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 . 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 12 of the “Amendments and Response to Non-final Office Action” of 28 January 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment/Response”).
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, 5-7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “method” of claims 1, 5, and 6 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, and the “device” of claims 7, 11, and 12 constitutes a machine under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 12 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A method for controlling actual construction of a construction site based on a multi-modality temporal information fusion, ... comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... acquiring current engineering progress information and historical engineering progress information corresponding to each current engineering progress information ..., wherein the current engineering progress information comprises engineering progress information of a current month, and the historical engineering progress information comprises engineering progress information of previous several months of the current month ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... separately determining modality-specific temporal features according to the each current engineering progress information and the historical engineering progress information corresponding to the each current engineering progress information; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... inputting the modality-specific temporal features into a dimension decoupling-based multi-modality fusion ... to obtain fused multi-modality temporal information; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... expanding the fused multi-modality temporal information and determining a current engineering progress according to the fused multi-modality temporal information by using a linear predictor; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... controlling actual construction of the construction site based on determined current engineering progress ..., wherein the actual construction of the construction site comprises the use of material on the construction site; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... wherein the current engineering progress information comprises at least two of construction site image information, construction site personnel composition information, or construction site building material warehousing information; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... the modality-specific temporal features comprise at least two of temporal construction site image information, temporal construction site personnel composition information, or temporal construction site building material warehousing information; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... wherein separately determining the modality-specific temporal features according to the each current engineering progress information and the historical engineering progress information corresponding to the each current engineering progress information comprises: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... sorting the each current engineering progress information and the historical project progress information corresponding to the each current engineering progress information according to a time sequence, extracting features of the engineering progress information of the current month and the engineering progress information of the previous several months ... to obtain a feature of the engineering progress information of the current month and features of the engineering progress information of the previous several months, and obtaining temporal engineering progress information according to a temporal data formed according to a temporal data formed according to the feature of the engineering progress information according to a temporal data formed according to the feature of the engineering progress information of the current month and the features of the engineering progress information of the previous several months; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... inputting the temporal engineering progress information into a modality-specific temporal feature extraction ..., capturing, by the modality-specific temporal feature extraction ..., based on a self-attention mechanism, information that satisfies a timing difference threshold in the temporal engineering progress information, and allocating a target weight to the information that satisfies the timing difference threshold; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... obtaining the modality-specific temporal features according to the target weight; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... wherein expanding the fused multi-modality temporal information and determining the current engineering progress according to the fused multi-modality temporal information by using the linear predictor comprises: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... expanding the fused multi-modality temporal information into one one-dimensional vector; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, and mental processes
“... inputting the one-dimensional vector into a classifier to obtain the current engineering progress; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, and mental processes
“... during a process of inputting the temporal engineering progress information into a modality-specific temporal feature extraction ... for a feature extraction to obtain the modality-specific temporal features, for any input X of a modality, the modality-specific temporal feature extraction ... is configured to perform the following operations:
PNG
media_image1.png
197
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Wk, Wo and Wv are all learned parameter matrices, dk is a number of feature dimensions of K, LN () is a layer regularization operation, Linear () is a linear layer with offset, and both Softmax () and Tanh () are corresponding activation functions; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, and mental processes
“... during a process of inputting the modality-specific temporal features into a dimension decoupling-based multi-modality fusion ... to obtain fused multi-modality temporal information, three inputs of X1, X2, and X3 of three modalities are operated based on the dimension decoupling-based multi-modality fusion module in following steps:
PNG
media_image2.png
385
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Concat () is a matrix splicing function, reshape () is a matrix element rearrangement function, ReLU () is a corresponding activation function, Bias is a learnable induction paranoid vector, and M, L, D are modality-specific temporal features of multi-modality respectively; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, and mental processes
“... wherein the inputting the modality-specific temporal features into a dimension decoupling-based multi-modality fusion ... to obtain fused multi-modality temporal information comprises: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... combining the modality-specific temporal features into one three-dimensional space tensor through the dimension decoupling-based multi-modality fusion ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, and mental processes
“... performing a dimension decoupling on the one three-dimensional space tensor, and obtaining multi-modality temporal information in a decoupled three-dimensional space tensor.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations, which fall under the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “acquiring,” “inputting,” and “obtaining” limitations), and evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “determining,” “expanding,” “controlling,” “sorting,” “operations,” steps,” “combining,” and “performing” limitations), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “method” is “performed by at least one processor of an electronic device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “acquiring” is “from a local database” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “controlling” is “in real time” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “dimension decoupling-based multi-modality fusion” involves use of a “module” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “extracting” is “by using a convolutional neural network” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “modality-specific temporal feature extraction” involves use of a “module” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “dimension decoupling-based multi-modality fusion” is performed using a “module” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, and mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: performing repetitive calculations, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “before the fused multi-modality temporal information is obtained, the method further comprises: continuously inputting an output result of the dimension decoupling-based multi-modality fusion ... into a next dimension decoupling-based multi-modality fusion ... until a preset stopping condition is satisfied” of claim 5, and the “wherein the fused multi-modality temporal information is one three-dimensional tensor” of claim 6). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “module” limitations of claim 5). Accordingly, claims 5 and 6 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 7, 11, and 12, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1, 5, and 6, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1, 5, and 6. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1, 5, and 6 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 7, 11, and 12. Limitations recited by claims 7, 11, and 12 that do not have a counterpart in claims 1, 5, and 6, such as the recited “electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the at least one processor, and the computer program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform” limitations of claim 7, fail to warrant a finding of eligibility, because such limitations amount to additional elements that fail to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, for the same reasons as the additional elements of claims 1, 5, and 6. Claims 7, 11, and 12 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Examiner Remarks
Prior art rejections have not been asserted against the claims. The closest prior art references of record include U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0325089 A1 to Golparvar-Fard et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Golparvar-Fard”), CN Pat. App. Pub. No. 113780823 A to Sun (hereinafter referred to as “Sun”), and Huang, Rong, et al. "Temporal comparison of construction sites using photogrammetric point cloud sequences and robust phase correlation." Automation in Construction 117 (2020): 103247. (hereinafter referred to as “Huang”). Golparvar-Fard discloses, “MONITORING CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS” (title), and “A system initializes a set of calibrated images with known 3D pose relative to a 3D building information model (BIM) to be anchor images, detects features within images of unknown position and orientation, and determines matches with features of the calibrated images. The system determines a subset of the images that have at least a threshold number of matching features, selects an image from the subset of the images having the largest number of matching features, and executes a reconstruction algorithm using the image and the anchor images to calibrate the image to the BIM and generate an initial 3D point cloud model. The system repeats the last steps to identify a second image from the subset and perform, starting with the initial 3D point cloud model and using the second image, 3D reconstruction to generate an updated 3D point cloud model that is displayable in a graphical user interface.” (abstract). Similarly, Sun discloses, “an intelligent engineering supervision system and supervision method based on image acquisition system, belonging to the technical field of engineering supervision, the acquisition module is used for real-time collecting engineering field construction condition, and the collected data is transmitted to the central processor through wireless transmission; the data processing module is used for processing the engineering construction plan data, establishing the engineering model and progress, and receiving the collected data transmitted by the central processor, processing the collected data, and synchronizing the processed data to the engineering model; the data analysis module is used for combining the engineering model and performing the collected engineering field data for comparing and analyzing, determining whether the engineering construction progress and quality meet the plan, and analyzing the error reason; the monitoring terminal is used for checking the data in the project progress and the analysis result by the monitoring terminal” (English-language abstract). And similarly, Huang discloses, “measured point clouds have shown significant strengths in aspects of low operation cost, fast acquisition, and precise geometric representation. In the management of construction progress, progress tracking is one of the essential tasks, in which not only high-accuracy measurements but also the support of data covering the entire construction phase is required” (p. 1). However, it does not appear that Golparvar-Fard, Sun, and Huang, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests the recited mathematical steps (functions) recited by independent claims 1 and 7. No other references have been found that would remedy such deficiencies. As such, claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 12 appear to distinguish over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 11-17 of the Amendment/Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. More specifically, the applicant contends, “in amended claim 1, since the actual construction is controlled based on the determined current engineering progress in real time and the actual construction includes the use of material on the construction site, such controlling cannot be performed via analog means and such controlling in real time is necessarily a technology, or technical field.” (Amendment/Response, p. 12.) The examiner disagrees. A human making a decision and acting on that decision, can take place in real time. An example is a human perceiving his or her environment and making immediate decisions on how to steer a vehicle he or she is driving, based on those perceptions. Even, for the sake of argument, we assume a human is not capable of controlling actual construction in real time based on determinations about data, eligibility based thereon is not a given. If controlling actual construction based on determinations is something a human could do, but just not in real time, then adding the real time aspect still fails to warrant eligibility. That added speed is something insufficient to show an improvement, like “Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” (MPEP 2106.05(a).)
The applicant’s other arguments are similar to those addressed above. For clarity, the examiner asserts that when the abstract idea elements of the claims and the additional elements of the claims are viewed in combination, it is clear that the additional elements add nothing more than “A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016),” “Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015),” and/or “A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential)” (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and fails to warrant eligibility at least for these additional reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0281527 A1 to Cella et al. discloses, “User interfaces configured to provide a list of conditions of interest to at least one entity associated with a role type stored within a role taxonomy, and to select a condition of interest in response to a user selection from the list of conditions; and a controller configured to determine a reduced dimensionality view of the data in response to a determined structure in the data and further in response to the selected condition of interest. The reduced dimensionality view a plurality of graphical elements representing mechanical portions of a machine of the industrial environment associated with the condition of interest. The reduced dimensionality view further comprises a plurality of highlighted graphical elements representing sensors from the plurality of input sensors that provided data outside an acceptable range of data. The user interface is further configured to display the reduced dimensionality view.” (Abstract.)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624