DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed May 2, 2025. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1 and 4 are the independent claims.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1C 3A-3D, 4A, 4B, 5D are illegible and/or fuzzy. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 4, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of usage auditing. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, usage auditing (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to generate a first audit result data comprising a drying time duration parameter, wherein usage auditing is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “receiving”, and “generating” recite functions of the usage auditing are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 1 and 4 appears to be to audit (review, assess, evaluate, report, etc.) drying time duration parameter for drying equipment (fan, blower, air mover, dehumidified, etc.) for use by remediation companies which respond to structures/homes/buildings damaged by water (Specification: Paragraph 2).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the generic computer elements: computer, storage device, database management system (software per se), system, computer-readable program code. See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: computer, storage device, database management system (software per se), system, computer-readable program code. These generic computing components are merely used to receive/access, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 1A: Paragraphs 5-10). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's usage auditing in the general field of business management/marketing and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-6 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited computer, storage device, database management system (software per se), system, computer-readable program code," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed step of generate a first audit result data comprising a drying time duration parameter describes the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a computer, storage device, database management system (software per se), system, computer-readable program code nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps receiving a set of drying equipment data, receiving a set of spatial data are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of displaying the generated explanations is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic computer, storage device, database management system (software per se), system, computer-readable program code are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receiving steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of usage auditing and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1 and 4.
Claims 2 and 5 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a set of drying time data and generating a second audit result (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 6 further limits the abstract idea by generating a third audit result by comparing the second audit result to a drying equipment rate table (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-6, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer, storage device, database management system (software per se), system, computer-readable program code at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1A: Paragraphs 5-10). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. computer, computer readable code, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer, storage device, database management system (software per se), system, computer-readable program code merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1A: Paragraphs 5-10). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fillmann et al., U.S. Patent No. 20080040075.
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Fillmann et al. discloses a system (Figure 1) and method for auditing (reviewing, assessing, evaluating, analyzing, etc.) drying equipment (air mover, fan, dehumidifier, etc.) (Abstract, Paragraphs 4, 8, 9, 11, 12) comprising:
Receiving a set of drying equipment data about a plurality of drying equipment units (Abstract; , wherein each of the plurality of drying equipment units is associated with a drying capacity parameter (Paragraphs 44, 45, 155-167; Figure 1, Elements 320, 322; Figure 5, Element 540);
Receiving a set of spatial data associated with an area that the plurality of drying equipment units are located (Paragraphs 26-30, 35-38, 142);
Generate a first audit result data comprising a drying time duration parameter (Figure 3, Element 340; Figure 5, Element 552; Paragraphs 42, 73, 86-90, 98-102, 110-112, 170, 171).
A database management system (Figure 4, Element 304; Figure 5, Element 604; Paragraph 139).
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, FIllmann et al. discloses a system and method further comprising:
Receiving a set of drying time data (Figure 1, Elements 322, 330, 328, 326; Figure 5, Element 550; Figure 5, Elements 429, 430, 436; Figure 5, Elements 441, 442; Paragraph 144); and
Generating a second audit result based on comparing the drying time data to the first audit result data (Paragraphs 8, 11, 12, 38, 39, 43; Claims 17, 18).
Regarding Claims 3 and 6, FIllmann et al. discloses a system and method further comprising generating a third audit result based on comparing the second audit result data to a drying equipment rate table (e.g. standards, other projects, etc.; Paragraphs 12, 21, 38, 39, 43; Claim 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Armstrong, U.S. Patent No. 7243050 discloses a system and method for auditing the drying process associated with water removal/remediation of a location/building/job site.
Pedraza et al., U.S. Patent No. 7173538 discloses a system and method for auditing the drying process and equipment (e.g. drying time – estimated, calculated, determined, planned, monitored) as part of a building water mitigation/remediation project.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Eric Stamber can be reached at (571) 272-6724. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights