Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
2. This communication is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 01.06.2025. Claims 3-5, 8, have been amended; and new claims 9-20 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant's oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) is acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant's claim for priority of Foreign Application filed on 08.03.2022 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the FA date of 08.03.2022 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an installation record management system.
Independent claim 1 has been identified as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 is directed to an installation record management system, comprising the steps of:
manage inventory statuses of a plurality of types of items;
acquire a piece of installation information on an installation status;
store the piece of item information acquired by the first acquisition unit and the piece of installation information.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and storing inventory and installation records, which have been identified as a type of organizing human activity and a mental process:
a) Organizing Human Activity: managing inventory statuses of items used in installation tasks, tracking items shipped to a construction site, and tracking installation status, are fundamental economic practice and methods of managing commercial interactions at a construction site. Tracking whether an item has been shipped and installed is a commercial activity performed by constructions managers.
b) Mental Processes / Collecting and Storing Information: the claim’s main functions are: acquire item information (e.g., manufacturing number), acquire installations status information, and store them in association. This is collecting information, analyzing/matching, and storing. The steps could be performed by a human with a ledger: writing down the manufacturing number of an item to be shipped, noting when it is installed, and writing both entries on the same page. A claim that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper is a mental process.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: a first acquisition unit, a second acquisition unit, a storage, and an item management system. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea. An acquisition unit, a storage, and an item management system” are generic computer components for receiving and storing data, recited in purely functional terms without any technical detail of how they operate. Such components are generic computer elements performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions.
Accordingly, these additional elements and components, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality, do not improve the functioning of a computer itself, and network or other technology. There is no improvement to how data is required (e.g., no improved sensor, RFID reader, image recognition, or data parsing technique). There is no improvement to how data is stored (e.g., no improved data structure, memory architecture, or data compression). Instead, the additional elements and components merely implement the abstract idea in a generic and conventional environment, and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., installation management system, and installation record management method) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-5, 6-12, and 16-20 define the same that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 5, 13, 14, and 15 are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 2-5, 6-12, and 16-20 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delplace et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0365259 in view of Schwartz, Pub. No.: US 2018/0322225.
As per claim 1, Delplace discloses an installation record management system comprising:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire, from an item management system configured to manage inventory statuses of a plurality of types of items used in a plurality of installation tasks at a construction site [see at least the abstract (e.g., The attribute of the at least one task is reported via a wireless communication link to an information management system. The at least one attribute of the task is used to update a record of a project stored at the information management system), as illustrated in FIG. 1 below (e.g., information management system 101, reporting source 110, and handheld tool 120)] , a piece of item information at least including a manufacturing number of an item which is included in the plurality of types of items [see at least ¶0042 (e.g., Information management system 101 can also be used to track the objects being installed and can be compared to a materials list to track inventory of objects that have been installed and objects that need to be installed), and see ¶0040 (e.g., As an example, blueprints 105 can contain information such as proper bolt torque specifications, the location of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing features (e.g., pipes, electrical conduits, ventilation ducts, etc.) which have already been built, or will be later. Because asset report 111 provides real-time data on actions performed at a construction site, information management system 101 can determine whether an operator of handheld tool 120 is performing an action which may damage other structures or interfere with the installation of subsequent structures)]:
FIG. 1 shows an information management network.
PNG
media_image1.png
453
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire a piece of installation information on an installation status, at the construction site [see at least the abstract (e.g., an object for installation is automatically identified by a handheld device associated with an installer and at least one attribute of a task performed by the installer is recorded at the handheld device), ¶0031 (e.g., handheld tool 120 can record the installation parameters and/or condition of an item such as a structure, a tool, etc. back to information management system 101), ¶0032 (e.g., object data 198 may include installation instructions that can be displayed at the handheld tool 120 to assist the operation in performing proper installation of a component according to specifications. Verification that the component is in fact installed according to the specifications can be sent via reporting source 110 to information management system 101), and illustrated in FIG. 1 below]:
FIG. 1 shows an information management network.
PNG
media_image2.png
563
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a storage configured to store the piece of item information acquired by the first acquisition unit and the piece of installation information acquired by the second acquisition unit such that the piece of item information and the piece of installation information correspond to each other [see at least ¶0038, via task data 131 (e.g., Upon completion of a task, task data 131 is sent from handheld tool 120 to a reporting source 110. Reporting source 110 then generates an asset report 111 to information management system 101 which facilitates tracking the progress of work at the construction site and automatically updating records such as blueprints 105 in real-time using record updater 107 so that they reflect the as-built configuration of the building. It is noted that the functions described which are attributed to object data 198, positioning infrastructure 140, tool position detector 121, user interface 130 and reporting source 110 can be implemented in a variety of configurations. In one embodiment, all of these functions are integrated into a single device. This device can be coupled with, mounted upon, or integrated within handheld tool 120), and as shown in FIG. 1 above].
Delplace discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Delplace does not explicitly disclose items to be shipped to the construction site. However, Schwartz discloses items to be shipped to the construction site [see at least Schwartz: the abstract (e.g., A construction management system allows a user to capture an item identifier from an item (e.g., shipment, group of components, and/or one or more components) using a mobile device. The item identifier may be used to identify a project and access a model for the product, identify a component in a model, and/or identify the components in a shipment for staging purposes. Moreover, the system may be used to identify a status for the one or more components), and as illustrated in FIGs. 6A and 6B]:
FIG. 6a provides a sample user interface displaying a model and shipping menu.
PNG
media_image3.png
570
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 6b provides a sample user interface displaying a model and expended shipping menu.
PNG
media_image4.png
530
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Schwartz in order to provide tracking, managing, planning, and staging of construction projects, and more particularly a system permitting users to track, manage, plan, and stage construction projects on-site through the use of an on-site system [Schwartz: ¶0002].
As per claim 2, Delplace discloses wherein the piece of installation information further includes a piece of place information on a place where an installation task of the installation tasks which is for the item has been performed [see at least ¶0027 (e.g., a crane or other device may deliver an object to the proper place for installation. The object may have requirements for proper installation. For example, a beam may be installed with bolts where the bolts must be installed with the proper torque. The requirement may be a government requirement, a manufacturer requirement, or may be required by the company providing the construction crew for the building)].
As per claims 3 and 4, Delplace discloses wherein the piece of installation information further includes at least one of a piece of installation timing information on an installation timing at which an installation task of the installation tasks which is for the item has been performed or a piece of worker information on a worker who has performed the installation task for the item [see at least ¶0028 (e.g., Timestamp information may also be automatically associated with the installation)].
As per claim 5, Delplace discloses: the installation record management system of claim 1; and a progress management system configured to manage a state of progress in the plurality of installation tasks at the construction site, the installation record management system being configured to, upon completion of an installation task of the installation tasks which is for the item shipped to the construction site, transmit, to the progress management system, the piece of item information and the piece of installation information on the item for which the installation task has been completed, the progress management system being configured to record the piece of item information and the piece of installation information received from the installation record management system such that the piece of item information and the piece of installation information correspond to each other [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Delplace and Schwartz, as noted in claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 5 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 5. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 6, Delplace discloses further includes the item management system, wherein the item management system is configured to transmit, to the progress management system, the piece of item information on the item shipped to the construction site, and the progress management system is configured to transmit, to the installation record management system, the piece of item information received from the item management system [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Delplace and Schwartz, as noted in claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 6 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 6. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
10. Claims 8-12, which are parallel to claims 1-7 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-7. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-7].
11. Claims 13-20, which are parallel to claims 1-7 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-7. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-7].
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
US 9,817,839, Kahle: discloses a method for managing information at a construction site.
US 2008/0150727, Hatori: discloses a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag and a construction site management system and management method using the same.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
14. 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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
15. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights