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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims would otherwise be allowable upon resolution of the pending eligibility 101 rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “inspection document creation unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“inspection document creation unit” - para. 0014, processor on server,
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 2A prong one:
The claim(s) recite(s) the storage of design documentation of a facility which contains data on instruments connected to one another and software which extracts and integrates the data to provide an inspection checklist for inspection of a line.
1. (Original) A construction management device, comprising:
(a)a storage unit configured to store:
(a1) design document information on a facility; and
(a2) facility information in which the facility and instruments connected to lines provided to the facility are associated with each other; and
(b) an inspection document creation unit configured to
(b1) identify some of the instruments that are connected to one of the lines based on the facility information, and
(b2) extract and integrate pieces of information relating to the one of the lines and the some of the instruments from the design document information
(b3) to create inspection documents required for an inspection of the one of the lines.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea most closely resembling the grouping of “mental processes” type abstract ideas. Limitations (a) above merely recite the storage of documents, a collecting data step. Limitations (b1)-(b2) recite using a processor (unit) to scan the documents and identify data relevant to a “line” and extract the data. Limitation (b3) recites outputting the results to create a checklist document. Because the above limitations could be performed in the human mind but for the processor limitation, examiner finds that the claim is directed to an abstract idea of mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). But for the storage and the processor limitation, it could be practically performed in the human mind by reading documents, observing which instruments on the line are connected and have dependencies, and creating a checklist for a worker to perform inspection of identified instruments on the identified “line.” Thus, the claim is directed towards using the computer as a tool rather than improving the tool itself and recites the performance of a mental process on a generic computer. The claim recites the storage (collection) of data and parsing and comparing of the data to identify relationships and outputting the results as a checklist for inspection.
STEP 2A prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to instructions to “apply it” on a computer. As identified above, the first limitation is directed towards storing data, while the second limitation is directed towards a concept that could be performed in the human mind as reading the documents to identify connected instruments and merely writing down via pen and paper the identified instruments for inspection.
STEP 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite and improvement to a functioning of the computer itself or another technical field, do not recite use of a particular machine, do not effect a transformation, or recite other meaningful limitations linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment. Here, the data is parsed and output in a different format, which is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself of identifying connected instruments and outputting a list. The limitations whether considered alone or in combination merely recite the application of an abstract idea on a generic computer and are therefore ineligible. The considerations from above in step 2a prong two are carried over here and the claims are still abstract when considering that the entire claim scope can still be performed mentally but for the processor and storage limitation and thus is not an improvement to computer technology. The claims are similar to gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the results as in TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
Regarding claims 2-8, claim 2 further limits the claim to more specific data being stored, and similar extraction of data as claim 1 and does not appear to recite either a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 3 recites that the stored data has “tags” and data is extracted based on the “tags”. This claim merely recites that the stored data has been labeled in some way to facilitate extraction. Claim 4 recites that the data is process information and extracting “feasibility” of inspecting the lines based on the identified data. This limitation similar to claim 1 could be accomplished via mental process. Claim 5 further recites the data contains dependency relationship information and again merely limits the type of data stored and feasibility of inspection (judgment or opinion) but does not recite any practical application or a feature significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 6 recites that the storage contains a “time” limitation which appears to merely further recite type of data to parse. Claim 7 recites a “collection unit” which appears to merely store the results of identified data. Claim 8 is directed towards collection of results of inspection, again mere data collection and recording results of “approvers” which appears to be the storage of results of humans performing the inspections of the generated checklists. Regarding method claims 9-16, these claims recite the steps for performing the computer based functions identified above and are rejected as similarly abstract but for the generic computer limitations as apparatus claims 1-8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martinez et al. US 2007/0005412 A1 teaches a handheld computer to collect construction data and automatically provide a checklist. The reference does not teach the generation of a checklist based on parsing data from dependencies identified in design documents but rather progress of tasks and data for storage on a server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
