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
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 10/31/2024.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 10/31/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
Claim Objections
The claims are improperly numbered. There are two claims numbered “4”, and the claims skip from “7” to “9” with no claim “8”. For examination purposes, the second claim 4 will be renumbered as claim “8”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-5 are directed to a system and claims 6-11 are directed to a method. Claims 1 and 6 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: via an administration ... allow the user to demarcate a specific geographic area ... including a plurality of selectable fencing characteristics that, when selected by the user, allow generation of a quote for fencing the demarcated geographic area, the fencing characteristics comprising geographic area details of the demarcated geographic area, including a surface incline and a surface material, said administration ... configured to register a fencing contractor profile which includes an indication from the contractor around costings on providing the selectable fencing characteristics with associated labour costs to facilitate in generation of said quote; receiving a selection of fencing characteristics ... from the user; tendering the quote to a plurality of fencing contractors; and ... presenting acceptable and/or counteroffer(s) by the fencing contractors to the user.
These identified limitations recite the abstract idea of “providing a fencing brokering arrangement”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it is a commercial interaction (e.g. sales activities and business relations). Accordingly, claims 1 and 6 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Instant claims 1 and 6 recite additional elements including: a satellite geographic demarcation system; at least one remote user terminal; a plurality of remote fencing contractor terminals; an administration computing system coupled via a network to the satellite geographic demarcation system, user and contractor terminals, said administration computing system configured to provide a GUI to the user terminal. The computing systems and devices are recited at a high-level of generality in the claims and Specification (¶ [0037] “general examples of a processing or computing system and a communication network 220 are provided first, that can be used to implement the various computing systems and overall arrangement 300, as will be understood by the skilled addressee) such that these limitations amount to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In combination, these elements amount to no more than a generic computer system with the usual capabilities of transmitting data over a network and providing a GUI. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1 and 6 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computer does not add significantly more in Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 5, 7, and 11 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 2-4, 5, 7, and 11 are also ineligible.
Dependent claims 8 and 10 recite additional elements including: a geographic information system (GIS). Similar to the additional elements identified above, the GIS is described in ordinary terms and merely used as a tool in performance of the abstract idea. For example, the Specification provides examples of GIS systems including GeoDraw™ and Google Maps™ in ¶ [0065]. These are existing tools used in their ordinary capacity for “displaying data related to positions on the Earth’s surface”. Accordingly, claim(s) 8 and 10, considered both individually and as a combination, are ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites additional elements including: a particular application programming interface (API) routine. Although the limitations recites a “particular” API, there is no description of the API routine in the claims or specification that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed API as being any different from commonly available APIs. The Specification demonstrates the well-known nature of the claimed API by not providing description of what it is or how it operates. For example, Specification ¶ [0082] states “In the example embodiments, well-known processes, well-known device structures, and well-known technologies are not described in detail, as such will be readily understood by the skilled addressee. According, the claim 9 is ineligible because the additional elements amounts to no more than a tool in step 2A and adds well-known computer technology in step 2B.
Dependent claim 5-6 recite additional elements including: digital video and at least one digital image. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Even in combination, these additional elements do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus claims 5-6 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (US 2015/0363950 A1) in view of Bryant (US 2010/0280862 A1), and further in view of Catino (US 2016/0335694 A1).
Claim 1 – Gilbert discloses a fencing brokering system for online brokering of fencing installations without requiring a contractor to perform a site visit, said fencing brokering system comprising:
a satellite geographic demarcation computing system whereby a user is able virtually to demarcate a specific geographic area (FIG. 1; ¶ [0014]-[0015] “a user of the system 100 draws the desired fence using, e.g., a mouse, stylus, gestures, “taps and swipes” on a touchscreen display of his her computing device”; ¶ [0030] “a Global Positioning System (GPS) subsystem”);
at least one remote user terminal (¶ [0015] “his or her computing device”; ¶ [0033] “customer ... computing systems”);
a plurality of remote fencing contractor terminals (¶ [0033] “contractor computing systems”); and
an administration computing system coupled via a network to the satellite geographic demarcation system, user and contractor terminals (¶ [0019]; FIG. 3), said administration computing system configured to provide a GUI to the user terminal for demarcating an area (¶ [0030] “fence drawing module 118”) and having a pricing engine (¶ [0032] “fence project estimation module 122”), a plurality of design modules with selectable fencing characteristics (¶ [0030] “fence segment”, “different fence material”, and “fence project specifications”) and fencing contractor data indicating costings on labour and such fencing characteristics (¶ [0018] “The illustrative fence database 106 is embodied as a searchable database, table, or other suitable data store, which is populated with fence data ... cost information, and installation requirements, including labor. The fence database 106 may be populated by uploading (e.g., by a fence vendor or contractor) product and material information, including photos, descriptions, schematics and other details”), the fencing characteristics including geographic area details of the demarcated area (¶ [0030] “geographic imagery” and “physical real world length (e.g., in feet) of the fence segment”)... so that when a user demarcates and selects desired fencing characteristics from said design modules, the pricing engine automatically generates a quote for fencing the demarcated geographic area (¶ [0039] “To do this, the system 100 may calculate the fence material quantities and costs at 240, calculate the total project cost at 242, and merge the cost data and fence drawing onto a single quote document, at 244”).
Gilbert does not disclose geographic area details including a surface incline and a surface material. However, Bryant – which like Gilbert is directed to systems for planning construction projects – teaches, geographic area details including a surface incline and a surface material (Bryant ¶ [0050] “Such questions may include: ... Does this site have expansive soils? Does this site have excessive elevation changes? Have there been cuts or fills on pads that exceed five feet? Are there proper positive drainage grades away from the homes? Are there variable soil types at this site? Is there known surface or subsurface water present at this site?”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the surface incline and surface material, as taught by Bryant, in the system of Gilbert in order to provide a statistical method of evaluating risk based on interdisciplinary questions related to site development (Bryant ¶ [0011]).
The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant does not teach fencing contractor profiles. However, Catino – which like Gilbert is directed to communicating service queries online – teaches contractor profiles (¶ [0042] “ a service provider 144 can also be directed to set up an account”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the contractor profiles, as taught by Catino, in the fencing system of Gilbert in order to give service providers more control over their own schedule and make them selectively available to those seeking labor (Catino ¶ [0013]).
Claim 2 – The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant, and further in view of Catino teaches the arrangement of claim 1. Gilbert further discloses wherein the design modules each comprises a database of different options for the fencing characteristics selectable from a group consisting of fencing type, fencing size, fencing material, fencing decoration type, fencing decoration style, fencing manufacturing method, fencing colour, fencing installation type, and fencing installation method (¶¶ [0018]-[0019]; FIG. 2).
Claim 3 – The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant, and further in view of Catino teaches the arrangement of claim 1. The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant does not teach limitations associated with presenting acceptance or counteroffers by fencing contractors. However, Catino further teaches, wherein the administration computing system is configured to automatically tender the quote to the plurality of fencing contractor terminals and present acceptance and/or counteroffer(s) by such fencing contractors to the user via the GUI (¶ [0022] “If the newly selected service provider accepts the service request, the service appointment can be placed on both the calendar of the service user (i.e., the person from the construction company requesting labor in this example scenario) and the service provider (i.e., the construction worker in this example scenario)”); ¶ [0028] “construction work”; FIG. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the presenting of acceptance, as taught by Catino, in the system of Gilbert in order to give service providers more control over their own schedule and make them selectively available to those seeking labor (Catino ¶ [0013]).
Claim 4 – The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant, and further in view of Catino teaches the arrangement of claim 3. Gilbert further discloses, wherein the pricing engine comprises a pricing algorithm adapted to provide fencing pricing information according to the geographic area details of the demarcated geographic area and any of the selected fencing characteristics whenever the user selects and/or changes such fencing characteristics (¶ [0022] “The fence drawing module 116 is “intelligent” in that it can utilize the fence materials data 108 along with the scale of the grid interface to automatically calculate fence material requirements “in real time” as the fence drawing is being created”; ¶ [0032] “ The fence project estimation module 122 utilizes fence cost data 120 obtained from the fence database 106 to calculate the unit cost for each fence component of the fence project specifications 118, and a total cost for the entire fence project represented by the drawing created by the fence drawing module 116.”).
Claim 8 (*renumbered) – The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant, and further in view of Catino teaches the arrangement of claim 4. Gilbert further discloses wherein the satellite geographic demarcation computing system comprises a geographic information system (GIS) for displaying data related to positions on the Earth's surface and providing geographic area details of the demarcated geographic area (¶ [0030] “geographic information service 110”).
Claim 5 – The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant teach the arrangement of claim 1. The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant does not teach limitations associated with online fund transfers, however Catino further teaches, wherein the administration computing system is adapted to facilitate online fund transfers from the user to a fencing contractor (Catino ¶ [0014] “facilitate a payment function”; ¶ [0027]; FIG. 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the online fund transfer as taught by Catino in the method of Gilbert so that service providers can be connected to service users in sustainable real-time (Catino ¶ [0012]).
Claim 6 – Gilbert discloses a fencing brokering method comprising the steps of:
via an administration computing system, proving a GUI to at least one user on a communications network, the GUI adapted to allow the user to demarcate a specific geographic area via a satellite geographic demarcation computing system on the network (FIG. 6-7; ¶ [0014]-[0015] “a user of the system 100 draws the desired fence using, e.g., a mouse, stylus, gestures, “taps and swipes” on a touchscreen display of his her computing device”; ¶ [0030] “a Global Positioning System (GPS) subsystem”), the administration computing system including a plurality of selectable fencing characteristics that, when selected by the user, allow generation of a quote for fencing the demarcated geographic area (¶ [0030] “fence segment”, “different fence material”, and “fence project specifications”; (¶ [0032] “fence project estimation module 122”)), the fencing characteristics comprising geographic area details of the demarcated geographic area (¶ [0030] “In these embodiments, the system 100 determines the actual geographic coordinates of the fence installation location using, e.g., a Global Positioning System (GPS) subsystem 324, which may be integrated in a mobile computing device running the fence estimator application”) ... said administration computing system configured to register ... an indication from the contractor around costings on providing the selectable fencing characteristics with associated labour costs to facilitate in generation of said quote (¶ [0018] “The illustrative fence database 106 is embodied as a searchable database, table, or other suitable data store, which is populated with fence data ... cost information, and installation requirements, including labor. The fence database 106 may be populated by uploading (e.g., by a fence vendor or contractor) product and material information, including photos, descriptions, schematics and other details”);
receiving a selection of fencing characteristics via the GUI from the user (¶ [0019] “In operation, the system 100 receives one or more fence selection inputs 102 via the fence materials input module 104. The inputs 102 may be data values that are input directly by an end user”);
tendering the quote to a plurality of fencing contractors (¶ [0033] “The system 100 may send the fence project quote 124 to one or more external systems, such as customer or contractor computing systems”).
Gilbert does not disclose geographic area details including a surface incline and a surface material. However, Bryant – which like Gilbert is directed to construction planning applications – teaches, geographic area details including a surface incline and a surface material (Bryant ¶ [0050] “Such questions may include: ... Does this site have expansive soils? Does this site have excessive elevation changes? Have there been cuts or fills on pads that exceed five feet? Are there proper positive drainage grades away from the homes? Are there variable soil types at this site? Is there known surface or subsurface water present at this site?”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the surface incline and surface material, as taught by Bryant, in the system of Gilbert in order to provide a statistical method of evaluating risk based on interdisciplinary questions related to site development (Bryant ¶ [0011]).
The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant does not teach limitations associated with registering profiles or presenting acceptances of fencing contractors. However, Catino – which like Gilbert is directed to communicating service queries online – teaches:
register a fencing contractor profile (Catino ¶ [0042] “While accessing the LME computing system 102, a service provider 144 can also be directed to set up an account”);
via the GUI, presenting acceptance and/or counteroffer(s) by the fencing contractors to the user (Catino ¶ [0022] “If the newly selected service provider accepts the service request, the service appointment can be placed on both the calendar of the service user (i.e., the person from the construction company requesting labor in this example scenario) and the service provider (i.e., the construction worker in this example scenario)”); ¶ [0028] “construction work”; FIG. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the registration and presenting of acceptance, as taught by Catino, in the system of Gilbert in order to give service providers more control over their own schedule and make them selectively available to those seeking labor (Catino ¶ [0013]).
Claim 7 – The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant, and further in view of Catino teaches the method of claim 6. Gilbert further teaches, wherein the fencing characteristics are selected from a non-exhaustive group consisting of a fencing type, fencing size, fencing material, fencing decoration type, fencing decoration style, fencing manufacturing method, fencing colour, fencing installation type, and fencing installation method (¶¶ [0018]-[0019]; FIG. 2).
Claim 9 – The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant, and further in view of Catino teaches the method of claim 6. Gilbert further discloses, wherein the GUI is adapted to allow the user to demarcate a specific geographic area via the satellite geographic demarcation computing system by the administration computing system executing a particular application programming interface (API) routine (¶ [0030]; ¶ [0055] “modules may be implemented using any suitable form of ... application-programming interface”).
Claim 10 – The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant, and further in view of Catino teaches the method of claim 6. Gilbert further discloses, wherein the satellite geographic demarcation computing system comprises a geographic information system (GIS) for displaying data related to positions on the Earth's surface (¶ [0030] “geographic information service 110”).
Claim 11 – The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant, and further in view of Catino teaches the method of claim 6. The combination of Gilbert in view of Bryant does not teach limitations associated with facilating an online fund transfer. However, Catino teaches which includes a further step of the administration computing system facilitating an online fund transfer from the user to a fencing contractor (Catino ¶ [0014] “facilitate a payment function”; ¶ [0027]; FIG. 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the online fund transfer as taught by Catino in the method of Gilbert so that service providers can be connected to service users in sustainable real-time (Catino ¶ [0012]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
B. Becerik (NPL Reference U) summarizes a research study that seeks to validate and support statements that online project management (OPM) technology positively contribute to the return on investment of architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry stakeholders and their projects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688