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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 09/18/2024 filing with the USPTO.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain the undefined acronym CSI. For purposes of examination “CSI” is interpreted in light of at least Spec [12] to mean “channel state information”. It is noted that the acronym is defined in for example independent claims 9 and 17 but claim 5 appears before these claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. mathematical concepts and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination. NOTE: Claims 7, 15, 16, and 19 are NOT rejected under this section.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-6 and 8 are to a system (machine), claims 9-14 and 16 are to a method (process), and claims 17, 18, and 20 are to a non-transitory computer readable media (manufacture).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Where mathematical concepts are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A system for monitoring construction progress at a jobsite, the system comprising:
one or more nodes positioned at the jobsite;
at least one hardware processor; and
one or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
emitting a Wi-Fi signal from at least one of the one or more nodes,
receiving the emitted Wi-Fi signal by at least one of the one or more nodes,
performing one or more measurements based at least in part on the received Wi-Fi signal,
providing the one or more measurements as input to a trained machine learning model, and
generating, as output from the trained machine learning model, an indication of construction progress at the jobsite.
The claims are direct towards the determining the progress of a construction project at a jobsite an abstract idea when the claimed limitations are considered individually and as a whole. Where the system applies a machine learning model to inputs (measured Wi-Fi signals) to produce an output (construction progress at a jobsite). The courts analysis in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is applicable to these claims. There the court said collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Here the claims are similar to those of EPG and are recited to a high level of generality and could be performed in the human mind – that is to say given the know measured Wi-Fi signal strength a human could determine the progress of construction project at a jobsite.
Building upon the analysis given above, the claims also fall within the abstract category grouping of mathematical relationships. Where signals as used here are interpreted/conceived using math (measurement), see for example Spec. [114] and the model itself is just complex math, see for example Spec. [88-90]. The courts analysis in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is also applicable to these claims. patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Where the determination the progress of construction project is merely the solution/result to the mathematical concepts – how the WI-FI signal data is manipulated using mathematical relationships to output a human understandable progress of construction project at a jobsite.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The emitting/receiving elements are determined to be steps of data gathering insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating elements are determined to be steps of outputting insignificant extra-solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. It is further noted that the system elements are found to be general or generic off the shelf components – where processors, computer-readable storage media, and Wi-Fi nodes are common, standardized, and well-known in the field.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claims 2 and 10 adds to the step of outputting, insignificant extra solution activity. Where the content of the indication is claimed to a high level of generality without any function therefore it is found to be insignificant extra-solution activity without practical application of significantly more.
Claims 3-5, 11-13, and 18 adds to the abstract idea of mental process without practical application of significantly more
Claims 6 and 14 adds a step of sending the data, which is a standard function of the computing system it does not add without practical application of significantly more.
Claim 20 adds to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts without practical application of significantly more.
Claim 8 further defines nodes, which when read in light of the specification and the plain meaning of the words of the claim are found to be common, standardized, and well-known in the field and do not add practical application or significantly more to the identified abstract ideas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al (US 11,340,345 B2) teaches wireless object tracking. More specifically, the present teaching relates to localizing and tracking multiple objects based on wireless channel information in a rich-scattering environment.
Martin et al (US 2025/0227487 A1) teaches a given type of sensor may be unlikely to contain all of the relevant data needed to build an accurate model and design. For example, Lidar data may be used as a baseline. This baseline may be augmented using visual data from a camera to fill in gaps in the Lidar model. Alternatively or additionally, GPS or other location data may be used to help geolocate where the model data is being collected and/or CSI data may be used to refine the model.
Ghazvinian Zanjani et al (US 2023/0237819 A1) teaches synthetic Wi-Fi signal associated with the Wi-Fi spectrogram 1200 was generated by simulating an indoor two-dimensional (2D) environment which has been confined with walls. The propagated Wi-Fi signal from the transmitter was measured. The measured signal conveys the geometric information of the scene used for scene decomposition.
Danon (US 2023/0185978 A1) teaches 3D model 270 created for the construction site 234 may be updated, continuously, periodically and/or per event according to progress of the construction tasks at the construction site 234. Therefore, while the 3D model 270 may document construction task status relating to one or more construction tasks which are in progress at the construction site, the 3D model 270 may further document construction task status relating to past events of one or more construction tasks which have already occurred. The 3D model 270 may further document construction task status relating to one or more future events of one or more construction tasks which may be based on estimation, plan and/or the like.
Atmenta-Garcia et al “Wireless sensing applications with Wi-Fi Channel State Information, preprocessing techniques, and detection algorithms: A survey” (2024) teaches Wi-Fi sensing. This innovative approach has been made possible by analyzing the Channel State Information (CSI) of the Wi-Fi communication channel, which can be calculated from the frame preamble. CSI captures multipath effects, attenuations, and phase shifts in signal propagation, among other fading effects caused, for example, by reflection with objects or a person.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623