DETAILED ACTION
Response received on February 06, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 18, 19 have been amended, and Claims 20-22 are newly added. Therefore, Claims 1-22 are pending.
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 Final Office action is in response to the application filed on December 09, 2024 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 2/06/2026. Claims 1-22 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/974,271 was filed on 12/09/2024 and claims the priority benefit of foreign application EP23216445.9 filed 12/13/2023.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of on February 06, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1‐17 and 19-21 are directed to a method (process) and Claims 18 and 22 are directed to a system (machine). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claim 18, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method for generating an inspection documentation of a construction, the method comprising: moving an electronic inspection device at the construction such that a trajectory develops, whilst capturing multiple inspection data sets of at least part of the construction along the trajectory with an opto-electronic inspection means, sensor or detector of the electronic inspection device, automatically recording the trajectory of the moving based on motion and/or location data of the electronic inspection device gathered on board/by a motion and/or location detection means of the electronic inspection device whilst moving, allocating a respective captured data set to a position of the trajectory, automatically extracting first trajectory shape- and/or time-related attributes by evaluation of a shape and/or a timeline of the trajectory, automatically correlating extracted first attributes with corresponding second construction attributes provided by a stored construction plan or model, automatically aligning
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of providing an inspection documentation of a construction or on a construction site are used for construction evaluation. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations as well as fundamental economic principles) but for the recitation of additional elements recited at a high level of generality. For example, for the related computer components, this claim encompasses inspection and documentation activities that could be performed manually by construction inspectors or site managers as part of verifying progress and comparing the built structure to design plans. Such activities can traditionally be performed manually using paper checklists, manual measurements, physical blueprints, or observational logs. Additionally, aligning captured inspection data with stored plan attributes is considered a method of organizing human activity related to construction oversight, as it involves evaluating site conditions, categorizing features, and preparing documentation used for project management decisions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of “an electronic inspection device”, “an opto-electronic inspection means”, and “sensor or detector of the electronic inspection device” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1 and 18 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites additional elements of “an electronic inspection device”, “an opto-electronic inspection means”, and “sensor or detector of the electronic inspection device”. Claim 18 recites the same additional elements of claim 1 with the additions of “an evaluation unit”. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). Accordingly, these additional elements (combination of computer and the use of machine learning) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of using computer, an inspection device, and a sensor of the inspection device when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1 and 18 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2-9, recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include automatically correcting the trajectory by adding, cutting and/or shifting trajectory points and/or segments based on constraints derived from the trajectory and/or construction model or plan, wherein constraints are linked to attributes, wherein first attributes are extracted according to pre-determined different classes of trajectory shape sections and/or trajectory motion sections, wherein second attributes comprise different classes of construction sections, therein at least one of: classes of spaces, classes of locations and/or dimensions of barriers, and/or classes of openings, wherein attributes comprise: patterns of shapes and/or motion patterns, patterns of construction site sections, and/or a graph representation, wherein patterns are derived from an association to a respective class, weighting of constraints depending on an attribute class, and weighting a first attribute and/or a trajectory point and/or segment depending on an associated timestamp, in particular for attribute extraction, trajectory alignment and/or scaling and/or trajectory correction. The dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 10 and 16 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein for the automatic aligning and/or scaling, there is consideration of: the motion and/or location data and/or a previous inspection documentation trajectory of the construction and/or at least one previous image of the construction from a previous inspection documentation and the data sets comprise 2D- and/or 3D-images. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “the inspection device” and “an opto-electronic 2D- and/or 3D-imaging device”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 11-14, recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the first attributes are extracted and in particular the second attributes are extracted from the construction plan or model, wherein the first attributes are extracted, wherein the second attributes are extracted from the construction plan or model, and wherein the second attributes are extracted from the construction plan or model. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “machine learned algorithm” and “neural network” which is considered nothing more than a general link to machine learning because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 15 and 17, recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include further comprising extracting first attributes based on a 2D-planar presentation of the trajectory and wherein the motion and/or location data comprises at least part of the images. The dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 19, recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include the method according to claim 1. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “a computer program product comprising program code”, “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, and “ a evaluation unit of a system” which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 20-22 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include comprising automatically scaling the trajectory using the construction plan or model as positional reference based on correlated first and second attributes and enabling automatically allocating a respective inspection data set to a position within the construction plan or model based on the aligned and scaled trajectory, wherein said allocating a respective captured data set to a position of the trajectory is based on time stamps, ad wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to scale the trajectory using the construction plan or model as positional reference based on correlated first and second attributes and to allocate a respective inspection data set to a position within the construction plan or model based on the aligned and scaled trajectory. The dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 06, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 7 of Applicant’s response, applicant disagrees with the office’s stand that the claims being directed to non- statutory subject matter, and in particular as allegedly being abstract ideas under the "organizing human activity" grouping. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is referred to the 101-rejection section above as to why the claims are still not patent eligible. Examiner notes that the movement limitation recited in the claims is being treated as part of the abstract idea because as written is it currently recited as a generalized inspection activity. Additionally, examiner notes that the claim despite being framed as involving an electronic inspection device, is directed to an abstract idea of organizing and correlating inspection data with a construction plan, which falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping and is implemented using generic technological components without reciting a specific technological improvement. Additionally, inspection documentation and evaluation constitute activities that fall within methods of organizing human activity because they involve managing, reviewing, and assisting with information related to construction progress. Applicant further argues that that the amended claims are drawn toward patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amendments do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more than the judicial exception, but instead merely recite additional generic data processing steps performed by generic electronic components, which fail to render the claims directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Applicant further argues that that the claims are not directed to merely organizing human activity but instead are directed toward a method for inspection data sets obtained by devices that are far from the field of organizing human activity because it requires operation of an electronic device while it is moving and performing data collection. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the recited operation of a moving electronic inspection device merely serves as a data gathering step and, while the focus of the claims remains on organizing, correlating, and allocating inspection information relative to a construction plan. Additionally, the recited movement and inspection activity is described at a functional level that encompasses performance by a person utilizing a generic device, accordingly, the limitation recites an inspection activity in generalized terms rather than a specific technological operation, and therefore constitutes part of the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the requirement of automatically recording the trajectory while the electronic inspection device is moving based on motion and/or location data is far from merely organizing human behavior because it requires the electronic inspection device to utilize components thereof for performing an operation and that such components are neither generic computer or anything that can be performed by merely organizing human behavior. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that because automatically recording the trajectory using motion and/or location data merely employs sensor components to collect and process information as part of the abstract data organization idea, and does not reflect a technological improvement or otherwise move the claims beyond the realm of organizing and analyzing information. Applicant further argues that the "automatically correlating" and "automatically aligning" are far from merely organizing human behavior. In part, this is because it requires performing tasks regarding extracted attributes based on the trajectory and alignment of the trajectory using a construction plan, which are done automatically, which is not a human behavior. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the “automatically correlating" and "automatically aligning" steps merely recite generic computer implementation of computing and organizing information relative to a construction plan. These limitations do not constitute additional elements but instead form part of the abstract idea itself, the term “automatically” merely describes the manner in which the abstract idea is performed, and the design does not impose a technological limitation or reflect an improvement in computer functionality. Applicant further argues that automatically allocating an inspection data set to a position within the construction plan or model based on the aligned trajectory is not a human behavior because it requires an inspection data set being allocated to a position within a construction plan or model based on the aligned trajectory. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons et for the above, and reminds applicant that nothing in the claim requires any specific computer or technological element to perform the recited automatic limitations.
Applicant further argues that Claim 18 also does not recite mere organizing human behavior for substantially the same reasons as recited for claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons set forth above. Applicant further argues that the elements of the claims do not have anything to do with commercial interactions, legal interactions, agreements, contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities, behaviors or business relations or fundamental economic principles. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of “an electronic inspection device”, “an opto-electronic inspection means”, and “sensor or detector of the electronic inspection device” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Applicant further argues that that the claims are clearly a practical application, in that the claims generate and produce a tangible result that provides a meaningful improvement over existing technology as recognized by the specification. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes the claimed generation of a tangible result merely reflects the output of the abstract data processing steps and does not demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of the electronic inspection device or any other technology, but instead uses “electronic inspection device”, “an opto-electronic inspection means”, and “sensor or detector of the electronic inspection device” recited at a high-level of generality to implement the abstract idea. Applicant further argues that the activity is being performed by an object, namely the electronic inspection device, which is moving along a trajectory and capturing data and that this subject matter shows the practical application of the electronic inspection device in capturing data while moving, such is not a human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the recitation of a moving electronic inspection device capturing data merely reflects data analysis performed by generic hardware, and the claim recites the movement at a high-level of generality without identifying any specific technological mechanism for carrying it out. The limitation merely describes the environment or context in which the abstract information processing occurs, rather than meaningfully limiting the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that such devices are far from the field of organizing human activity because it requires operation of an electronic device while it is moving and performing data collection, which is a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees because operating an electronic device while it is moving to collect data is recited at a high-level of generality without identifying any specific technological mechanism for carrying it out rather than a technological improvement or practical application. Applicant further argues that that at least the first two elements of the claims are not organizing human activity and these elements show the practical application of the electronic inspection device in operation at it is moved to capture data. This subject matter goes beyond merely organizing information or putting information into a new form or carrying out an economic practice. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the first two elements merely recite data acquiring by a moving electronic inspection device, which do not constitute additional elements but instead form part of the abstract idea itself, the term “automatically” merely describes the manner in which the abstract idea is performed, and the design does not impose a technological limitation or reflect an improvement in computer functionality. The limitation recites an inspection activity in generalized terms rather than a specific technological operation, and therefore constitutes part of the abstract idea rather than a technological improvement or practical application. Applicant further argues that respectfully submits that the claims, when considered as a whole, recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using additional elements recited at a high level of generality to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of using computer, an inspection device, and a sensor of the inspection device when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic additional elements recited at a high level of generality without reciting any specific improvement to their operation. Examiner notes the claimed limitations do in fact describe commonly known data processing techniques implemented using generic computing components, which do not support a departure from known practices or a non-traditional technical solution. For the reasons mentioned above, the argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-22 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
extension fee 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 date of this final
action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626