DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed February 25, 2026. Claims 11, 23, and 25 are amended. Claims 11, 13–15, and 23–25 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 11 and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 11 and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the previous rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated rejections asserted below. Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, and Applicant is directed to the relevant explanation below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed February 26, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 23–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmouni et al. (U.S. 2016/0110666) and in view of Neagu et al. (U.S. 2014/0052487), and in further view of Vikse (CA 2476636).
Claim 23: Rahmouni discloses a computer system (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 21) for providing a document to a user, comprising:
a data repository (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 24); and
a mobile computing device comprising a receiver/transmitter, a display screen, and an input device (See FIG. 1, FIG. 3, and paragraph 119), the mobile computing device being configured to:
identify the user of the mobile computing device (See paragraphs 26–27, wherein a worker is identified upon log in);
transmit a request to the data repository for the data repository to transmit, to the mobile computing device, data associated with the user (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 24 and 26–27, wherein a worker is identified upon log in and receives data associated with the user from a database and statements repository);
receive a transmission from the data repository comprising the data associated with the user, the data associated with the user comprising data representing one or more jobs that the user is allocated to (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 26–27, wherein workers may see information related to the processes, sub-processes, and tasks that the worker is working on);
display to the user each of the one or more jobs on a display of the mobile computing device (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 26–27, wherein tasks are displayed on a worker device display);
receive a transmission comprising data representing a plurality of document types associated with the role of the user in respect to the selected job (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 52, wherein statement types are displayed to a user in a statement selector; and see paragraph 37, in view of paragraph 34, wherein statement types are received according to a worker’s role);
display to the user each of the plurality of document types (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 52, wherein statement types are displayed to a user in a statement selector);
receive from the user via the input device of the mobile computing device, a selection of one of the plurality of document types (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 37 and 52, wherein a worker selects a statement type using a statement selector);
retrieve the document of the selected document type in an electronic form, from the data repository according to the selected job and the selected document type (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 37, wherein a statement template is retrieved when a worker selects a statement type, and see paragraphs 29 and 31, wherein templates are associated with processes and statement types);
display the document to the user on the display of the mobile computing device (See paragraph 37, wherein a statement template is displayed when a worker selects a statement type, and paragraph 27, wherein a display is disclosed);
receive via the input device an indication to complete the document (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 39, wherein the worker selects a button to confirm a completion/save action within the interface);
display on the display screen one or more actions to the user for selection using the mobile computing device, wherein the one or more actions are filtered from a plurality of possible actions such that each action is determined to be able to be performed by the user in relation to the document or a document derived therefrom (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 27 and 38, wherein the worker may select one of the arguments of the statement template on a display device screen, and see paragraph 33, wherein argument portions are automatically configured based on configurations of the parent process; see also paragraph 55, in view of paragraph 38, wherein actionable statements are viewable according to filtering criteria, such as statement type, and wherein each statement identifies selectable actions/arguments associated with the statement);
receive, via the input device, a selection of one of the one or more actions (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 38, wherein the worker may select one of the arguments of the statement template); and
transmit the selection (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 38, in view of FIG. 1 and paragraph 54, wherein the worker may select one of the arguments of the statement template, and wherein the selection is implicitly transmitted), wherein the transmission of the selection initiates the selected action (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 38, in view of FIG. 1 and paragraph 54, wherein the worker may select one of the arguments of the statement template, and wherein the selection implicitly initiates the action).
Although Rahmouni discloses selecting process items (See paragraphs 26–27) and associated tasks with a given role (See paragraph 34), Rahmouni does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Neagu discloses a system for controlling availability of actions related to the document (See paragraph 17, wherein jobs are blocked from dispatch when selected by a given worker; see also FIG. 2C–Fig. 2E and paragraph 21, wherein jobs checked out by one worker are not available to be selected), comprising:
functions to receive from the user a selection of a job from the one or more jobs using an input device of the mobile computing device (See paragraphs 15 and 17, wherein workers may select available jobs using a mobile device; see also FIG. 2C–Fig. 2E and paragraph 21);
receive a transmission from the data repository comprising data representing a role of the user in respect of the selected job (See paragraphs 15 and 17, wherein upon selection of a given job, worker devices receive data forms representing the role of the user; see also FIG. 2C–Fig. 2E and paragraph 21); and
determine that the selected action is selected; block selection of one or more second actions related to the selected action by other users until the selected action is completed based upon the determination; and perform a selected one of the second actions unless the selected second action is blocked from being selected (See paragraph 17, wherein jobs are blocked from dispatch when selected by a given worker; see also FIG. 2C–Fig. 2E and paragraph 21, wherein jobs checked out by one worker are not available to be selected).
Rahmouni discloses a system directed to managing worker process documents. Similarly, Neagu discloses a system directed to managing worker dispatch forms. Each reference discloses system directed to managing worker documents. The technique of selecting role-based jobs is applicable to the system of Rahmouni as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing documents.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Neagu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Neagu to the teachings of Rahmouni would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate document management into similar systems. Further, applying role-based job selection to Rahmouni would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed and improved management. Although the remaining elements are interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive material and have been afforded limited patentable weight, the remaining elements are mapped in the interest of compact prosecution. Rahmouni and Neagu do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Vikse discloses wherein the one or more jobs involve risk of injury or death and for which the risk related document is used by the user for mitigating against the risk of injury or death (See “Advance Submission for Permits Allows the Commissioning Supervisor to Plan for Work Day, pages 2–3, wherein permits are disclosed in the context of tasks having an impact on safety);
wherein the risk related document either a permit to work or a risk assessment document (See page 1, wherein permit to work documents are disclosed);
receive via the input device of the computing device, a selection of at least one of (i) a risk type associated with the risk related document and (ii) a permit type required when working on the selected job (See page 5, wherein “When a permit application is sent, it includes the grid axis area of the plant plot plan that drills down to specific equipment numbers or piping codes and categories of work,” and pages 5–6, in view of Abstract, wherein types of permits are graphically displayed according to risk levels upon selection in the permit application; see also page 3, wherein the permit application is generated electronically); and
the action is one of the following: transfer of the permit to work, closure of the permit to work, extension of the permit to work that is due to expire and closure of the risk assessment document (See page 8, wherein the foreman “may re-apply electronically for a new permit or permit extension”, and wherein recertification of a permit to a next shift is a permit transfer; and see Abstract and claim 1, wherein closure of the permit to work actions are disclosed).
As disclosed above, Rahmouni discloses a system directed to managing worker process documents, and Neagu discloses a system directed to managing worker dispatch forms. Vikse discloses a system directed to managing work according to work permits. Each reference discloses system directed to managing work information. The technique of utilizing permit to work documents and actions is applicable to the systems of Rahmouni and Neagu as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing work information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Vikse would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Vikse to the teachings of Rahmouni and Neagu would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate work information management into similar systems. Further, applying permit to work documents and actions to Rahmouni and Neagu would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed and improved data management.
Claim 24: Rahmouni does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 24.
Neagu discloses functions to receive an unblock communication indicating that the selected action is completed and allow selection using the input device of one of the one or more second actions that were previously blocked from being selected (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 17, wherein jobs are blocked when checked out by a worker using a mobile device and available when job are checked in upon completion; see also FIG. 2C–Fig. 2E and paragraph 21, wherein jobs checked out by one worker are not available to be selected).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Neagu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 23.
Claims 11, 13–14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmouni et al. (U.S. 2016/0110666) and in view of Neagu et al. (U.S. 2014/0052487), and in further view of Vikse (CA 2476636) and MAETZ et al. (U.S. 2015/0317571).
Claims 11 and 25: Rahmouni discloses a computer-implemented (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 21) method of providing a document to a user of a mobile computing device (See FIG. 1 and FIG. 3), comprising:
identifying the user of the mobile computing device using the mobile computing device (See paragraphs 26–27, wherein a worker is identified upon log in);
transmitting a request to a data repository for the data repository to transmit, to the mobile computing device, data associated with the user (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 24 and 26–27, wherein a worker is identified upon log in and receives data associated with the user from a database and statements repository);
receiving, at the mobile computing device, a transmission from the data repository comprising the data associated with the user, the data associated with the user comprising data representing one or more jobs that the user is allocated to (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 26–27, wherein workers may see information related to the processes, sub-processes, and tasks that the worker is working on);
displaying to the user each of the one or more jobs on a display of the mobile computing device (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 26–27, wherein tasks are displayed on a worker device display);
receiving, at the mobile computing device, a transmission comprising data comprising a plurality of document types (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 52, wherein statement types are displayed to a user in a statement selector);
displaying, on the display of the mobile computing device, to the user, each of the plurality of document types (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 52, wherein statement types are displayed to a user in a statement selector);
receiving, at the mobile computing device, from the user via the input device of the mobile computing device, a selection of one of the plurality of document types (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 37 and 52, wherein a worker selects a statement type using a statement selector);
retrieving, by the mobile computing device, the document of the selected document type in an electronic form, from the data repository according to the selected job and the selected document type (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 37, wherein a statement template is retrieved when a worker selects a statement type, and see paragraphs 29 and 31, wherein templates are associated with processes and statement types);
displaying the document to the user on the display of the mobile computing device (See paragraph 37, wherein a statement template is displayed when a worker selects a statement type, and paragraph 27, wherein a display is disclosed);
displaying to the user on the display one or more actions to the user for selection using the mobile computing device (See FIG. 3 and paragraphs 27 and 38, wherein the worker may select one of the arguments of the statement template on a display device screen, and see paragraph 33, wherein argument portions are automatically configured based on configurations of the parent process);
receiving, at the mobile computing device, via the input device, a selection of one of the one or more actions (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 38, wherein the worker may select one of the arguments of the statement template); and
transmitting the selection from the mobile computing device (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 38, wherein the worker may select one of the arguments of the statement template, and wherein the selection is implicitly transmitted);
wherein the transmission of the selection initiates the selected action (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 38, wherein the worker may select one of the arguments of the statement template, and wherein the selection implicitly initiates the action).
Although Rahmouni discloses selecting process items (See paragraphs 26–27) and associated tasks with a given role (See paragraph 34), Rahmouni does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Neagu discloses a method of controlling availability of actions related to a document (See paragraph 17, wherein jobs are blocked from dispatch when selected by a given worker; see also FIG. 2C–Fig. 2E and paragraph 21, wherein jobs checked out by one worker are not available to be selected) comprising:
receiving from the user a selection of a job from the one or more jobs using an input device of the mobile computing device (See paragraphs 15 and 17, wherein workers may select available jobs using a mobile device; see also FIG. 2C–Fig. 2E and paragraph 21); and
wherein the transmission of the selection initiates the selected action and when the selected action is selected, wherein transmitting the selection causes blocking selection of one or more second actions related to the selected action by other users until the selected action is completed, wherein the one or more second actions are displayed on the mobile computing device, wherein the one or more second actions are able to be performed in relation to the document or the document derived therefrom, unless the one or more second actions are blocked from being selected until the selected action is completed (See paragraph 17, wherein jobs are blocked from dispatch when selected by a given worker, and wherein jobs are checked in upon completion; see also FIG. 2C–Fig. 2E and paragraph 21, wherein jobs are displayed as checked out by one worker and not available to be selected).
Rahmouni discloses a system directed to managing worker process documents. Similarly, Neagu discloses a system directed to managing worker dispatch forms. Each reference discloses system directed to managing worker documents. The technique of selecting role-based jobs is applicable to the system of Rahmouni as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing documents.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Neagu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Neagu to the teachings of Rahmouni would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate document management into similar systems. Further, applying role-based job selection to Rahmouni would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed and improved management. Although the remaining elements are interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive material and have been afforded limited patentable weight, the remaining elements are mapped in the interest of compact prosecution. Rahmouni and Neagu do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Vikse discloses wherein the one or more jobs involve risk of injury or death and for which the risk related document is used by the user for mitigating against the risk of injury or death (See “Advance Submission for Permits Allows the Commissioning Supervisor to Plan for Work Day, pages 2–3, wherein permits are disclosed in the context of tasks having an impact on safety);
wherein the risk related document either a permit to work or a risk assessment document (See page 1, wherein permit to work documents are disclosed);
receiving, at the computing device, from the user via the input device of the computing device, a selection of at least one of (i) a risk type associated with the risk related document and (ii) a permit type required when working on the selected job (See page 5, wherein “When a permit application is sent, it includes the grid axis area of the plant plot plan that drills down to specific equipment numbers or piping codes and categories of work,” and pages 5–6, in view of Abstract, wherein types of permits are graphically displayed according to risk levels upon selection in the permit application; see also page 3, wherein the permit application is generated electronically);
receiving, at the computing device, input from the user, via the input device, to complete the risk related document (See page 1, wherein permit to work documents are disclosed, and see page 3, wherein the “a supervisor creates a new permit and fills out all the appropriate information electronically”); and
the action is one of the following: transfer of the permit to work, closure of the permit to work, extension of the permit to work that is due to expire and closure of the risk assessment document (See page 8, wherein the foreman “may re-apply electronically for a new permit or permit extension”, and wherein recertification of a permit to a next shift is equivalent to a permit transfer; and see Abstract and claim 1, wherein closure of the permit to work actions are disclosed).
As disclosed above, Rahmouni discloses a system directed to managing worker process documents, and Neagu discloses a system directed to managing worker dispatch forms. Vikse discloses a system directed to managing work according to work permits. Each reference discloses system directed to managing work information. The technique of utilizing permit to work documents and actions is applicable to the systems of Rahmouni and Neagu as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing work information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Vikse would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Vikse to the teachings of Rahmouni and Neagu would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate work information management into similar systems. Further, applying permit to work documents and actions to Rahmouni and Neagu would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed and improved data management. Rahmouni, Neagu, and Vikse do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Maetz discloses receiving, at the mobile computing device, a transmission from the data repository comprising a role of the user in respect of the selected job (See paragraphs 35 and 38, wherein, upon selecting a project, a user may visualize and select a role in the selected project);
receiving, at the mobile computing device, a transmission comprising data comprising a plurality of documents defined by the role of the user in respect to the selected job (See paragraphs 35 and 38, in view of paragraph 32, wherein, upon selecting a project and a role within the project, the system transmits tasks, communications, and other documents to the device according to the selected project and role); and
wherein the one or more actions are filtered from a plurality of possible actions such that each action is determined to be able to be performed by the user in relation to the document or a document derived therefrom (See paragraphs 32–33, wherein possible actions depend on the role of a given user with respect to a project).
As disclosed above, Rahmouni discloses a system directed to managing worker process documents, Neagu discloses a system directed to managing worker dispatch forms, and Vikse discloses a system directed to managing work according to work permits. Maetz discloses a system directed to managing filming preproduction using job and role management. Each reference discloses system directed to managing work information. The technique of transmitting a role in respect of a selected job is applicable to the systems of Rahmouni, Neagu, and Vikse as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing work information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Maetz would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Maetz to the teachings of Rahmouni, Neagu, and Vikse would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate work information management into similar systems. Further, applying role transmissions in respect to a selected job to Rahmouni, Neagu, and Vikse would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed and improved management.
Claim 13: Rahmouni does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 13.
Neagu discloses receiving, at the mobile computing device, an unblock communication indicating that a related action is completed and then allowing selection of one of the one or more second actions that was previously blocked using the input device of the mobile computing device (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 17, wherein jobs are blocked when checked out by a worker using a mobile device and available when job are checked in upon completion; see also FIG. 2C–Fig. 2E and paragraph 21, wherein jobs checked out by one worker are not available to be selected).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Neagu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 11.
Claim 14: Rahmouni discloses a method according to claim 11, further comprising: submitting the document to an other device (See FIG. 1–FIG. 2 and paragraph 39, wherein completed templates are saved on the worker service system). Rahmouni does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Neagu discloses locking the document from change on the other device unless the received data representing the role of the user in respect to the selected job is a role that permits a change to the document (See paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein dispatch forms are locked from users who do not have the associated job type role, and wherein deploying a form to a co-worker is based on the job type associated with the file).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Neagu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 11.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmouni et al. (U.S. 2016/0110666) and in further view of Neagu et al. (U.S. 2014/0052487), and in further view of Vikse (CA 2476636), MAETZ et al. (U.S. 2015/0317571), and Ward, II (U.S. 2015/0046977).
Claim 15: As disclosed above, Rahmouni, Neagu, Vikse, and Maetz disclose the elements of claim 11.
Rahmouni discloses a method according to claim 11, further comprising: receiving, at the mobile computing device, one or more inputs from the user to answer questions in the document (See FIG. 3 and paragraph 38, wherein the worker may select one of the arguments of the statement template and provide input values). Rahmouni, Neagu, Vikse, and Maetz do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Ward discloses receiving from the data repository expected answers that indicate safe work conditions; checking that each of the one or more inputs from the user matches a respective received expected answer; and indicating on a display of the mobile computing device that work conditions are unsafe when one or more of the one or more inputs does not match the expected answers (See FIG. 1, FIG. 4, and paragraph 47, wherein inputs are compared to permitted values, and wherein notifications are generated when input values exceed permitted values).
As disclosed above, Rahmouni discloses a system directed to managing worker process documents, Neagu discloses a system directed to managing worker dispatch forms, Vikse discloses a system directed to managing work according to work permits, and Maetz discloses a system directed to managing filming preproduction using job and role management. Similarly, Ward discloses managing permit data entry. Each reference discloses system directed to managing work information. The technique of checking inputs is applicable to the systems of Rahmouni, Neagu, Vikse, and Maetz as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing work information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ward would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ward to the teachings of Rahmouni, Neagu, Vikse, and Maetz would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate work information management into similar systems. Further, applying input checking to Rahmouni, Neagu, Vikse, and Maetz would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed and improved data management.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights