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