DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/31/26, wherein:
Claims 1-19 are currently 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 .
Priority
This claims the benefit of priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-166517 filed on October 17, 2022 and is a Continuation Application of PCT Application No. PCT/JP2023/027659 filed on July 27, 2023.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 11, 14, and 17 recite a server, a method, and a computer-readable medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category. Claim 1 is used as the exemplary claim.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity
a support server; and
a computation terminal to which ID information is assigned and configured or programmed to perform computation processing and is communicable with the support server; wherein the support server includes:
a storage to store attribute data related to the pipeline construction business in association with the ID information of the computation terminal;
a data processor configured or programmed to read out the attribute data associated with the ID information from the storage in a case where the ID information is received from the computation terminal; and
a data output processor to output the attribute data read out by the data processor to the computation terminal.
These limitations constitute a pipeline construction business support system which supports construction, maintenance, and management related to a pipeline (Specification ¶2), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
Claim 1: a support server, a computation terminal, a storage, a data processor, and a data output process;
Claim 11: a pipeline construction business support server, a communication module, a computation terminal, a storage, a data processor, a data output processor;
Claim 14: a support server, a computation terminal, a storage; and
Claim 17: a support server, a computation terminal, a storage.
The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the output limitation may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the output limitation) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec, and identifying presenting offers as WURC, as recognized by OIP Techs). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5-10, 15, 16, 18, and 19, merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 2 and 12 further recites the additional element of a program control processor, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claims 3 and 13 further recites the additional element of a map display data generator processor, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim 4 further recites the additional element of a sensor, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has reviewed applicant’s disclosure and submits that these added limitations find no support in the specification as currently written, and is, therefore, directed to new matter.
Claim 1: “a data output processor…” is not described in the specification as written. Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, particularly the cited portions of the specification ([0087][0090]-[0093] [0099] and Figs. 1 & 3) and did not find the cited limitation. Examiner notes [0090] indicates that data processor 22 reads out the attribute data (as claimed in the previous limitation) and also outputs the attribute data, which indicates the use of a single processor. However, claim 1 and claim 11 include two separate processors (a data processor and a data output processor), despite [0090] and Fig. 1 only showing one processor. Claim 11 includes a similar limitation and is rejected on a similar basis.
Claim 2: “a program control processor…” is not described in the specification as written. Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, particularly the cited portions of the specification ([0112]-[0115] and Fig. 3) and did not find the cited limitation. There does not appear to be a separate program control processor described in the Specification. Claim 12 includes a similar limitation and is rejected on a similar basis.
Claim 3: “a map display data generator processor…” is not described in the specification as written. Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, particularly the cited portions of the specification ([0175]-[0176] and Fig. 9) and did not find the cited limitation. There does not appear to be a separate map display data generator processor described in the Specification. Claim 13 includes a similar limitation and is rejected on a similar basis.
The claims not specifically enumerated above are rejected as dependent upon one or more of the enumerated claims.
Notice
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabbs (US 20220067130), in view of Currin et al. (US 20220067130).
Referring to claim 1:
Dabbs discloses a [pipeline] construction business support system that supports a construction business related to a [pipeline], the [pipeline] construction business support system comprising: a support server {Dabbs [0017][0038] and Fig. 1; a back-end computing platform 102 [0038] where Dabbs does not disclose the portion of the claim in brackets, i.e., that the business is a pipeline construction business}; and
a computation terminal {Dabbs [0038] and Fig. 1; client stations 112, 114, and 116 [0038]} to which ID information is assigned and configured or programmed to perform computation processing and is communicable with the support server {Dabbs [0041][0099] and Fig. 1; The user access request may include various parameters related to the access being sought by the contractor (e.g., related to the RFI the contractor is seeking to update). For example, the user access request may include parameters related to the contractor's assigned role (e.g., “contractor_id=1234”) [0099] and where 110 in Fig. 1 shows the communication between the client stations 112, 114, and 116 and platform 102}; wherein the support server includes:
a storage to store attribute data related to the [pipeline] construction business in association with the ID information of the computation terminal {Dabbs [0076][0115] and Fig. 4; After receiving the user access request from the tagging module 402, the controller 406 may pass the tagged user access request to the permission module 408. The permission module 408 may then perform a permission verification for the given user with respect to the at least one identified parameter (e.g., as described above with respect to block 308 of FIG. 3). To perform the permission verification, the permission module 408 may access available permission information to determine if the given user has the appropriate permission with respect to the at least one identified parameter [0115]};
a data processor configured or programmed to read out the attribute data associated with the ID information from the storage in a case where the ID information is received from the computation terminal {Dabbs [0102][0115]; After applying the verification tag to the identified parameter, the computing platform may proceed to perform the permission verification in order to determine whether the contractor has permission with respect to the identified parameter. The computing platform may access available permission information such as user-specific permission information. For example, the user-specific permission information for the contractor may indicate that the contractor does have the appropriate permission to update the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567.” [0102]}; and
a data output processor to output the attribute data read out by the data processor to the computation terminal {Dabbs [0028][0102][0104][0115]; the computing platform may grant the contractor's request to update the given RFI by locating the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567” in storage, applying the contractor's requested update to the given RFI, and sending an instruction to the contractor's client station that causes the client station to display an electronic version of the updated RFI [0104] and where Examiner notes that the data output processor is interpreted as using the main processor of the server, in accordance with the instant application as shown in Fig. 3 of the instant application and further, Dabbs indicates that the computing platform includes at least one processor in [0028]}.
Dabbs discloses a system for allowing users to access resources with permission, including various types of electronic data records that may be related to a construction project (abstract and [0017]). Dabbs does not disclose where the construction business is a pipeline construction business.
However, Currin discloses a similar system for managing sewer infrastructure (abstract). Currin discloses where the construction business is a pipeline construction business {Currin [0013]; support basic sewer system maintenance and retrofitting in order to minimize and/or eliminate I/I issues. At the heart of good sewer maintenance practice is the ability to accurately inspect and evaluate the condition of sewer mains, junctures between pipe sections, manholes, laterals feeding into sewer mains, etc. [0013]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dabbs to incorporate a pipeline construction business as taught by Currin because this would provide a manner for maintaining a sewer system (Currin [0013]), thus aiding the user by minimizing and/or eliminating I/I (infiltration and inflow) issues.
Referring to claim 2:
Dabbs, as modified by Currin, discloses wherein the support server further includes: a program control processor configured or programmed to generate a control signal for controlling execution of a computation program by the computation terminal in accordance with a request from the computation terminal; and the data output processor outputs the attribute data read out by the data processor and the control signal, to the computation terminal {Dabbs [0028][0102][0104][0115]; the computing platform may grant the contractor's request to update the given RFI by locating the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567” in storage, applying the contractor's requested update to the given RFI, and sending an instruction to the contractor's client station that causes the client station to display an electronic version of the updated RFI [0104] and where Examiner notes that the program control processor is interpreted as using the main processor of the server, in accordance with the instant application as shown in Fig. 3 of the instant application and further, Dabbs indicates that the computing platform includes at least one processor in [0028]}.
Referring to claim 3:
Dabbs, as modified by Currin, discloses wherein the support server further includes: a map display data generator processor configured or programmed to generate map display data for displaying a map on the computation terminal based on mapping data; and the data output processor outputs the map display data generated by the map display data generator processor in combination with the attribute data read out by the data processor, to the computation terminal {Currin [0028][0137] and Fig. 9; The web application will identify the location with respect to virtual map 810 and reposition the view of virtual map 810 to, for example, be centered on the identified location [0137] and where Examiner notes that the map display generator processor is interpreted as using the main processor of the server, in accordance with the instant application as shown in Fig. 3 of the instant application and further, Dabbs indicates that the computing platform includes at least one processor in [0028]}.
Referring to claim 4:
Dabbs, as modified by Currin, discloses a sensor to acquire a state of the pipeline {Currin [0072]; the disclosed application leverages geospatial fault locations and the time dimension against other attribute data to support more effective and more efficient sewer pipe management. This allows faults to be filtered by geospatial location as well as by time of observation, time of repair, current status of repair, or any other collected attribute that has a time component [0072]}; wherein the support server further includes: an analysis processor configured or programmed to perform analysis related to the pipeline based on the state of the pipeline acquired by the sensor; and the data output interface processor outputs the map display data generated by the map display data generator processor in combination with the attribute data read out by the data processor and an analysis result by the analysis processor, to the computation terminal {Currin [0072]; Query results can then be shown as symbols linked to the underlying data on the mapping layers of the application. Faults of varying severity can have different symbols or colors. Junctures where lateral pipes from properties come into the sewer main can have unique symbols as well. Stretches of the pipe where there has been root growth in prior inspections, or FOG buildup, or some other blockage can all be stored and shown symbolically upon query of the application [0072]}.
Referring to claim 5:
Dabbs, as modified by Currin, discloses wherein the support server is configured or programmed to store the attribute data used in the computation program when the computation program is executed by the computation terminal in association with the ID information of the computation terminal in the storage {Dabbs [0102]-[0104]; the computing platform may grant the contractor's request to update the given RFI by locating the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567” in storage, applying the contractor's requested update to the given RFI [0104]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Dabbs, as modified by Currin, discloses wherein the attribute data includes data other than data related to characteristics of the pipeline {Currin [0072]; the disclosed application leverages geospatial fault locations and the time dimension against other attribute data to support more effective and more efficient sewer pipe management [0072]}.
Referring to claim 7:
Dabbs, as modified by Currin, discloses wherein the attribute data includes utility company unique data including information related to an identification ID of a water utility company, and master data associated with the utility company unique data {Curran [0072][0073][0169]; Currently, every municipality tends to track different information about their sewer systems, using different table structures, indexes, and naming formats. For instance, the way one city tracks its waste water assets may not at all match how another city tracks those same types of assets. In an embodiment, the disclosed modules solve this problem of variance in collection of sewer system attribute data by having a setup interface which allows an administrator to quickly sort out and map where each type of attribute data will go on an ongoing basis within an universal attribute system. This allows the disclosed application, even though it has the data of hundreds of cities available to it, to present all the data with a consistent presentation within the application [0073]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Dabbs, as modified by Currin, discloses wherein the attribute data includes at least one of position data, hydraulic data, geological data, traffic data, or topographical data {Currin [0072]; This allows faults to be filtered by geospatial location as well as by time of observation, time of repair, current status of repair, or any other collected attribute that has a time component [0072]}.
Referring to claim 9:
Dabbs, as modified by Currin, discloses wherein the computation program is executable to perform creation of at least one of design of the pipeline, a construction plan, or a submission document {Currin [0086][0091]; Full projects plans can be developed with timelines, resources, dependencies, and budgets [0086]}.
Referring to claim 10:
Dabbs, as modified by Currin, discloses wherein the computation program is executable to perform creation of a renewal plan in maintenance and management of the pipeline {Currin [0091]; In an embodiment, the application takes the data collected, which helps to identify priority sewer basins with severe infiltration and inflow problems, and creates master projects for inspection and repair of each identified priority sewer basin [0091]}.
Referring to claim 11:
Claim 11 is similar to claim 1 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 12:
Claim 12 is similar to claim 2 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 13:
Claim 13 is similar to claim 3 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 14:
Dabbs discloses a [pipeline] construction business support system control method for controlling a [pipeline] construction business support system that includes a computation terminal and a support server, and supports a construction business related to a [pipeline] {Dabbs [0017][0038] and Fig. 1; client stations 112, 114, and 116 [0038] and a back-end computing platform 102 [0038] where Dabbs does not disclose the portion of the claim in brackets, i.e., that the business is a pipeline construction business}, the [pipeline] construction business support system control method comprising:
an ID information transmission step of causing the computation terminal to transmit ID information assigned to the computation terminal to the support server {Dabbs [0054][0055][0076][0115] and Fig. 4; the user access request may include information that enables the computing platform to confirm that the given user is authenticated to access the computing platform, such as an authentication token for the given user that was previously issued by the computing platform or a username and password for the given user, among other possibilities. As another example, if the user access request is received via a web application provided by the computing platform, the user access request may also include a domain and path [0054]};
an attribute data readout step of causing the support server to read out attribute data related to the [pipeline] construction business, which is stored in a storage of the support server in association with the ID information, in accordance with the received ID information {Dabbs [0076][0102][0115] and Fig. 4; After applying the verification tag to the identified parameter, the computing platform may proceed to perform the permission verification in order to determine whether the contractor has permission with respect to the identified parameter. The computing platform may access available permission information such as user-specific permission information. For example, the user-specific permission information for the contractor may indicate that the contractor does have the appropriate permission to update the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567.” [0102] and After receiving the user access request from the tagging module 402, the controller 406 may pass the tagged user access request to the permission module 408. The permission module 408 may then perform a permission verification for the given user with respect to the at least one identified parameter (e.g., as described above with respect to block 308 of FIG. 3). To perform the permission verification, the permission module 408 may access available permission information to determine if the given user has the appropriate permission with respect to the at least one identified parameter [0115]}; and
an attribute data transmission step of causing the support server to transmit the attribute data to the computation terminal {Dabbs [0102] [0104][0115]; the computing platform may grant the contractor's request to update the given RFI by locating the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567” in storage, applying the contractor's requested update to the given RFI, and sending an instruction to the contractor's client station that causes the client station to display an electronic version of the updated RFI [0104]}.
Dabbs discloses a system for allowing users to access resources with permission, including various types of electronic data records that may be related to a construction project (abstract and [0017]). Dabbs does not disclose where the construction business is a pipeline construction business.
However, Currin discloses a similar system for managing sewer infrastructure (abstract). Currin discloses where the construction business is a pipeline construction business {Currin [0013]; support basic sewer system maintenance and retrofitting in order to minimize and/or eliminate I/I issues. At the heart of good sewer maintenance practice is the ability to accurately inspect and evaluate the condition of sewer mains, junctures between pipe sections, manholes, laterals feeding into sewer mains, etc. [0013]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dabbs to incorporate a pipeline construction business as taught by Currin because this would provide a manner for maintaining a sewer system (Currin [0013]), thus aiding the user by minimizing and/or eliminating I/I (infiltration and inflow) issues.
Referring to claim 15:
Dabbs, as modified by Currin, discloses a program control step of causing the support server to generate a control signal for controlling execution of a computation program by the computation terminal in accordance with a request from the computation terminal{Dabbs [0102][0104][0115]; the computing platform may grant the contractor's request to update the given RFI by locating the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567” in storage, applying the contractor's requested update to the given RFI, and sending an instruction to the contractor's client station that causes the client station to display an electronic version of the updated RFI [0104]};
wherein in the ID information transmission step, the computation terminal transmits a request signal for requesting the execution of the computation program to the support server together with the ID information {Dabbs [0054][0055][0076][0115] and Fig. 4; the user access request may include information that enables the computing platform to confirm that the given user is authenticated to access the computing platform, such as an authentication token for the given user that was previously issued by the computing platform or a username and password for the given user, among other possibilities. As another example, if the user access request is received via a web application provided by the computing platform, the user access request may also include a domain and path [0054]}; and
in the attribute data transmission step, the support server transmits the attribute data read out in the attribute data readout step in combination with the control signal generated in the program control step, to the computation terminal {Dabbs [0102] [0104][0115]; the computing platform may grant the contractor's request to update the given RFI by locating the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567” in storage, applying the contractor's requested update to the given RFI, and sending an instruction to the contractor's client station that causes the client station to display an electronic version of the updated RFI [0104]}.
Referring to claim 16:
Claim 16 is similar to claim 3 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 17:
Dabbs discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including a [pipeline] construction business support system control program for controlling a [pipeline] construction business support system that includes a computation terminal and a support server, and supports a construction business related to a [pipeline] {Dabbs [0017][0038] and Fig. 1; client stations 112, 114, and 116 [0038] and a back-end computing platform 102 [0038] where Dabbs does not disclose the portion of the claim in brackets, i.e., that the business is a pipeline construction business}, the [pipeline] construction business support system control program causing the support server to execute:
receiving processing of receiving ID information assigned to the computation terminal from the computation terminal {Dabbs [0054][0055] [0076][0115] and Fig. 4; the user access request may include information that enables the computing platform to confirm that the given user is authenticated to access the computing platform, such as an authentication token for the given user that was previously issued by the computing platform or a username and password for the given user, among other possibilities. As another example, if the user access request is received via a web application provided by the computing platform, the user access request may also include a domain and path [0054]};
attribute data readout processing of reading out attribute data related to the pipeline construction business, which is stored in a storage of the support server in association with the ID information, in accordance with the received ID information {Dabbs [0076][0102][0115] and Fig. 4; After applying the verification tag to the identified parameter, the computing platform may proceed to perform the permission verification in order to determine whether the contractor has permission with respect to the identified parameter. The computing platform may access available permission information such as user-specific permission information. For example, the user-specific permission information for the contractor may indicate that the contractor does have the appropriate permission to update the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567.” [0102] and After receiving the user access request from the tagging module 402, the controller 406 may pass the tagged user access request to the permission module 408. The permission module 408 may then perform a permission verification for the given user with respect to the at least one identified parameter (e.g., as described above with respect to block 308 of FIG. 3). To perform the permission verification, the permission module 408 may access available permission information to determine if the given user has the appropriate permission with respect to the at least one identified parameter [0115]}; and
attribute data transmission processing of transmitting the attribute data to the computation terminal {Dabbs [0102] [0104][0115]; the computing platform may grant the contractor's request to update the given RFI by locating the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567” in storage, applying the contractor's requested update to the given RFI, and sending an instruction to the contractor's client station that causes the client station to display an electronic version of the updated RFI [0104]}.
Dabbs discloses a system for allowing users to access resources with permission, including various types of electronic data records that may be related to a construction project (abstract and [0017]). Dabbs does not disclose where the construction business is a pipeline construction business.
However, Currin discloses a similar system for managing sewer infrastructure (abstract). Currin discloses where the construction business is a pipeline construction business {Currin [0013]; support basic sewer system maintenance and retrofitting in order to minimize and/or eliminate I/I issues. At the heart of good sewer maintenance practice is the ability to accurately inspect and evaluate the condition of sewer mains, junctures between pipe sections, manholes, laterals feeding into sewer mains, etc. [0013]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dabbs to incorporate a pipeline construction business as taught by Currin because this would provide a manner for maintaining a sewer system (Currin [0013]), thus aiding the user by minimizing and/or eliminating I/I (infiltration and inflow) issues.
Referring to claim 18:
Dabbs discloses wherein the program causes the support server to further execute: program control processing of generating a control signal for controlling execution of a computation program by the computation terminal in accordance with a request from the computation terminal {Dabbs [0102][0104][0115]; the computing platform may grant the contractor's request to update the given RFI by locating the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567” in storage, applying the contractor's requested update to the given RFI, and sending an instruction to the contractor's client station that causes the client station to display an electronic version of the updated RFI [0104]};
in the receiving processing, the support server is caused to receive a request signal for requesting the execution of the computation program transmitted from the computation terminal together with the ID information {Dabbs [0054][0055][0076][0115] and Fig. 4; the user access request may include information that enables the computing platform to confirm that the given user is authenticated to access the computing platform, such as an authentication token for the given user that was previously issued by the computing platform or a username and password for the given user, among other possibilities. As another example, if the user access request is received via a web application provided by the computing platform, the user access request may also include a domain and path [0054]}; and
in the attribute data transmission processing, the support server is caused to transmit the attribute data read out by the attribute data readout processing in combination with the control signal generated by the program control processing, to the computation terminal {Dabbs [0102] [0104][0115]; the computing platform may grant the contractor's request to update the given RFI by locating the RFI designated as “rfi_id=567” in storage, applying the contractor's requested update to the given RFI, and sending an instruction to the contractor's client station that causes the client station to display an electronic version of the updated RFI [0104]}.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is similar to claim 3 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Response to Arguments
IDS considered
Applicant reminds Examiner of the IDS filed on 4/28/25. Examiner appreciates the reminder and has reviewed co-pending application 19/182866.
35 USC 112(f)/35 USC 112(b)
Examiner first notes that 112(f) is NOT a rejection; rather it is claim interpretation. With regard to the amendment of “a data output interface” to “a data output processor” in claim 1 and claim 11, this term is not interpreted under 112(f). However, there is an additional rejection provided under 112(a) (see above).
With regard to claim 2 and claim 12, “a program control processor” (as amended) is not interpreted under 112(f). With regard to claim 3 and 13, “a map display data generator processor” (as amended) is not interpreted under 112(f). With regard to claim 4, “a sensor” is not interpreted under 112(f). The associated rejections under 112(b) have been withdrawn.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because “the claims recite an improvement to the functioning of the computation terminal and the technology itself.” Remarks 11. Applicant describes the technical problem as the need to “efficiently perform computation processing of the computation terminal” and the technical solution as claim 1. Remarks 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Applicant has not identified a specific technical improvement. At most, Applicant generally alleges an improvement. No specific technical details have been provided. Merely alleging a general improvement to efficiency is not an improvement to technology.
Applicant then argues that claim 4 separately integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because, through the use of the sensor, claim 4 “improves pipeline maintenance and management through automated monitoring and analysis.” Remarks 13. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not appear to be alleging any sort of improvement to technology. At most, there is only an improvement to the abstract idea of pipeline maintenance and management. This is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
35 USC 103
Assignment of ID information
Applicant argues that Dabbs does not describe assigning ID information to the terminal device itself. Remarks 15. Examiner believes Applicant is interpreting the limitation regarding “a computation terminal to which ID information is assigned…” such that the ID information identifies the terminal. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this interpretation of the claim and notes that broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims applies. When the user in Dobbs has an access request, the user ID is supplied from the user at the terminal and thereby, assigned to the terminal.
Data Stored in Storage
Applicant argues that Dabbs merely stores permission data and does not store attribute data. Remarks 15-16. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dabbs states in [0076], “For example, if the value of the verification tag for the at least one identified parameter indicates that the given user has the appropriate permission with respect to the at least one identified parameter, the computing platform may grant the user access request and then take certain actions to execute the user access request. For example, if the user access request seeks to read a given resource, the computing platform may provide the given user with access to the given resource by sending an instruction to the given user's client station that causes the client station display an electronic version of the given resource to the given user. As another example, if the user access request seeks to update a given resource, the computing platform may locate the given resource in storage and apply the requested update to the given resource.” Here, the identified parameter is interpreted as the attribute data. As is stated in [0017], an example of a parameter may be an identifier of a data resource, which may include various types of electronic records, such as RFIs, daily logs, etc.
Operation of Data Processor
Applicant argues Dabbs does not disclose the configuration in which the attribute data associated with the ID information is read out from the storage. Remarks 16. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is indicated above, Dabbs’ permission data is used to check for permission to access, or “read out,” various parameters/ resources.
Data Output
Applicant argues that Dabbs does not disclose the configuration in which the attribute data read out by the data processor is output. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dabbs at [0104] states, “sending an instruction to the contractor's client station that causes the client station to display an electronic version of the updated RFI” which is outputting the attribute data, for the reasons explained above.
Applicant then argues that the “technical concept of Currin is entirely different from that of Applicant’s claim 1” and therefore, the combination of the art does not teach or suggest all the features recited in claim 1. Applicant appears to be arguing that Currin is non-analogous art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Currin is directed to managing a sanitary sewer infrastructure, i.e., a pipeline (see abstract). This is at least reasonably pertinent to the particular problem identified in claim 1, that of a pipeline construction business support system.
Applicant further argues that, under KSR, the motivation to combine must provide a rational reasons for a person skilled in the art to arrive at the claimed invention, and that the Office Action does not do so. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Such a motivation to combine is provided above and repeated herein for convenience:
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dabbs to incorporate a pipeline construction business as taught by Currin because this would provide a manner for maintaining a sewer system (Currin [0013]), thus aiding the user by minimizing and/or eliminating I/I (infiltration and inflow) issues.
Accordingly, the rejections 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights