DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-16, 19, 21-22, 24-27, 30-44, 46-51 are pending. Claims 2-3, 11-12, 17-18, 20, 23, 28-29, 45 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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, 4-10, 13-16, 19, 21-22, 24-27, 30-44, 46-51 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “an all-statuses checkbox that is mapped to all of the respective plurality of operational statuses for the given asset”. However, this subject matter cannot be found in the specification and claims as originally filed. The nearest subject matter from the specification appears to be found in Fig. 5, and corresponding paragraph [0097]. In particular, [0097] appears to be the only reference to any “checkbox” in the specification. The only checkboxes described in [0097] are elements 324, 326, and 328 in Fig. 5. Elements 324 and 326 correspond to individual statuses, not “all-statuses”, and 328 is the test notification checkbox. Fig. 5 also shows two apparent checkboxes at the top of the email/SMS columns; however, the function of these two checkboxes is never described in the specification. Without adequate written description, it cannot merely be assumed that the top-of-column checkboxes map to all of the plurality of status conditions, nor that these checkboxes are even selectable at all. Therefore, the subject matter of “an all-statuses checkbox that is mapped to all of the respective plurality of operational statuses for the given asset” fails to comply with the written description requirement. None of claims 4-9, 21-22, 24-27, 30-44, 46-51 fix this and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 19 contain similar subject matter and are therefore rejected for similar reasons, as well as their corresponding dependent claims.
Claim 48 is additionally 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 48 recites “wherein the all-statuses checkbox for the given asset, when checked by the user, causes the server computer to send a message to the user device when any operational status from among the respective plurality of operational statuses of the given asset becomes true”. As above, with regards to claim 1, the specification and claims do not describe an “all-statuses” checkbox, much less that it performs the additional functions herein. Therefore, claim 48 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 49 is additionally 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 49 recites “wherein the user account of the user includes selected ones of the set of user selectable checkboxes for each of the different assets, wherein the server computer includes a plurality of user accounts each having a respective set of selected ones of the set of user selectable checkboxes for each of the different assets”. However, this subject matter cannot be found in the specification and claims as originally filed. The nearest subject matter from the specification appears to be found in Fig. 5, and corresponding paragraph [0097]. In particular, [0097] appears to be the only reference to any “checkbox” in the specification. The only checkboxes described in [0097] are elements 324, 326, and 328 in Fig. 5. Notably, [0097] does not contain any reference to “the user account of the user includes selected ones of the set of user selectable checkboxes for each of the different assets, wherein the server computer includes a plurality of user accounts each having a respective set of selected ones of the set of user selectable checkboxes for each of the different assets”. Therefore, claim 49 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 50 is additionally 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 50 recites “wherein the all-statuses checkbox comprises a plurality of all-statuses checkboxes for the given asset, wherein each respective one of the plurality of all-statuses checkboxes is mapped to a different mode of communication from among a plurality of modes of communication”. As above, with regards to claim 1, the specification and claims do not describe an “all-statuses” checkbox, much less that it performs the additional functions herein. Therefore, claim 50 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 14-16, 19, 26-27, 31, 34-36, 40-43, 47, 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (PGPUB 2017/0372339), and further in view of Donald et al (PGPUB 2014/0244314) and Liu et al (PGPUB 2013/0276783).
Regarding Claim 1:
Davis teaches a system for managing assets of management systems (abstract, database configured to store asset inventory survey data of at least one asset owner), the system comprising:
a server computer for receiving status information concerning statuses of the assets from the assets of the management systems (paragraph 33, server system including processing circuitry for executing a web-based application for building an asset inventory survey database; paragraph 35, asset inventory survey database includes asset survey database storing records of lighting infrastructure and associated assets; paragraph 30, web-based application of the survey tool configured to perform real-time inventory identification, recordation, and management in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure; the survey device or system is configured to communicate with one or more survey device in one or more remote geographical locations to obtain real-time status information regarding one or more assets located remotely from a central operating facility; the survey device or system updates, in real-time, an asset inventory survey database; paragraph 71, query results are displayed in the tabular query results section 508, below the function menu section 506; the columns include a… “Status” column 544, each of which corresponds to a field in each asset record in the asset survey database 126; paragraph 74, the GUI according to the installation function includes a… status section 660; paragraph 100, FIG. 13 illustrates a status section 1300 of a GUI according to the “New Asset” function according to this disclosure; note that the status section 1300 can be similar to the status sections 660 and 760 of FIGS. 6 and 7; the status section 1300 includes multiple content controls for various status field values, including a drop-down list for pole equipment 1302, survey state 1318, and project name 1320), maintaining an asset store for storing information concerning the assets of the management systems (paragraph 33, server system including processing circuitry for executing a web-based application for building an asset inventory survey database; paragraph 35, asset inventory survey database includes asset survey database storing records of lighting infrastructure and associated assets), a user account store for storing information concerning user accounts (paragraph 36, asset owner database configured to store records of users authorized to access asset survey database), and an ownership store for enabling access by the user accounts in the user account store to the information in the asset store by designating user accounts from the user account store as owners of assets represented in the asset store (paragraph 35-36, asset owner database configured to store records of asset owners, who own the lighting infrastructure and associated assets corresponding to records stored in asset survey database; survey tool generates relationship link for each record in the asset survey database to link to an asset owner record, such that each asset corresponds to its owner) and designating user accounts with which information about the assets represented in the asset store is shared (paragraph 36-37, asset owner database configured to store records of users authorized to access the asset survey database; survey tool generates relationship link for each asset owner record to link to a number of authorized user records), wherein, for each asset for which access is enabled by the ownership store, the user accounts with which the information about that asset is shared pertain to users designated by an owner to receive information concerning that asset (paragraph 36-37, asset owner database configured to store records of users authorized to access asset survey database; for each asset owner record, an administrator of the web-based application of the survey tool 120 could select a number of authorized user records linked to that asset owner record; for each asset owner record, a selected number of authorized user records are linked to that asset owner record, and in response, the survey tool generates the selected number of authorized user records linked to that asset owner record or sets the selected number of authorized user records; the survey tool allows the server to send to a client device information from the asset inventory survey database that is linked to the same asset owner record that is linked the authorized user record containing the matched user authentication information); and
an application for controlling a displaying of a graphical user interface (GUI) on a user device of a user (abstract, GUI), the GUI displaying: identifiers of different assets that are owned or shared with the user (paragraph 35-36, asset owner database configured to store records of asset owners, who own the lighting infrastructure and associated assets corresponding to records stored in asset survey database; survey tool generates relationship link for each record in the asset survey database to link to an asset owner record, such that each asset corresponds to its owner; paragraph 94-95, equipment section of GUI includes equipment names and other identifying characteristics).
Davis does not explicitly teach wherein the assets of management systems are assets of building management systems.
However, Donald teaches the concept wherein assets of management systems are assets of building management systems (abstract, system for asset management, in particular, cataloguing, organizing, analyzing, utilizing and managing the contents of a building; paragraph 32-35, users gain access to asset management service through user interface and management component; user may be individual who owns physical building structures; users define themselves into system and are added to user database, and can add buildings to the building database; within each building, assets are added to asset database).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the building asset management system of Donald with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis. Asset management systems related to various categories of asset are well known within the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to incorporate building management features into a system for managing asset information shared between owners of an asset and users, in order to create a system which allows asset information sharing for diverse categories of asset, thereby improving the usefulness of the tool to owners or users of a wide variety of assets.
Neither Davis nor Donald explicitly teaches the GUI displaying: a respective plurality of operational statuses for each of the different assets; and
a set of user selectable checkboxes for each of the different assets, wherein the set of user selectable checkboxes for a given asset of the different assets comprises status-specific checkboxes that are each mapped to a respective one of the respective plurality of operational statuses for the given asset and an all-statuses checkbox that is mapped to all of the respective plurality of operational statuses for the given asset.
However, Liu teaches the concept of a GUI displaying: a respective plurality of operational statuses for each of different assets ([0101] graphical user interface which may be accessed and displayed on a remote device; [0113] report setting page 1200 is shown in FIG. 12; the report setting page 1200 allows the system administrator to select the parameters for each device (i.e. “asset”) (and the MCU 509 parameters) to be included in the report file; [0114] in addition to the capability of selecting a device on report setting page 1200, the specific parameters of the device to be sent in the report email (i.e. “statuses”) are also configurable in accordance with the embodiments; for example, on the report setting page 1200, a device may be selected, for example FP1 1201; selecting the FP1 1201 button navigates to an FP1 parameter setting page 1300 shown in FIG. 13; the report setting page for device FP1 1300 displays information such as the device ID 1301 and a list of device FP1 parameters 1302); and
a set of user selectable checkboxes for each of the different assets, wherein the set of user selectable checkboxes for a given asset of the different assets comprises status-specific checkboxes that are each mapped to a respective one of the respective plurality of operational statuses for the given asset and an all-statuses checkbox that is mapped to all of the respective plurality of operational statuses for the given asset ([0114] the specific parameters of the device to be sent in the report email are also configurable in accordance with the embodiments; for example, on the report setting page 1200, a device may be selected, for example FP1 1201; selecting the FP1 1201 button navigates to an FP1 parameter setting page 1300 shown in FIG. 13; the report setting page for device FP1 1300 displays information such as the device ID 1301 and a list of device FP1 parameters 1302; a selectable checkbox may be provided for each parameter as shown in FIG. 13; that is, to include a parameter into the report, the system administrator can check the corresponding checkbox for the desired parameter; otherwise, the system administration can uncheck the checkbox to omit the parameter from the report; checkbox 1303 toggles between checking all parameters in the list 1302 and un-checking all parameters in the list 1302).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the status checkbox teachings of Liu with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald. Use of a checkbox to indicate selection of user options is one of the oldest methods of implementing a selection in computerized user interfaces. As the technique is among the most well-known in any computer art, it would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into a selectable GUI option, as it is quick, easy to use, and well-understood by most individuals who use computers. Further, providing checkboxes for specific status updates provides the benefit of allowing a user/owner to receive status change updates regarding field assets, thereby improving security, efficiency, and utility by allowing rapid response to status changes which could arise from activation, deactivation, theft, accident, etc.
Regarding Claim 5:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Davis teaches the system, further comprising a group hierarchy store for storing groups for the assets (paragraph 35, the asset survey database is configured to store records of lighting infrastructure and associated assets; the asset owner database is configured to store records of asset owners, who own the lighting infrastructure and associated assets corresponding to the records stored in the asset survey database; the survey tool generates a relationship link for each record in the asset survey database to link to an asset owner record, such that each asset corresponds to its owner; therefore, assets are at least stored in groups corresponding to owner).
Regarding Claim 6:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 5. In addition, Donald teaches wherein the groups are ordered in a tree structure (paragraph 38-40, Fig. 4, buildings grouped under category of individual users; assets are grouped under individual buildings; the groupings of users to buildings to assets therefore represents a tree type structure).
The rationale to combine Davis and Donald is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter between claims 1 and 6.
Regarding Claim 7:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 5. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the groups have owners (paragraph 35, the asset survey database is configured to store records of lighting infrastructure and associated assets; the asset owner database is configured to store records of asset owners, who own the lighting infrastructure and associated assets corresponding to the records stored in the asset survey database; the survey tool generates a relationship link for each record in the asset survey database to link to an asset owner record, such that each asset corresponds to its owner; therefore, assets are at least stored in groups corresponding to owner).
Regarding Claims 10, 14-16:
These are method claims corresponding to the system of claims 1, 5-7, and are therefore rejected for corresponding reasons.
Regarding Claim 19:
Davis teaches a system for managing assets of management systems (abstract, database configured to store asset inventory survey data of at least one asset owner), the system comprising:
an asset manager for receiving status information concerning statuses of the assets from the assets of the management systems (paragraph 33, server system including processing circuitry for executing a web-based application for building an asset inventory survey database; paragraph 35, asset inventory survey database includes asset survey database storing records of lighting infrastructure and associated assets; paragraph 30, web-based application of the survey tool configured to perform real-time inventory identification, recordation, and management in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure; the survey device or system is configured to communicate with one or more survey device in one or more remote geographical locations to obtain real-time status information regarding one or more assets located remotely from a central operating facility; the survey device or system updates, in real-time, an asset inventory survey database; paragraph 71, query results are displayed in the tabular query results section 508, below the function menu section 506; the columns include a… “Status” column 544, each of which corresponds to a field in each asset record in the asset survey database 126; paragraph 74, the GUI according to the installation function includes a… status section 660; paragraph 100, FIG. 13 illustrates a status section 1300 of a GUI according to the “New Asset” function according to this disclosure; note that the status section 1300 can be similar to the status sections 660 and 760 of FIGS. 6 and 7; the status section 1300 includes multiple content controls for various status field values, including a drop-down list for pole equipment 1302, survey state 1318, and project name 1320), the asset manager including an asset store for storing information concerning the assets of the management systems (paragraph 33, server system including processing circuitry for executing a web-based application for building an asset inventory survey database; paragraph 35, asset inventory survey database includes asset survey database storing records of lighting infrastructure and associated assets),
a user account store for storing information concerning user accounts (paragraph 36, asset owner database configured to store records of users authorized to access asset survey database), and
an ownership store, for enabling access by the user accounts in the user account store to the information in the asset store (paragraph 35-36, asset owner database configured to store records of asset owners, who own the lighting infrastructure and associated assets corresponding to records stored in asset survey database; survey tool generates relationship link for each record in the asset survey database to link to an asset owner record, such that each asset corresponds to its owner); and
a user device for displaying a graphic user interface (GUI) including (abstract, GUI): identifiers of different assets that are owned or shared with the user (paragraph 35-36, asset owner database configured to store records of asset owners, who own the lighting infrastructure and associated assets corresponding to records stored in asset survey database; survey tool generates relationship link for each record in the asset survey database to link to an asset owner record, such that each asset corresponds to its owner; paragraph 94-95, equipment section of GUI includes equipment names and other identifying characteristics).
Davis does not explicitly teach wherein the assets of management systems are assets of building management systems.
However, Donald teaches the concept wherein assets of management systems are assets of building management systems (abstract, system for asset management, in particular, cataloguing, organizing, analyzing, utilizing and managing the contents of a building; paragraph 32-35, users gain access to asset management service through user interface and management component; user may be individual who owns physical building structures; users define themselves into system and are added to user database, and can add buildings to the building database; within each building, assets are added to asset database).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the building asset management system of Donald with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis. Asset management systems related to various categories of asset are well known within the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to incorporate building management features into a system for managing asset information shared between owners of an asset and users, in order to create a system which allows asset information sharing for diverse categories of asset, thereby improving the usefulness of the tool to owners or users of a wide variety of assets.
Neither Davis nor Donald explicitly teaches the GUI displaying: a respective plurality of operational statuses for each of the different assets; and
a set of user selectable checkboxes for each of the different assets, wherein the set of user selectable checkboxes for a given asset of the different assets comprises status-specific checkboxes that are each mapped to a respective one of the respective plurality of operational statuses for the given asset and an all-statuses checkbox that is mapped to all of the respective plurality of operational statuses for the given asset.
However, Liu teaches the concept of a GUI displaying: a respective plurality of operational statuses for each of different assets ([0101] graphical user interface which may be accessed and displayed on a remote device; [0113] report setting page 1200 is shown in FIG. 12; the report setting page 1200 allows the system administrator to select the parameters for each device (i.e. “asset”) (and the MCU 509 parameters) to be included in the report file; [0114] in addition to the capability of selecting a device on report setting page 1200, the specific parameters of the device to be sent in the report email (i.e. “statuses”) are also configurable in accordance with the embodiments; for example, on the report setting page 1200, a device may be selected, for example FP1 1201; selecting the FP1 1201 button navigates to an FP1 parameter setting page 1300 shown in FIG. 13; the report setting page for device FP1 1300 displays information such as the device ID 1301 and a list of device FP1 parameters 1302); and
a set of user selectable checkboxes for each of the different assets, wherein the set of user selectable checkboxes for a given asset of the different assets comprises status-specific checkboxes that are each mapped to a respective one of the respective plurality of operational statuses for the given asset and an all-statuses checkbox that is mapped to all of the respective plurality of operational statuses for the given asset ([0114] the specific parameters of the device to be sent in the report email are also configurable in accordance with the embodiments; for example, on the report setting page 1200, a device may be selected, for example FP1 1201; selecting the FP1 1201 button navigates to an FP1 parameter setting page 1300 shown in FIG. 13; the report setting page for device FP1 1300 displays information such as the device ID 1301 and a list of device FP1 parameters 1302; a selectable checkbox may be provided for each parameter as shown in FIG. 13; that is, to include a parameter into the report, the system administrator can check the corresponding checkbox for the desired parameter; otherwise, the system administration can uncheck the checkbox to omit the parameter from the report; checkbox 1303 toggles between checking all parameters in the list 1302 and un-checking all parameters in the list 1302).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the status checkbox teachings of Liu with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald. Use of a checkbox to indicate selection of user options is one of the oldest methods of implementing a selection in computerized user interfaces. As the technique is among the most well-known in any computer art, it would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into a selectable GUI option, as it is quick, easy to use, and well-understood by most individuals who use computers. Further, providing checkboxes for specific status updates provides the benefit of allowing a user/owner to receive status change updates regarding field assets, thereby improving security, efficiency, and utility by allowing rapid response to status changes which could arise from activation, deactivation, theft, accident, etc.
Regarding Claim 26:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the GUI includes an add product pane for receiving selections indicating assets to be added to the specific user account by updating the ownership store (paragraph 90, GUI according to a "New Asset" function of the survey tool; a scrolling operation can cause the tablet computer to display various portions the GUI according to a "New Asset" function; "New Asset" function enables the survey tool to generate a new asset record for each asset subjected to the survey process; the new asset record includes various fields, which receive field values through the various sections of the GUI according to a "New Asset" function; paragraph 91, “New Asset” function includes the save data section).
Regarding Claim 27:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 5. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the groups for the assets include logical groupings of assets organized based on geographical or physical divisions of a premises or organization (paragraph 42, processor is configured to generate display information corresponding to specific geographic locations, receive update information regarding specific geographic locations, and edit one or more aspects of the asset inventory survey database), tasks and objectives of users assigned to the groups, installation date of the assets in the groups, and/or risk of fire or intrusion.
Regarding Claim 31:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the user accounts correspond to different job functions relating to the assets of the building management systems (paragraph 67, the user account privilege level 516b could include “Admin” for an administrator of the web-based application of the survey tool 120; the user account privilege levels 516b can include a different level for personnel who surveys infrastructure onsite in the field; or can include a third different level for personnel member of the asset owner who can review, search, and coordinate survey work of field users; each authorized user record can include a user account privilege level field).
Regarding Claim 34:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Davis teaches wherein access between the user accounts is shareable among different users having different job functions (paragraph 36, asset owner database 124 is configured to store records of users authorized to access the asset survey database 126; the survey tool 120 generates a relationship link for each asset owner record to link to a number of authorized user records; the survey tool 120 allows the server 104 to send that client device 106-114 information from the asset inventory survey database 122 that is linked to the same asset owner record that is linked the authorized user record containing the matched user authentication information; paragraph 68, when the logged in user name 416 belongs to an administrator of the web-based application of the survey tool 120, the initial query result includes either asset records of a user-selected subset of asset owners, or alternatively, all of the asset records (of all asset owners) within the geographical area currently displayed in the map section 504).
Regarding Claim 36:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Davis teaches wherein a separate user account for a particular job position comprises different logical groupings of same assets, where the different logical groupings of same assets are relevant to tasks and objectives of the particular job position (paragraph 67-68, the user name 416 could include an email address 516a and a user account privilege level 516b of the logged-in user authorized to access the asset survey database 126; for example, the user account privilege level 516b could include “Admin” for an administrator of the web-based application of the survey tool 120; the user account privilege levels 516b can include a different level for personnel who surveys infrastructure onsite in the field; or can include a third different level for personnel member of the asset owner who can review, search, and coordinate survey work of field users; each authorized user record can include a user account privilege level field; when the logged in user name 416 belongs to an administrator of the web-based application of the survey tool 120, the initial query result includes either asset records of a user-selected subset of asset owners, or alternatively, all of the asset records (of all asset owners) within the geographical area currently displayed in the map section 504).
Regarding Claim 40:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the user accounts comprise multiple user accounts for a same customer (paragraph 36-37, asset owner database configured to store records of users authorized to access asset survey database; for each asset owner record, an administrator of the web-based application of the survey tool 120 could select a number of authorized user records linked to that asset owner record; for each asset owner record, a selected number of authorized user records are linked to that asset owner record, and in response, the survey tool generates the selected number of authorized user records linked to that asset owner record or sets the selected number of authorized user records; the survey tool allows the server to send to a client device information from the asset inventory survey database that is linked to the same asset owner record that is linked the authorized user record containing the matched user authentication information) that enable different logical groupings of the assets (paragraph 112, generating the initial logged-in screen includes generating an initial query result by querying the asset inventory survey database 122 to select asset records that are allowed to be displayed to the logged-in user; paragraph 113-114, the survey tool 120 receives user input (through the initial GUI) indicating a selection of one of the functions of the survey tool 120; for example, the received user input indicates a selection of one of: the “Search Address” function, “New Asset” function, “Edit Asset” function, the installation function, the punch list function, or data export function; the survey tool 120 generates a GUI corresponding to the selected one of the functions of the survey tool 120, and the GUI includes a display of asset inventory survey data linked to the determined asset owner(s) as determined in operation 1806; for example, the survey tool 120 could generate a GUI that includes the map section 504 (including asset records selected in the initial query result) and an additional section, which displays a content control configured to add or update a corresponding field value in the asset inventory survey database 122 using content inputted to the content control), and wherein the GUI comprises a grouping selector for users having a user account in the user account store to cause information concerning the assets both owned by and shared with the users to be filtered according to the different logical groupings of the assets (paragraph 42, processor is configured to generate display information corresponding to specific geographic locations, receive update information regarding specific geographic locations, and edit one or more aspects of the asset inventory survey database).
Regarding Claim 35:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 40. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the different logical groupings are determined based on at least one of, geographical divisions and physical divisions, of a premises or organization (paragraph 66-68, initial logged-in screen 500 includes the GUI according to a “Search Address” function; map section 504 shows geographical map view of a geographical area and shows a set of geospatial pins; in the specific initial logged-in screen 500 shown, the survey tool 120 determines the reference point according to a center point of the geographical area currently displayed in the map section 504, as indicated by the “Center Map” mode 526; the set of geospatial pins correspond to an initial query result; in certain embodiments, the initial query result includes asset records that can be edited by the logged in user name 416; when the logged in user name 416 belongs to an administrator of the web-based application of the survey tool 120, the initial query result includes either asset records of a user-selected subset of asset owners, or alternatively, all of the asset records (of all asset owners) within the geographical area currently displayed in the map section 504).
Regarding Claim 41:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the GUI is displayed on user devices of users having a respective user account in the user account store (paragraph 36-37, asset owner database configured to store records of users authorized to access asset survey database; for each asset owner record, an administrator of the web-based application of the survey tool 120 could select a number of authorized user records linked to that asset owner record; for each asset owner record, a selected number of authorized user records are linked to that asset owner record, and in response, the survey tool generates the selected number of authorized user records linked to that asset owner record or sets the selected number of authorized user records; the survey tool allows the server to send to a client device information from the asset inventory survey database that is linked to the same asset owner record that is linked the authorized user record containing the matched user authentication information; paragraph 112, generating the initial logged-in screen includes generating an initial query result by querying the asset inventory survey database 122 to select asset records that are allowed to be displayed to the logged-in user).
Regarding Claim 42:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Liu teaches wherein an operational status is selected from the group consisting of alarm, trouble, normal, and offline ([0109] email setting page 1100 which is accessed by selecting the email setting button 1005 on page 1000 shown in FIG. 10; a list of alert conditions 1101 is displayed which allows the system administrator to select, for example by checking or un-checking a checkbox next to each alert condition; for example, if the checkbox for 1104 "When FAI is activated" is checked, an email alert will be sent out if the control and access logic 405 received a Fire Alarm Interface (FAI) signal 329 from the Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) over the FAI interface 331; similarly, if the checkbox for "When SYS Fault is activated" 1105 is checked, an email alert will be sent out when a System Fault occurs; if the checkbox for "When AC Fault is activated" 1106 is checked, an alert email will be sent out when an AC Fault is detected).
The rationale to combine Davis and Liu is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter between claims 1 and 42.
Regarding Claim 43:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Liu teaches wherein the operational status is selected from the group consisting of alarm, trouble, armed, and online ([0109] email setting page 1100 which is accessed by selecting the email setting button 1005 on page 1000 shown in FIG. 10; a list of alert conditions 1101 is displayed which allows the system administrator to select, for example by checking or un-checking a checkbox next to each alert condition; for example, if the checkbox for 1104 "When FAI is activated" is checked, an email alert will be sent out if the control and access logic 405 received a Fire Alarm Interface (FAI) signal 329 from the Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) over the FAI interface 331; similarly, if the checkbox for "When SYS Fault is activated" 1105 is checked, an email alert will be sent out when a System Fault occurs; if the checkbox for "When AC Fault is activated" 1106 is checked, an alert email will be sent out when an AC Fault is detected).
The rationale to combine Davis and Liu is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter between claims 1 and 43.
Regarding Claim 47:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Liu teaches wherein each of the status-specific checkboxes for the given asset, when checked by the user, cause the server computer to send a message to the user device when a single corresponding operational status from among the respective plurality of operational statuses of the given asset becomes true ([0109] email setting page 1100 which is accessed by selecting the email setting button 1005 on page 1000 shown in FIG. 10; a list of alert conditions 1101 is displayed which allows the system administrator to select, for example by checking or un-checking a checkbox next to each alert condition; for example, if the checkbox for 1104 "When FAI is activated" is checked, an email alert will be sent out if the control and access logic 405 received a Fire Alarm Interface (FAI) signal 329 from the Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) over the FAI interface 331).
The rationale to combine Davis and Liu is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter between claims 1 and 47.
Regarding Claim 51:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Liu teaches wherein the assets of the building management system comprise fire detection system components ([0109] if the checkbox for 1104 "When FAI is activated" is checked, an email alert will be sent out if the control and access logic 405 received a Fire Alarm Interface (FAI) signal 329 from the Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) over the FAI interface 331).
The rationale to combine Davis and Liu is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter between claims 1 and 51.
Claims 4, 13, 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Johnson et al (US 6,553,336).
Regarding Claim 4:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein the ownership store further designates specific types of information to be shared with the user accounts.
However, Johnson teaches the concept wherein an ownership store further designates specific types of information to be shared with user accounts (col 15 line 54-col 16 line 10, end-users are able to designate multiple levels of access for themselves and in turn their staff or clients; for example, a trucking company can authorize their customers to receive simple location and shipment status reports, but not reports on equipment condition or driver performance; similarly, the maintenance facility can receive the equipment reports, but not information on shipments or the driver; security provisions and access levels are selectable by end-user through interface with the monitoring system; col 19 line 32-50, user logs in and account number is used to query database for registered assets).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the notification options of Johnson with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu, in order to allow a user/owner to choose specific users to share types of information regarding field assets, thereby preventing privileged information from being disseminated to unauthorized users, improving security, efficiency, and utility.
Regarding Claim 13:
This is the method claim corresponding to the system of claim 4, and is therefore rejected for corresponding reasons.
Regarding Claim 21:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 4.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein the ownership store indicates limitations to the information that can be shared with the user accounts
However, Johnson teaches the concept wherein an ownership store indicates limitations to information that can be shared with user accounts (col 15 line 54-col 16 line 10, end-users are able to designate multiple levels of access for themselves and in turn their staff or clients; for example, a trucking company can authorize their customers to receive simple location and shipment status reports, but not reports on equipment condition or driver performance; similarly, the maintenance facility can receive the equipment reports, but not information on shipments or the driver; security provisions and access levels are selectable by end-user through interface with the monitoring system; col 19 line 32-50, user logs in and account number is used to query database for registered assets).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the notification options of Johnson with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu, in order to allow a user/owner to choose specific users to share status change updates regarding field assets, thereby preventing privileged information from being disseminated to unauthorized users, improving security, efficiency, and utility.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Bradley et al (PGPUB 2004/0254963).
Regarding Claim 8:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein the assets include fire panels and intrusion panels.
However, Bradley teaches the concept of a system for managing assets of building management systems (paragraph 7, database containing relevant situational data available to facility managers), wherein the assets include fire panels and intrusion panels (paragraph 20, data comprising facility stored in central database for access by personnel; access mechanism is browser which presents layout of facility and categories of assets for superimposition upon selected layout; paragraph 24, categorized items which are catalogued include, e.g. fire alarm panels and intruder alarm panels; paragraph 43, categorized items incorporated into database).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fire and intrusion panel teachings of Bradley with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu. “Asset” is a broad term encompassing wide categories of objects, inventory, and property, both material (e.g. equipment, real estate) and immaterial (e.g. copyright, software, media files). Fire panels and intrusion panels have particular interest as assets with regard to building management as these items can be critical during emergency situations in order to protect other assets. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would be inclined to include such items in an asset registry to inform any relevant users as to their availability during emergency situations, as addressed in Bradley (e.g. paragraphs 6-7).
Claims 9, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Fernandes et al (PGPUB 2013/0218890).
Regarding Claim 9:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches the system, further comprising sets of asset stores, user account stores and ownership stores being maintained for different organizations.
However, Fernandes teaches the concept of a system, further comprising sets of asset stores, user account stores, and ownership stores being maintained for different organizations (abstract, geographic asset management system; paragraph 57-58, system core divided into four main parts; security part configures roles for users; authentication and authorization checks user’s identification, e.g. username/password using LDAP repository; paragraph 59, authorization component of security defines roles and assignments of roles to users; organizational unit is logical group for partitioning assets; organizational units assigned to users; an asset only belongs to one organizational unit directly; paragraph 64, assets form second part of core of architecture; each asset inherits security rights, enabling asset data to be restricted by user’s role in system; base asset class has attributes of e.g. Name, Description, User Group; therefore, there is an asset store comprising asset data, a user account store holding user account data, and an ownership store linking assets to user accounts; this set of stores is maintained for different organizational units, i.e. organizations).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multiple organization teachings of Fernandes with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu, in order to enable access to a system for managing assets to multiple organizational units, thereby allowing redundant use of equipment in order to minimize costs, while maintaining security through such methods as role-based access control.
Regarding Claim 22:
Davis in view of Donald, Liu, and Fernandes teaches the system as claimed in claim 9. In addition, Fernandes teaches wherein the system provides multiple user accounts for each of the different organizations (abstract, geographic asset management system; paragraph 57-58, system core divided into four main parts; security part configures roles for users; authentication and authorization checks user’s identification, e.g. username/password using LDAP repository; paragraph 59, authorization component of security defines roles and assignments of roles to users; organizational unit is logical group for partitioning assets; organizational units assigned to users; an asset only belongs to one organizational unit directly; paragraph 64, assets form second part of core of architecture; each asset inherits security rights, enabling asset data to be restricted by user’s role in system; base asset class has attributes of e.g. Name, Description, User Group; therefore, there is an asset store comprising asset data, a user account store holding user account data, and an ownership store linking assets to user accounts; this set of stores is maintained for different organizational units, i.e. organizations).
The rationale to combine Davis and Fernandes is the same as provided for claim 9 due to the overlapping subject matter between claims 9 and 22.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Martin et al (PGPUB 2016/0335787).
Regarding Claim 24:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the GUI presents information pertaining to assets owned by and shared with a specific user account via an attribute widget including a plurality of selectable elements and each individual selectable element of the plurality of selectable elements corresponds to one or more assets owned or shared by the specific user account having a same status within the status information (paragraph 105-106, display screen of data export of multiple records from asset inventory survey database; geospatial pins represent each asset record that meets specified criteria, i.e. “a same status within the status information”; when a user selects one of the geospatial pins 1602, a corresponding popup or bubble 1604 may show the field names and field values from the asset record; the bubble 1604 includes ownership information; paragraph 35-37, assets owned by and shared with specific user accounts), and wherein the graphical user interface includes a products list pane for listing the assets to which the specific user account has access (paragraph 64, tabular query results section include a table of query results of the assets nearest the determined center point of the geographical area currently displayed; the table in the tabular query results section can include a first row, such as a heading row for identifying the field of each column, and can include a subsequent row for each record in the query results; the columns include a "Distance" column, a "Nearest Assets" column, a "Wattage" column, and a "Status" column, each of which corresponds to a field in each asset record in the asset survey database; paragraph 68, map section shows geographical map view of a geographical area and shows a set of geospatial pins; in logged-in screen shown in Fig. 5, the survey tool determines the reference point according to a center point of the geographical area currently displayed in the map section, as indicated by the "Center Map" mode; the set of geospatial pins correspond to an initial query result; the initial query result includes asset records that can be edited by the logged in user name) through ownership and sharing as specified in the ownership store (paragraph 35-36, asset owner database configured to store records of asset owners, who own the lighting infrastructure and associated assets corresponding to records stored in asset survey database; survey tool generates relationship link for each record in the asset survey database to link to an asset owner record, such that each asset corresponds to its owner).
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein the selectable elements are selectable arc segments that are arranged around a common hollow circle and each individual selectable arc segment of the plurality of selectable arc segments is rendered with a different color associated with the same status.
However, Martin teaches the concept wherein a graphical user interface displayed on a display of a user device presents information pertaining to assets via an attribute widget including a plurality of selectable arc segments that are arranged around a common hollow circle and each individual selectable arc segment of the plurality of selectable arc segments corresponds to one or more assets having a same status within status information and each individual selectable arc segment of the plurality of selectable arc segments is rendered with a different color associated with the same status (abstract, displaying a status of entities in a segmented graph on a display; paragraph 11, systems for the concise visualization of the status and grouping of a large number of entities, while also allowing specific entities to be selected for the display of further information; entities that may be displayed include storage units, server units, network interface units, power units, user systems, or any combinations; technique may be useful in the management of data centers by providing a fast technique for accessing information about particular units within the data centers; techniques may be useful for managing large corporate networks, including, for example, data storage, individual users, network loading, database conditions, and the like; paragraph 12, each entity can be displayed as a segment of a shape, for example, as a portion of a circle or an arc; the status of each individual entity can be represented by a color; paragraph 29, legend 226 can be included with the display of the arc 200 to identify the status colors; the legend 226 can include items showing the color and number of entities with a status of critical 228, degraded 230, normal 232, unknown 234, and any other status level that can be represented by the entities in the display; paragraph 27, segments can be selected by clicking on them; EXAMINER’S NOTE: the limitation “segments that are arranged around a common hollow circle…” represents a purely aesthetic choice, thus failing to further limit the claim; however, examiner notes that Martin also teaches this limitation: paragraph 32-35, Fig. 4, instead of an arc 200 the geometric shape could be rectangular, circular, or other shapes; the group segments 204 could also be shown as segments in the center of the arc as well, making the entities appear as a band along the outer rim of the arc 200; Fig. 4 shows selectable elements arranged around a hollow center).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive segmented display teachings of Martin with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu. Martin teaches that the described segmented arc/circle graphs are useful for “the concise visualization of the status and grouping of a large number of entities, while also allowing specific entities to be selected for the display of further information” (Martin, paragraph 11). It would therefore be beneficial to combine these teachings with the system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu in order to improve the visualization of large numbers of assets.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Winter et al (PGPUB 2014/0040262).
Regarding Claim 25:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the GUI includes a product detail pane for presenting details of the assets to which the specific user has access and for enabling management of the assets by receiving selections indicating edits to names assigned to the assets (paragraph 68, the initial query result includes asset records that can be edited by the logged in user name; paragraph 94-95, equipment section of GUI generated by survey tool enables survey tool to receive equipment field values that provide detailed description of an asset installed at a particular location; field values include fixture type which could identify manufacture name/model name, etc., as provided by user through dropdown box; paragraph 65, data of “Edit Asset” function saved to inventory survey database).
Neither Davis nor Donal nor Liu explicitly teaches receiving selections indicating changes to groups to which the assets are assigned, and receiving selections indicating changes to the user accounts with which information about the assets can be shared.
However, Winter teaches the concept of receiving selections indicating changes to groups to which assets are assigned, and receiving selections indicating changes to user accounts with which information about the assets can be shared (paragraph 27, the user who has uploaded the new digital asset makes a change to the access privileges for the digital asset (e.g., by sharing the digital asset with another user, a group of users, or the public in general, i.e. “receiving selections indicating changes to user accounts with which information about the assets can be shared”), the shared digital asset will be added to one or more additional search trees, i.e. “selections indicating changes to groups to which assets are assigned”).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the changes to asset group and user sharing group teachings of Winter with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu, in order to improve security and user convenience by allowing the user associated with an asset to reconfigure the group/sharing rules relating to an asset in accordance with changing security/sharing needs, thereby preventing the wasted time and effort which would result from more extreme requirements such as deleting the asset and starting over from scratch.
Claims 30, 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Kunz et al (US 9,852,470) and Li et al (PGPUB 2017/0286455).
Regarding Claim 30:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the GUI presents information pertaining to assets owned by and shared with a specific user account via an attribute widget including a plurality of selectable elements and each individual selectable element of the plurality of selectable elements corresponds to one or more assets owned or shared by the specific user account having a same status within the status information (paragraph 105-106, display screen of data export of multiple records from asset inventory survey database; geospatial pins represent each asset record that meets specified criteria, i.e. “a same status within the status information”; when a user selects one of the geospatial pins 1602, a corresponding popup or bubble 1604 may show the field names and field values from the asset record; the bubble 1604 includes ownership information; paragraph 35-37, assets owned by and shared with specific user accounts).
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein the selectable elements are selectable arc segments that are arranged around a common hollow circle, and wherein the plurality of selectable arc segments are non-continuously arranged around the common hollow circle.
However, Kunz teaches the concept wherein a graphical user interface presents information pertaining to assets via an attribute widget including a plurality of selectable arc segments that are arranged around a common hollow circle, and wherein the plurality of selectable arc segments are non-continuously arranged around the common hollow circle (col 5 line 46-61, the graphical display portion 406 of the analysis tool 404 may be presented as a pie chart with multiple segments, such as an equity segment 422, a fixed income segment 424, and a cash segment 426; in one aspect, by hovering over or selecting the segments 422, 424, 426 with a user manipulation device (e.g., a mouse), information regarding that particular segment 422, 424, 426 can be displayed; in certain embodiments, selecting a segment 422, 424, 426 can also be configured to display a list 428 of the assets or accounts which comprise the selected segment 422, 424, 426; selecting different segments 422, 424, 426 can be performed to filter the holdings in the selected client 104 accounts and generate a revised list 428 EXAMINER’S NOTE: the limitation “segments that are arranged around a common hollow circle, and wherein the plurality of selectable arc segments are non-continuously arranged around the common hollow circle” represents a purely aesthetic choice, thus failing to further limit the claim; however, examiner notes that Martin also teaches this limitation: Fig. 4 clearly shows the segments of a pie graph representing assets non-continuously grouped around a common hollow circle).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the interactive segmented display teachings of Kunz with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu. It is well-known in the art that segmented arc/circle graphs are useful for the concise visualization of the status and grouping of a large number of entities, while also allowing specific entities to be selected for the display of further information. It would therefore be beneficial to combine these teachings with the system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu, in order to improve the visualization of large numbers of assets.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu nor Martin explicitly teaches wherein a length of each of the plurality of selectable arc segments is associated with a respective percentage that each of the selected arc segments represents.
However, Li teaches the concept wherein a length of a plurality of selectable arc segments is associated with a respective percentage that each of the selected arc segments represents (paragraph 288, Fig. 30, validation results overview of a technology add-on (TA), including pie chart with selectable segments showing relative portions of statuses which apply to the TA).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the percentage-based selectable arc segment teachings of Li with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald, Liu, and Kunz. Representing individual slices/segments of a pie chart as different lengths/sizes according to the respective percentage/ratio/proportion represented by each slice has been the most essential and basic function of a pie/ring graph since their invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would certainly be aware of this method of representation, and be inclined to incorporate its use to clearly convey numerical information.
Regarding Claim 46:
Davis in view of Donald, Liu, Kunz, and Li teaches the system as claimed in claim 30. In addition, Li teaches wherein each of the plurality of selectable arc segments is associated with a respective one of a plurality of operational statuses (paragraph 288, Fig. 30, validation results overview of a technology add-on (TA), including pie chart with selectable segments showing relative portions of operational statuses, e.g. “pass”, “warning”, “error”, which apply to the TA).
The rationale to combine Davis and Li is the same as provided for claim 30 due to the overlapping subject matter between claims 30 and 46.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Givens et al (PGPUB 2011/0257994).
Regarding Claim 32:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 31.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein the different job functions comprise accounting, safety, and management.
However, Givens teaches the concept wherein different job functions comprise accounting, safety, and management (paragraph 8, embodiments of the present invention provide a web-based service that hosts a system allowing a distributed network of users using client-server architecture; paragraph 56, web clients 35 can be associated with different users and different user categories or types; each category or type may have a different "privilege" or access level to actions or data associated with the systems 10; for example, the systems 10 can include clinician users, administrative users (i.e. “management”), and accounting users; paragraph 78, the system 10 may also be configured to alert employers via email, postal mail and/or using text messages or other suitable communication protocol 125A to notify an employer (such as Environmental Health and Safety Department personnel or clinical staff)).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multiple job function teachings of Givens with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu. It is well known in the art to provide user interfaces which are operated by multiple different categories of personnel; a person of ordinary skill in the art therefore would design an interface capable of being used by multiple different employees of an organization, such as accounting, management, and safety personnel, without requiring costly redesigns or interfacing of multiple different types of applications.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Want et al (PGPUB 2014/0379397).
Regarding Claim 33:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein the user accounts are used to provide views of different aspects of at least some same ones of the assets of the building management systems responsive to different job functions relating to the assets of the building management systems.
However, Want teaches the concept wherein user accounts are used to provide views of different aspects of at least some same ones of assets of building management systems responsive to different job functions relating to the assets of the building management systems (paragraph 19, a "POPs listing" for an REP refers to one or more potential listings, one or more off-market listings, one or more pre-listings, and/or combinations thereof; paragraph 76, Real Estate Professional (REP) logs onto REP profile via secure web site; paragraph 71-72, a REP may enter one or more features of a POPs listing utilizing a computing platform; a POPs listing feature may comprise one or more descriptive features and/or characteristics of a property; paragraph 74, a REP may electronically choose or set an appropriate level of permissions at block 230 which may designate which REPs, if any, may view and/or access that REP's POPs listings; paragraph 89, electronic permission may be customized in an embodiment; thus, for example, an REP may designate different levels of access and/or for different situations; for example, an REP may set access at a base threshold level, for example, to provide price, square footage, and/or amenities of a POPs listing; however, higher levels of electronic permission, for example, may provide additional access about a POPs listing, such as its geographic location, photos, a custom description, and the like, as just some examples; threshold levels, of course, in different embodiments and/or different situations may be set in a variety of ways; for example, scoring a combination of performance, location, expertise may be employed and/or a REP may choose to set electronic permission level or threshold on a case by case basis after an electronic request, as just an example; paragraph 97, REP scoring based on whether REP represents buyer/seller or both, i.e. “different job functions”).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the permission-based information presentation teachings of Want with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu, in order to protect confidential information from unauthorized users or users whose job function did not meet the appropriate permission level, thereby improving the security environment.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Campion et al (PGPUB 2008/0084291).
Regarding Claim 37:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein a user account associated with an asset provides a view of the assets relating to local and national fire code compliance for each of the assets of a company.
However, Campion teaches the concept wherein a user account associated with an asset provides a view of the assets relating to local and national fire code compliance for each of the assets of a company (abstract, authenticated test of life safety equipment having components including a control panel and sensors; the life safety equipment requires testing according to a fire code; paragraph 48, users preferably have visual access to the entire up-to-date inspection report with all devices marked that have been successfully tested by all users; users are able to then select any remaining alarm devices to be tested, installed or the like, and answer questions; in addition to including portable devices, devices 532-535 can include a dedicated workstation with internet access that can be used, for example, by inspection managers, inspectors, facility managers, fire officials, or other persons who may be interested in the information collected, to access complete inspections and view progress reports on inspection status, where inspections are in progress).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fire code compliance report teachings of Campion with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu in order to improve overall site safety and reduce risk by providing a means of seeing asset compliance with fire codes and the most recent testing data, thereby preventing equipment malfunctions in the event of a disaster such as a fire.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of O’Connor et al (PGPUB 2017/0192628) and Iskandar et al (PGPUB 2009/0204452).
Regarding Claim 38:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein a particular asset grouping is created that is based on assets installed on or after a certain date.
However, O’Connor teaches the concept wherein a particular asset grouping is created that is based on assets installed on or after a certain date (paragraph 92, child nodes 706A-706C are illustrated as being connected to the child node 706 (i.e., the group node) because each of child nodes 706A-706C are communicatively connected (e.g., through a wired connection, wireless connection, or both) to one or more of the industrial assets contained within the child node 706; child nodes 706A-706C are illustrated separately from child node 706 because each of child nodes 706A-706C (e.g., the industrial asset represented by the node) has a characteristic or property different than the industrial assets grouped within the child node 706; as an example, supposing that the industrial assets of child node 706 are grouped according to install date, child nodes 706A-706C may each have a different install date; as another example, supposing that the industrial assets of child node 706 are grouped according to location and technician, child nodes 706A-706C may each have a different location and/or technician).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the asset installation date grouping of O’Connor with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu. It is well-known in the art to provide the ability to group information items by various characteristics such as date. This provides end-users the ability to categorize data to accomplish necessary tasks, such as creating a maintenance schedule, etc. It would therefore be beneficial to incorporate such sorting methods into an asset management system such as the one taught by Davis in view of Donald and Liu.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu nor O’Connor explicitly teaches wherein the particular asset grouping relates to accounting management of assets by users in an accounting division within a company.
However, Iskandar teaches the concept wherein a particular asset grouping relates to accounting management of assets by users in an accounting division within a company (paragraph 15, the assets 108 comprise devices associated with the enterprise and may include computers, servers, routers, data storage devices, a personal computer, a workstation, network computer, personal data assistant (PDA), one or more processors within these or other devices, or any other suitable processing device; each asset 108 may be associated with a group 103 and/or an individual within a department 103. For example, a group of assets 108 may be associated with a corporate department 103 (e.g., accounting, marketing, research and development), a geographic or network (sub-net) region (e.g., United States, Europe), a location (e.g., building, floor in building), a customized group (e.g., "Bill's Group"), or any other suitable categorization of assets 108).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the accounting asset grouping teachings of Iskandar with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald, Liu, and O’Connor. It is well-known in the art to provide the ability to group information items by various characteristics such as departmental association. This provides end-users the ability to categorize data to accomplish necessary tasks, such as identifying groups responsible for asset management, etc. It would therefore be beneficial to incorporate such sorting methods into an asset management system such as the one taught by Davis in view of Donald, Liu and O’Connor.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Dongieux (PGPUB 2015/0120359).
Regarding Claim 39:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein asset groupings are created that organize assets in accordance with locations of relative risk.
However, Dongieux teaches the concept wherein asset groupings are created that organize assets in accordance with locations of relative risk (paragraph 156, FIGS. 8-11 illustrate several of the integrated asset dependency visualizations automatically generated by MCIM; in FIG. 8, the user allows a cursor to hover over a server rack asset 2501 in the user interface; in response, the MCIM system automatically displays the upstream assets 2502 that are critical to server rack's 2501 proper function; FIG. 9 shows visualizations 2601 across an entire infrastructure, and in the form of circular graphical elements showing dependencies between numerous assets; FIG. 10 shows a visualization of risk relationships and dependencies among the engineering and IT infrastructure assets of a single facility 2701 by assigning risk values based on the remaining useful life and the number of incidents associated with the asset 2702, which represent two of many possible variables by which the present embodiment may assign risk; the information displayed in 2703 represent a wider view of the risks assigned to multiple assets within a site to give a user insight into the total risk profile of a site).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the risk grouping teachings of Dongieux with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu, in order to provide a means of sorting asset data into locations based on level of risk, thereby allowing an organization to determine location based risk profiles and prioritize tasks targeting mitigation of risk at sites with the highest risk profile.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Donald and Liu, and further in view of Parekh et al (PGPUB 2013/0267179).
Regarding Claim 44:
Davis in view of Donald and Liu teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Neither Davis nor Donald nor Liu explicitly teaches wherein the GUI further comprises a user selectable test notification checkbox that, when checked by the user, causes the server computer to send a notification to the user device when a corresponding one of the different assets is in a test mode.
However, Parekh teaches the concept wherein a GUI comprises a user selectable test notification checkbox that, when checked by a user, causes a server computer to send a notification to a user device when a corresponding one of different assets is in a test mode (paragraph 78-81, schedule test user interface 600 includes a test name field 616 for input of a name of a test, a device number field 618 for input of a device number associated with the selected device, and a device location field 620 for input of a location of the selected device; the test description information 622C identifies a message test that has been selected as indicated by the checked checkbox, the contacted device number field 624C allows for input of a telephone number of a device that is to be contacted for the message test, the repeat test field 626C allows for input of a number of times the message test is to be repeated, the call duration field 628C is grayed out to indicate that a call duration is not needed for the message test, and the text field 630D allows for input of text to be included in the messages used for the message test).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the test notification teachings of Parekh with the user/owner data sharing asset management system of Davis in view of Donald and Liu, with the benefit of providing an interface which allows a user to have more control over the configuration of various tests, thereby permitting ease of use and efficiency in configuring a test in accordance with the testing requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to independent claims 10 and 19 are similar to those regarding claim 1 and are therefore responded to in a similar way.
Applicant further argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to depending on an allowable independent claim. However, as shown above, the independent claims are not allowable.
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 FORREST L CAREY whose telephone number is (571)270-7814. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:30PM M-F.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/FORREST L CAREY/Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights