CTNF 19/081,133 CTNF 79257 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. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. Status of the Claims The pending claims in the present application are original claims 1-10, filed on 17 March 2025. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 March 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106. Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) The “apparatus” of claims 1-8 constitutes a machine under 35 USC 101, the “method” of claim 9 constitutes a process under the statute, and the “non-transitory computer readable medium” of claim 10 constitutes a manufacture under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-10 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below. The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below. In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations: “... environmental survey matching ... comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes “... receive an environmental survey request from a user; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes “... select a surveyor suitable for the environmental survey request based on a result of matching between a factor included in the environmental survey request and a factor included in data on a surveyor stored in advance; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes “... select surveying means including at least one of an apparatus and a tool suitable for the environmental survey request; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes “... supply a survey instruction including a list of the selected surveying means to the selected surveyor.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes The above-listed limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: managing personal behavior (e.g., of surveyors) or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., users and surveyors), and following rules or instructions (e.g., on the part of the surveyors), which fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “receive” step), and evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “select” and “supply” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis. In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations: The claimed “matching” is performed by “An ... apparatus” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h) “... at least one memory storing instructions, and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h) “... at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h) The above-listed additional element limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, and mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis. The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting. Regarding claims 2-8, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “wherein the environmental survey request includes a purpose of the environmental survey and a location of the environmental survey, the data on the surveyor includes a skill of the surveyor and a geographical position of the surveyor, and ... select a surveyor suitable for the environmental survey request based on a result of matching between the purpose of the environmental survey with the skill of the surveyor, and a result of matching between the location of the environmental survey with the geographical position of the surveyor” of claim 2, the “wherein the data on the surveyor includes at least one of an experience of the surveyor and a performance rating of the surveyor, and ... select a surveyor suitable for the environmental survey request by taking at least one of the experience of the surveyor and the performance rating of the surveyor into consideration” of claim 3, the “wherein ... calculate importance of each of the factors included in the environmental survey request based on disclosed information, and dynamically change weighting in the matching based on the calculated importance” of claim 4, the “generate an environmental surveying plan, the environmental surveying plan being a plan of an environmental survey that the selected surveyor will carry out based on the environmental survey request; supply a survey instruction including the list of selected surveying means and the generated environmental surveying plan to the selected surveyor” of claim 5, the “wherein the environmental surveying plan includes at least one of a method for using the selected surveying means, a timing of data collection, a frequency of data collection, a data collection point, and a procedure for uploading collected data” of claim 6, and the “receive an environmental survey result from the surveyor after the survey instruction is supplied to the surveyor; analyze the received environmental survey result; and show the analyzed result to the user” of claim 7). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “apparatus ..., and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to” of claim 2, the “apparatus ..., and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to” of claim 3, the “apparatus ... the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to” of claim 4, the “apparatus ..., wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to” of claim 5, the “apparatus” of claim 6, the “apparatus ..., wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to” of claim 6, and the “apparatus ..., wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to use at least one of a machine learning algorithm and a combinational optimization algorithm in the matching” of claim 8). Accordingly, claims 2-8 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 9, while the claim is of different scope relative to claim 1, the claim recites limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claim 1 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 9. Claim 9 is, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 10, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1 and 9, the claim recites limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1 and 9. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 9 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 10. Claim 10 is, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carayon, Amandine. “Ever Wondered How Land Surveyors Keep up with Service Calls?” Praxedo blog, 05 August 2021 (last accessed on 17 April 2026 at https://www.praxedo.com/our-blog/how-land-surveyors-keep-up-with-service-calls/) (hereinafter referred to as “Carayon”), in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,423,487 B1 to Beard (hereinafter referred to as “Beard”) . Regarding claim 1, Carayon discloses the following limitations: “An environmental survey matching ... comprising: ...” - Carayon discloses, “When multiple work requests come in, the process of assigning jobs to technicians based on qualifications and availability needs to be straightforward and trouble-free. Field service management software solutions like Praxedo have powerful field service scheduling capabilities that display vital information In one place to make the field service dispatcher's job easier. Features such as smart scheduling, and field service route optimization, save time and match the correct surveyor to the job effortlessly” (p. 2). The system running the field service management software solution for matching surveyors to jobs, in Carayon, reads on the recited limitation. “... receive an environmental survey request from a user; ...” - See the aspects of Carayon that have been cited above. Carayon also discloses, “Customer satisfaction” (p. 3). Receiving multiple work requests from customers, in Carayon, reads on the recited limitation. “... select a surveyor suitable for the environmental survey request based on a result of matching ...” - See the aspects of Carayon that have been cited above. Carayon also discloses, “Field service management software is used to dispatch the right land measurement professional, to the right worksite, with the right field service tools to evaluate the piece of land and surveying project requirements” (p. 1). Matching the correct surveyor to the job, including dispatching the right surveyor to the right worksite with the right tools, in Carayon, reads on the recited limitation. “... select surveying means including at least one of an apparatus and a tool suitable for the environmental survey request; and ...” - See the aspects of Carayon that have been cited above. Selecting the right field service tools per the surveying project requirements, in Carayon, reads on the recited limitation. “... supply a survey instruction including a list of the selected surveying means to the selected surveyor.” - See the aspects of Carayon that have been cited above. Carayon also discloses, “Field service mobile apps like Praxedo enable truly functional mobile teams. Land surveyors are given details on equipment needed to complete the task” (p. 2). Supply the details on equipment needed to complete the task to the surveyors, in Carayon, reads on the recited limitation. The combination of Carayon and Beard (hereinafter referred to as “Carayon/Beard”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Carayon: The claimed “environmental survey matching” is performed by an “apparatus” - See the aspects of Carayon that have been cited above. While Carayon implies that the software functionality is implemented, Carayon does not provide specifics. Beard discloses, “Implementations of the described subject matter, including the previously described implementation, can be implemented using a computer-implemented method; a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions to perform the computer-implemented method; and a computer-implemented system including one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform the computer-implemented method/the computer-readable instructions stored on the non-transitory, computer-readable medium” (col. 3, ll. 12-24), “surveyors” (col. 8, l. 51), and “the adjuster management system 110 performs a proximity-based assignment. For example, the adjuster management system 110 can first search any matched users with user devices 120 within an initial radius (e.g., five miles) from the loss location and transmit the assignment notifications to all user devices 120 that are associated with users who match the specified skill requirements and are within five miles of the loss location” (col. 9, ll. 58-65). The matching of surveyors to assignments using computers, in Beard, reads on the recited limitation. “... at least one memory storing instructions, and ...” - See the aspects of Beard that have been cited above. The computer memory devices and instructions, in Beard, read on the recited limitation. “... at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: ...” - See the aspects of Beard that have been cited above. Beard also discloses, “The computer 502 includes a processor 505” (col. 10, l. 66). The processor for performing the instructions, in Beard, reads on the recited limitation. The claimed “matching” is “between a factor included in the environmental survey request and a factor included in data on a surveyor stored in advance” - See the aspects of Carayon and Beard that have been cited above. Beard also discloses, “The user profile 200 can include skill information of the user. The skill information can include, for example, spoken languages 208, equipment 210 that the user can provide, and specialization(s) 212 as identified by the user and/or verified through one or more external sources or databases. The specialization 212 can include further detailed information” (col. 7, ll. 26-32). The matching of the correct land surveyor to the job, in Carayon, when including consideration of the requirements for the assignment and the skill information of the user, in Beard, reads on the recited limitation. Beard discloses, “Dynamic Assignment of Personnel to Location-based Assignments” (title), involving “surveyors” (col. 8, l. 51), similar to the claimed invention and to Carayon. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have implemented the field service management software, of Carayon, using the computer hardware of Beard, for the ability to “receive, transmit, process, store, or manage data,” per Beard (col. 22, ll. 2 and 3). It also would have been obvious to modify the matching, of Carayon, to include consideration of the assignment requirements and user profiles, of Beard, for filtering purposes, per Beard (col. 7, ll. 57 and 58). Regarding claim 2, Carayon/Beard teaches the following limitations: “The environmental survey matching apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the environmental survey request includes a purpose of the environmental survey and a location of the environmental survey, ...” - See the aspects of Carayon and Beard that have been cited above. The work request, of Carayon, including the skill requirements and location information of the assignment, in Beard, reads on the recited limitation. “... the data on the surveyor includes a skill of the surveyor and a geographical position of the surveyor, and ...” - See the aspects of Carayon and Beard that have been cited above. The data on the land surveyor, of Carayon, including the skill and proximity information, in Beard, reads on the recited limitation. “... the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select a surveyor suitable for the environmental survey request based on a result of matching between the purpose of the environmental survey with the skill of the surveyor, and a result of matching between the location of the environmental survey with the geographical position of the surveyor.” - See the aspects of Carayon and Beard that have been cited above. The processor executing the instructions to match the land surveyor to the work request, in Carayon, based on the result of matching between the skill requirements of the assignment with the skill information of the user, and a result of matching between the location of the assignment and the proximity of the user to the location, in Beard, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 2. Regarding claim 3, Carayon/Beard teaches the following limitations: “The environmental survey matching apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the data on the surveyor includes at least one of an experience of the surveyor and a performance rating of the surveyor, and ...” - See the aspects of Carayon and Beard that have been cited above. Beard also discloses, “criteria such as, the number of assignments completed, customer satisfaction ratings, number of errors/findings, stars, percentage of availability, percentage of assignments accepted, response speed or time of accepting assignments, years (or other length of time) of experience” (col. 10, ll. 27-31). Data about the surveyor, in Carayon, including the experience and ratings data, of Beard, reads on the recited limitation. “... the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select a surveyor suitable for the environmental survey request by taking at least one of the experience of the surveyor and the performance rating of the surveyor into consideration.” - See the aspects of Carayon and Beard that have been cited above. Matching the land surveyor to the work request, in Carayon, performed by the processor performing the instructions to take the experience and ratings data into consideration, as in Beard, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 3. Regarding claim 7, Carayon/Beard teaches the following limitations: “The environmental survey matching apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive an environmental survey result from the surveyor after the survey instruction is supplied to the surveyor; ...” - See the aspects of Carayon and Beard that have been cited above. Carayon also discloses, “All the data collection process in the field is digitally captured through their mobile devices and made available to field service management teams for monitoring and performing service call management” (p. 3). The processor executing the instructions, in Beard, to have the field service management teams receive the survey data collected in the field by the surveyors after the surveyors are deployed to fulfill the work requests, in Carayon, reads on the recited limitation. “... analyze the received environmental survey result; and ...” - See the aspects of Carayon that have been cited above. The field service management teams considering the collected survey data, in Carayon, reads on the recited limitation. “... show the analyzed result to the user.” - See the aspects of Carayon that have been cited above. Carayon also discloses, “end customers receive high-quality work in record time” (p. 3). The end customers receiving the collected survey data, in Carayon, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references from the rejection of claim 1 also apply to this rejection of claim 7. Regarding claim 9, while the claim is of different scope relative to claim 1, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claim 1. As such, the rationales applied to reject claim 1 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 9. Claim 9 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 in view of Carayon/Beard. Regarding claim 10, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1 and 9, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 1 and 9. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 9 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 10. Claim 10 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 in view of Carayon/Beard . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carayon, in view of Beard, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2025/0209424 A1 to Vella (hereinafter referred to as “Vella”) . Regarding claim 4, the combination of Carayon, Beard, and Vella (hereinafter referred to as “Carayon/Beard/Vella”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Carayon/Beard: “The environmental survey matching apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate importance of each of the factors included in the environmental survey request based on disclosed information, and ...” - See the aspects of Carayon and Beard that have been cited above. The processor executing the instructions, in Beard, and the work request, in Carayon, read on the recited “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate ... each of the factors included in the environmental survey request based on disclosed information” limitation. Vella discloses, “the client may be capable of adjusting the associated weights of its requirements to see how different workers compare” (para. [0006]), “the weights desired of a client may be programmed algorithmically into the system or may be facilitated by an artificial intelligence system or similar system” (para. [0007]), and “the system may assign numerical values and/or weights to different aspects of a candidate's profile, such as, but not limited to, education, work experience, skills, and cultural fit. The company or partner can then configure the weights based on their specific needs or preferences” (para. [0011]). The AI system determining how to weight needs or preferences, in Vella, reads on the recited “calculate importance of each of the factors” limitation. “... dynamically change weighting in the matching based on the calculated importance.” - See the aspects of Vella that have been cited above. Configuring and adjusting the weights based on alignment with needs and preferences, in Vella, reads on the recited limitation. Vella discloses, “handling a workforce” (para. [0001]), similar to the claimed invention and to Carayon/Beard. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the matching, of Carayon/Beard, to include consideration of weights, as in Vella, to further tailor the matching to meet needs or preferences, per Vella (para. [0011]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carayon, in view of Beard, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2024/0005257 A1 to Watanabe (hereinafter referred to as “Watanabe”) . Regarding claim 5, the combination of Carayon, Beard, and Watanabe (hereinafter referred to as “Carayon/Beard/Watanabe”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Carayon/Beard: “The environmental survey matching apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate an environmental surveying plan, the environmental surveying plan being a plan of an environmental survey that the selected surveyor will carry out based on the environmental survey request; ...” - See the aspects of Carayon and Beard that have been cited above. Watanabe discloses, “a survey generation method” (Abstract), and “FIG. 4 shows an example of a survey plan candidate 100. The survey plan candidate 100 includes the survey schedule, the survey target house list per day, and the allocation information for each survey team. The allocation information for each survey team includes information on an area allocated to the survey team or a house allocated to the survey team” (para. [0071]). The matching of the surveyor to the work request, in Carayon, performed by the processor executing the instructions, of Beard, to generate the survey plan to be carried out by the survey team, as in Watanabe, reads on the recited limitation. “... supply a survey instruction including the list of selected surveying means and the generated environmental surveying plan to the selected surveyor.” - [[See the aspects of Carayon and Watanabe that have been cited above. Supplying the details on equipment needed for the work request to the surveyor, in Carayon, and also providing the survey plan, in Watanabe, reads on the recited limitation. Watanabe discloses, “survey performances of the plurality of surveyors” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Carayon/Beard. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the providing of survey information to the surveyors, of Carayon/Beard, to include the survey plans, of Watanabe, to account for productivity and other factors, per Watanabe (para. [0007]), and/or for optimization, per Watanabe (para. [0014]). Regarding claim 6, Carayon/Beard/Watanabe teaches the following limitations: “The environmental survey matching apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the environmental surveying plan includes at least one of a method for using the selected surveying means, a timing of data collection, a frequency of data collection, a data collection point, and a procedure for uploading collected data.” - See the aspects of Watanabe that have been cited above. Watanabe also discloses, “a survey schedule” (para. [0013]). The survey plan including the survey schedule, in Watanabe, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 5, also apply to this rejection of claim 6 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carayon, in view of Beard, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0302161 A1 to Kikuchi et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kikuchi”) . Regarding claim 8, the combination of Carayon, Beard, and Kikuchi (hereinafter referred to as “Carayon/Beard/Kikuchi”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Carayon/Beard: “The environmental survey matching apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to use at least one of a machine learning algorithm and a combinational optimization algorithm in the matching.” - See the aspects of Carayon and Beard that have been cited above. Kikuchi discloses, “Provided is an information processing device includes an acquiring unit configured to acquire order information related to order details of surveying work, and instrument-related information related to the type of instrument used with which the surveying work has been executed and the kind of carrying accessories; a collected data storage unit configured to store the order information and the instrument-related information; an input order information extracting unit configured to extract a workload level, the type of survey, attributes of a surveying object, and required deliverables accuracy as input order information from the order information acquired by the acquiring unit; and an estimation model generating unit configured to generate an estimation model to estimate instrument-related information corresponding to order information by executing machine learning” (Abstract). The processor executing the instructions, per Beard, to use the machine learning for survey information extraction, in Kikuchi, and use of the resulting data to perform matching, per Carayon, reads on the recited limitation. Kikuchi discloses, “acquire order information related to order details of surveying work” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Carayon/Beard. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the matching process, of Carayon/Beard, to include consideration of machine learning-extracted survey order data, per Kikuchi, to provide knowledge and experience otherwise difficult or complicated to acquire, per Kikuchi (paras. [0006] and [0007]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following: JP Pat No. 5847986 B2 discloses, “The present invention relates to a business assignment device, and in particular, assigns a work requiring a predetermined skill to a person having the skill by setting a traveling route so that the work time of each person is minimized. Regarding technology.” (English-language translation, Abstract). Carayon, Amandine. “5 ways artificial intelligence is making field service management smarter (Part 1).” Praxedo blog, 10 April 2018 (last accessed on 17 April 2026 at https://www.praxedo.com/our-blog/artificial-intelligence-field-service-management-part-1/). Carayon, Amandine. “5 ways artificial intelligence is making field service management smarter (Part 2).” Praxedo blog, 10 April 2018 (last accessed on 17 April 2026 at https://www.praxedo.com/our-blog/artificial-intelligence-field-service-management-part-2/). Carayon, Amandine. “Improving responsiveness with an intuitive scheduling tool and mobile app.” Praxedo blog, 06 April 2022 (last accessed on 17 April 2026 at https://www.praxedo.com/our-blog/improving-responsiveness-intuitive-scheduling-mobile-app/). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO , whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern. 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, Jerry O'Connor , can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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. /THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 2 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 3 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 4 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 5 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 6 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 7 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 8 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 9 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 10 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 11 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 12 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 13 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 14 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 15 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 16 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 17 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 18 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 19 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 20 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 19/081,133 Page 21 Art Unit: 3624
Prosecution Insights