control layer 418. FDD layer 416 may receive data inputs from integrated control layer 418, directly from one or more building subsystems or devices, or from another data source. FDD layer 416 may automatically diagnose and respond to detected faults. The responses to detected or diagnosed faults can include providing an alert message to a user, a maintenance scheduling system, or a control algorithm configured to attempt to repair the fault or to work-around the fault (¶ 0100).
FDD layer 416 can be configured to output a specific identification of the faulty component or cause of the fault (e.g., loose damper linkage) using detailed subsystem inputs available at building subsystem integration layer 420. In other exemplary embodiments, FDD layer 416 is configured to provide “fault” events to integrated control layer 418 which executes control strategies and policies in response to the received fault events. According to some embodiments, FDD layer 416 (or a policy executed by an integrated control engine or business rules engine) may shut-down systems or direct control activities around faulty devices or systems to reduce energy waste, extend equipment life, or assure proper control response (¶ 0101).
Demand response layer 414 may further include or draw upon one or more demand response policy definitions (e.g., databases, XML, files, etc.). The policy definitions can be edited or adjusted by a user (e.g., via a graphical user interface) so that the control actions initiated in response to demand inputs can be tailored for the user's application, desired comfort level, particular building equipment, or based on other concerns (¶ 0095).
Ettinger et al and Reichl are concerned with effective building and equipment management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving, by the one or more processors via the graphical user interface, an input to adjust a setting, of the item of building equipment, corresponding to one or more steps of the augmented workflow; and transmit a control signal to the item of equipment to adjust, according to the input, the setting of the item of building equipment in Ettinger et al, as seen in Reichl, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues, as set forth in MPEP 2106.04, the 2024 AI-SME Update, and the August 4, 2025 Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)." The above-recited elements of claims 1, 10, and 20 are not operations that the human mind is equipped to perform, and thus claims 1, 10, and 20 do not recite any abstract idea.
A claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application when the claimed technology reflects a disclosed improvement to the technical field and the specification sets forth the improvement in technology, including an improvement to "functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field." MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a). As explained in the Specification (paragraphs [0178], [0184], [0185]), for the technical field of building management systems, systems and methods in accordance with claims 1, 10, and 20 can achieve the technical improvements.
Under Step 2B, a claim is patent eligible where it recites an improvement to a computer itself or any other technology or technical field. (MPEP § 2106.05(a).) "An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art." (MPEP § 2106.05(a).) As noted above in the discussion under Step 2A, Prong Two, and as explained further below with respect to at least paragraphs [0178], [0184], and [0185] of the Specification, claims 1, 10, and 20 recite improvements to building management systems at least by claiming technical solution(s) to the technical problems of this field such as graphical user interface usability, up-to- date equipment servicing, and/or time and/or resources for service such as time, parts, and tools. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As described in paragraph 0003 of the specification, “Various interactions between building systems, components of building systems, users, technicians, and/or devices managed by users or technicians can rely on timely generation and presentation of data relating to the interactions, including for performing service operations.”
Additionally, paragraphs 0015 and 0016 recite “The action for performing the service can include a specific task to be performed on the item of equipment. The identifier of the item of the equipment for which the service is to be performed can include a location of a client device associated with a technician. As another example, a method can include receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of first unstructured service instructions corresponding to a plurality of completed service actions handled by expert technicians, training, by the one or more processors, a generative AI model using the plurality of first unstructured service instructions, and generating, by the one or more processors using the trained generative AI model, content data comprising actions to be performed to conduct a service operation on an identified item of equipment.”
Moreover, paragraph 0043 recites “The system can enable real-time messaging and/or conversational interfaces for users to provide field data regarding equipment to the system (including presenting targeted queries to users that are expected to elicit relevant responses for efficiently receiving useful response information from users) and guide users, such as service technicians, through relevant service, diagnostic, troubleshooting, and/or repair processes.”
Additionally, paragraph 0073 recites “For example, the data sources 112 can include a customer management system (e.g., sales-oriented system) configured to provided data relating to a building, customer expectations for building operation, high-level goals for a building, etc.; a system configuration tool (e.g., system, dashboard, webpage, etc. for high-level selection of equipment or systems to be provided in a building) configured to provide a scope of a project to be executed at a building (e.g., scope of an installation project for providing a building with a building management system), engineering data or detailed blueprints or other plans for execution of building systems projects at a building, installation and configuration/commissioning data (e.g., collected via a connected workflows application and/or dashboard that guides and provides digital connections to facilitate technicians in installing, configuring, and commissioning building systems, verification data (e.g., from a performance verification tool adapted to scan a building management system to identify points, devices, resources, etc. available in the building management system)…”
Moreover, paragraph 0157 recites “To allow electronically-enabled workflow systems to provide accurate content, systems and methods in accordance with the present disclosure can intelligently generate content data useful to a service technician based on an identifier of an item of equipment for which service is to be performed, for example such that the content data is tuned to the particular equipment being serviced, a particular service task, and/or the skill or experience level of the service technician and is provided to the service technician at an appropriate time and location.”
Following, independent claims 1, 10 and 20 recite “servicing a building, comprising: creating a workflow…outputting, by the one or more processors, at least one of (i) a graphical user interface comprising a steps pane in which the plurality of steps of the augmented workflow are arranged according to the order or (ii) audio representing the plurality of steps arranged according to the workflow, to facilitate completion of the service in accordance with the augmented workflow”
As such, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claim limitations merely cover managing business relations and personal behavior, including following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Following, under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include one or more processors, a graphical user interface, and at least one artificial intelligence (Al) model.
The one or more processors, graphical user interface, and at least one artificial intelligence (Al) model in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., one or more processors, a graphical user interface, and at least one artificial intelligence (Al) model). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, one or more processors, a graphical user interface, and at least one artificial intelligence (Al) model. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Applicant also argues Ettinger does not disclose the amended elements of claims 1, 10, or 20. Ettinger does not disclose that the sensor data viewport is outputted as at least one of "a graphical user interface comprising a steps pane in which the plurality of steps of the augmented workflow are arranged according to the order" or "audio representing the plurality of steps arranged according to the workflow, to facilitate completion of the service in accordance with the augmented workflow." The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, and as discussed in the updated rejection, Ettinger et al indeed disclose the amended claim language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights