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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 10/31/2025 in which claims 1,-6, 8-10, and 12-13 have been amended, claim 11 has been canceled. Thus, the claims 1-10 and 12-13 are pending in the application.
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 1-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of presenting the information for identifying the multifunction pole selected by the user without significantly more.
For 101 analysis, Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention described in independent claims 1 and 12-13.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: receive, from a first terminal via a network, recruitment information for recruiting additional of a device to a multifunction pole to be installed or installed; store the recruitment information; receive, from a second terminal via a network, a search request for the recruitment information; extract, in response to the recruitment information, one or more multifunction poles into which the device desired to be installed by a user of the second terminal or a module incorporating the device can be incorporated, from among a plurality of the multifunction poles included in the recruitment information present information relating to the extracted multifunction pole to the second terminal via the network in a graphic user interface (GUI) by grouping the plurality of multifunction poles in to a plurality of groups based on units of intersections, the GUI comprising a selectable intersection corresponding to each of the plurality of group on a map; receive a selection of the multifunction pole from the user of the second terminal based on a selection of one of the intersection on the GUI; and present to the first terminal via the network, information for identifying the multifunction pole selected by the user of the second terminal. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitation) describe the abstract idea of presenting the information for identifying the multifunction pole selected by the user, which correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The additional elements of a memory, processor, a first/second terminal, a network, a device, a multifunction pole, a module, and a graphical user interface (GUI) do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a memory, processor, a first/second terminal , a network, a device, a multifunction pole, a module, and a graphical user interface (GUI) result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a memory, processor, a first/second terminal, a network, a device, a multifunction pole, a module, and a graphical user interface (GUI) are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a memory, processor, a first/second terminal , a network, a device, a multifunction pole, a module, and a graphical user interface (GUI) are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 12-13 and hence the claims 12-13 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1, thus correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1-10 and 12-13 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-13 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong One of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim clearly recites an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. The claim recites an abstract idea of presenting the information for identifying the multifunction pole selected by the user and is supported by various claim limitations. The additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea and thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong 2 that the claim 1 provides an improvement to a user interface that allows a decision-maker to efficiently manage and visualize the installation of the multifunction pole in an interactive manner using an interactive graphical user interface.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to simply applying the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement when the additional elements apply the abstract idea and thus the scope of the claim is very different to what is present in Core Wireless. Displaying data on a GUI does not result in improvement to GUI. Displaying data on a GUI may make it easier for a user to make decision and this is not a technical improvement in any way. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea of displaying data which makes use of additional elements of a GUI. In this way, the additional elements of a GUI is simply present as a tool to display the data without providing any technical improvement to a GUI. In the absence of technical improvement, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2B, Examiner notes that the claimed features do not provide any technical improvement and thus do not provide an “inventive concept” and thus these arguments are not persuasive.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684