DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 09/11/2025. Claim 65 has been canceled. Claims 17, 21, 24, 33-35, 54, 56-59, 62, 64, and 66 have been amended. Therefore, claims 17-64 and 66 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Previous Double Patenting
1. The Examiner respectfully withdraws the previous double patenting rejections per the amendments.
Claim Objections
2. The claims in this application are objected to because they do not commence on a separate sheet or electronic page in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(3) and 1.75(h). Appropriate correction is required in response to this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 17-64 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claims 17, 21, 24, recite a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
6. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites:
“selectively allowing a class of users access, wherein the class of users comprises: (1) an owner of the owned asset, (2) an approval authority, and (3) inspectors;”, “retrieving records of the owned asset…that is…accessible by at least two users of the class of users and augmentable by at least one user of the class of users;”, “analyzing…the records of the owned asset…to determine whether the owned asset is due for inspection or overdue for inspection;”, “creating…an inspection list based on the analyzing of the records of the owned asset, wherein the inspection list includes a current status of the owned asset, wherein the current status includes whether the owned asset is due for inspection or overdue for inspection;”, “retrieving a list of at least one qualified inspector of the inspectors;”, “notifying the approval authority of the current status of the owned asset;”, “notifying the owner of the owned asset of an impending deadline for the inspection and of a description of the type of inspection;”, “providing access to inspection data including the inspection list and the list of at least one qualified inspector to an owner of the owned asset before an inspection of the owned asset;”, “providing access to inspection data including the inspection list and the list of at least one qualified inspector to an approval authority before an inspection of the owned asset;”, “receiving a request from the owner to schedule an inspection of the owned asset by the at least one qualified inspector;”, “scheduling, in response to the request, an inspection of the owned asset by the at least one qualified inspector;”, “receiving information from the at least one qualified inspector regarding the inspection;”, “compiling a report based upon the information from the at least one qualified inspector regarding the inspection of the owned asset;”, “transmitting the report to the approval authority;”, “wherein, if the information includes a noted deficiency, transmitting…a deficiency notice to the owner of the owned asset;”, “augmenting…the records relative to the owned asset to reflect an updated status of the owned asset by the approval authority;”, “receiving…be operated by a firefighter responding to a fire, a request for information regarding the at least one fire hydrant;”, retrieving…in response to the request for each of the at least one fire hydrant, a geographical location and availability for use of the respective fire hydrant;”
Claim 21 recites:
“selectively allowing…access…to a class of users comprising: (1) an owner of the owned asset, (2) an approval authority, and (3) inspectors;”, “notifying the owner of the owned asset that the owned asset is due for an inspection;”, “generating a list of at least one inspector of the inspectors available to inspect the owned asset;”, “notifying the approval authority of the status of the owned asset;”, “transmitting a standard form notification to the owner of the owned asset, including the list of the at least one inspector of the inspectors and, a description of the inspection, and a cost associated with the type of inspection, indicating that the owned asset requires an inspection;”, “providing access to inspection data including the standard form notification and the list of at least one inspector to an owner of the owned asset before an inspection of the owned asset;”, “providing access to inspection data including the standard form notification and the list of at least one inspector to an approval authority before an inspection of the owned asset;”, “receiving, after the inspection is performed, inspection information indicating a status of the owned asset, wherein if the inspection information includes a noted deficiency in the status of the owned asset, the owner of the owned asset is informed of the noted deficiency;”, “after the noted deficiency is corrected, notifying the approval authority of the inspection information;”, “receiving approval from the approval authority;”, “transmitting an approval notification to the owner of approval by the approving authority;” and “wherein the owned asset requires compliance with industry inspection rules and regulations or one more laws selected from the set of laws comprising a code, local rule, state law, and federal law;”, “wherein compliance with the one or more laws requires periodic inspection of the owned asset”, “receiving…being operated by a firefighter responding to a fire, a request for information regarding the at least one fire hydrant;”, “retrieving…in response to the request for each of the at least one fire hydrant, a respective geographical location and a respective operational statues of the respective fire hydrant” ”
Claim 24 recites:
“selectively allowing access to…a class of users and wherein the class of users comprises: (1) an owner of the owned asset, (2) an approval authority, and (3) inspectors;”, “retrieving…records of assets…being accessible by at least two users of the class of users and augmentable by at least one user of the class of users;”, “analyzing the records of the owned asset…to identify notification events of the owned asset;”, “notifying the owner of the owned asset of a notification event specific to the owned asset, wherein the notification event specific to the owned asset includes description of a required inspection, wherein the notification event indicates, to the owner of the owned asset in advance of an impending deadline for the required inspection, that the owned asset is due for an inspection, and wherein the owner of the owned asset has access to update and review status of the owned asset;”, based upon the analysis, sending notice to the approval authority of the status of the owned asset, and wherein the approval authority, upon accessing…, has access to update and review status of the owned asset;”, “providing access to inspection data including the notification event and inspectors available to inspect the owned asset to an owner of the owned asset before an inspection of the owned asset;”, “providing access to inspection data including the notification event and the inspectors available to inspect the owned asset to an approval authority before an inspection of the owned asset;”, “selecting, by the owner of the owned asset, an inspector from the inspectors available to inspect the owned asset;”, “receiving, from the inspector, inspection information;”, “storing the inspection information…in association with the owned asset wherein the inspection information is accessible to each of the class of the users;”, “transmitting to the approval authority, a compliance report based on the inspection information including any deficiency in the owned asset and storing the deficiency in association with the owned asset…,wherein the owned asset requires compliance with industry inspection rules and regulations of one or more laws selected from the set of laws comprising a code, local rule, state law, and federal law, and wherein compliance with the one or more laws requires periodic inspection of the owned asset, receiving…being operated by a firefighter responding to a fire, a request for information regarding the at least one fire hydrant;”, “retrieving…in response to the request for information regarding each of the at least one fire hydrant, a respective geographical location and respective availability status of the respective fire hydrant;”
The limitations as drafted under their broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea for managing regulatory compliance of assets, i.e., fire hydrants, and interactions between different parties that maintain and use the assets which encompasses fundamental economic practices (i.e., mitigating risks) and managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Thus, the limitations cover subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping enumerated in MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)
The Applicant’s specification in at least ¶ [0008] A global registry currently does not exist for many owned asset areas and more specifically in the fire hydrant space resulting in a lack of global knowledge available when making widespread decisions regarding fire hydrants or a water system. The disadvantage of using current fire hydrant management software is the limitation of communication within the department and interdepartmentally. Commonly the person who inputs the data is not the one who uses the data, the software is limited to a specific computer, and the system of inputting and using data relies on the location and type of the specific computer. For example, the fire department personnel may inspect the fire hydrant and document required maintenance, but the hydrant maintenance crew (commonly water department personnel) does not have easy access to the software and cannot review or update required maintenance. Also, the maintenance crew does not have an easy way to communicate the status of a damaged hydrant to the fire marshal. There is not a software program that gives one department the ability to share their information with other departments either using the same software or using other software.
.
The series of steps in the context of the claim recite legal interactions/obligations related to regulatory compliance of assets and managing the interactions between parties involved in facilitating the inspections to keep the assets in compliance. The series of steps also manage the interactions of a firefighter that may query hydrant information when responding to a fire. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices such as mitigating risks or commercial interactions such as business relations or managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
7. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “an asset management software system”, “by the asset management software system”, “from a database”, “remotely”, “at the database”, “from a handheld computing device”, “with the handheld computing device” – see claim 17, “remote”, “a compliance management software registry system”, “a web-portal”, “the compliance management software registry system”, “from a handheld computer device”, “from the compliance management software registry system with the handheld computer device” - see claim 21, “the web-based registry”, “wherein the web-based registry is configured to run a fire hydrant management software”, “by a computer-based fire hydrant management software system”, “from a database”, “the database”, “wherein the fire hydrant management software comprises software instructions”, “in a database”, “in the database”, “wherein the fire hydrant management software comprises software instructions for managing the maintenance and inspection of hydrants and other assets selected from a fire sprinkler system, a kitchen hood system, a fire extinguisher, fire hydrant, fire pump, standpipe, and a backflow preventer, including instructions for analyzing the records for such assets, notifying the owner of such assets and the approval authority of requisite inspections thereof, and providing instructions regarding such inspections;”, “at the web-based registry from a handheld computing device”, “, from the web-based registry with the handheld computing device” – see claim 24 are all recited in the specification at a high-level of generality. Thus, because applicant’s specification and remarks describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting generic computer components and functionalities in light of the disclosure. These claimed additional elements merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)
The other additional elements of: “displaying…a map showing the respective geographical location and the respective availability of each of the at least one fire hydrant.” – see claim 17 & 24, “displaying…a map showing the respective geographical location and the respective operational status of each of the at least one fire hydrant” – see claim 21, adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data output, to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (g)
The other additional element of: “a computer-implemented method…accessible via a web registry to track a requisite inspection of an owned asset that includes at least one fire hydrant and that also include at least one of a fire sprinkler system, a kitchen hood system, a fire extinguisher, fire pump, standpipe, or a backflow preventer, the computer-implemented method comprising:” recited in the preamble is an attempt to limit the claimed invention a particular field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
8. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “an asset management software system”, “by the asset management software system”, “from a database”, “remotely”, “at the database”, “from a handheld computing device”, “with the handheld computing device” – see claim 17, “remote”, “a compliance management software registry system”, “a web-portal”, “the compliance management software registry system”, “from a handheld computer device”, “from the compliance management software registry system with the handheld computer device” - see claim 21, “the web-based registry”, “wherein the web-based registry is configured to run a fire hydrant management software”, “by a computer-based fire hydrant management software system”, “from a database”, “the database”, “wherein the fire hydrant management software comprises software instructions”, “in a database”, “in the database”, “wherein the fire hydrant management software comprises software instructions for managing the maintenance and inspection of hydrants and other assets selected from a fire sprinkler system, a kitchen hood system, a fire extinguisher, fire hydrant, fire pump, standpipe, and a backflow preventer, including instructions for analyzing the records for such assets, notifying the owner of such assets and the approval authority of requisite inspections thereof, and providing instructions regarding such inspections;”, “at the web-based registry from a handheld computing device”, “, from the web-based registry with the handheld computing device” – see claim 24, amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and does not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The other additional elements of: “displaying…a map showing the respective geographical location and the respective availability of each of the at least one fire hydrant.” – see claim 17 & 24, “displaying…a map showing the respective geographical location and the respective operational status of each of the at least one fire hydrant”” were considered as insignificant extra-solution activity above.
At Step 2B, the evaluation insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is routine, well-known, or conventional. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II), the Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, Alice court decisions held that “arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”, and “presenting offers and gathering statistics” are recognized computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. As such, the limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim(s) are ineligible at Step 2B.
9. Dependent claims include 18-20, 22-23, 25-64, 66 for claims 17, 21, and 24.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the approval authority has access to update and review the status of the owned asset.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 19 recites “further comprising: prior to the owner accessing the list of at least one qualified inspector, transmitting to the at least one qualified inspector information about the owned asset sufficient to enable the at least one qualified inspector to generate at least one bid to inspect the owned asset; transmitting the at least one bid to the owner of the owned asset to allow the owner to accept the at least one bid from an inspector from the list of at least one qualified inspector to inspect the owned asset; transmitting the at least one received bid to inspect the owned asset; and transmitting to the inspector whose bid was accepted by the owner an acceptance of the bid.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 20 recites “wherein the deficiency notice includes a quality test and a course of action based upon the deficiency notice, with the course of action including a remedy of the noted deficiency” which further describes the data/information recited in the abstract idea but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 22 recites “wherein the web registry includes a database with initial information about the owned asset that requires periodic inspection.” which further describes the type of data/information recited in the abstract idea but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 23 recites “wherein the receiving inspection information, further comprises: collecting inspection information using a handheld device” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 25 recites “wherein the storing further includes storing, in association with the owned asset a new deadline date, based upon completion of the inspection.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 26 recites “wherein, prior to the selecting of the inspector by the owner, the method further comprises: receiving bids to perform the inspection of the owned asset from a group of the inspectors; and presenting the bids to the owner.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 27 recites “further comprising scheduling the inspection of the owned asset based upon deadlines, availability of the inspector selected by the owner, and availability of the owned asset.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 28 recites “further comprising: receiving, from the inspector, one or more photographs of the owned asset; and storing the photographs in association with the owned asset and a date of the inspection.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 29 recites “the method of Claim 24 further comprising: selecting a deficiency deadline to remedy the deficiency; and storing in association with the owned asset the deficiency deadline.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 30 recites “further comprising: receiving bids to remedy the deficiency, with the bids sent from a group of qualified contractors; and presenting to the owner a compilation of the bids for selection of a contractor of the qualified contractors to remedy the deficiency.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 31 recites “further comprising scheduling the contractor of the qualified contractors to remedy the deficiency based upon the deficiency deadline, availability of the contractor, and availability of the owned asset.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 32 recites “further comprising compiling a compliance report including the noted deficiency.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 33 recites “wherein the owner accesses the list of the qualified inspectors and selects the inspector from the list of the qualified inspectors to perform the inspection of the owned asset.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 34 recites “wherein the owner of the owned asset is required to correct the noted deficiency.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 35 recites “wherein a subsequent inspection is performed.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 36 recites “wherein a cost associated with the inspection is provided to the owner.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 37 recites “further comprising :displaying attributes of the owned asset to at least a first inspector and a second inspector to enable the first inspector to formulate a first bid and the second inspector to formulate a second bid to inspect the owned asset; receiving the first bid from the first inspector and the second bid from the second inspector; providing the first bid and the second bid to the owner; receiving a selection from the owner of the first bid or the second bid, wherein the selection includes a form of payment for the inspection; and notifying the first inspector or the second inspector of the selection by the owner to have the inspection performed.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 38 recites “wherein the owner accesses the list of the inspectors and selects the inspector from the list of the inspectors to perform the inspection of the owned asset.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 39 recites “wherein the owner of the owned asset is required to correct the noted deficiency.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 40 recites “wherein a subsequent inspection is performed.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 41 recites “wherein a cost associated with the inspection is provided to the owner.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 42 recites “wherein the owner accesses the list of the inspectors and selects the inspector from the list of the inspectors to perform the inspection of the owned asset.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 43 recites “wherein the owner of the owned asset is required to correct the noted deficiency” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 44 recites “wherein a subsequent inspection is performed.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 45 recites “wherein a cost associated with the inspection is provided to the owner.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 46 recites “further comprising providing notifications to the owner of the owned asset or to the jurisdictional authority of pending inspections or missed inspections.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 47 recites “further comprising setting up transactions between an inspector and the owner of the owned asset.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 48 recites “further comprising providing the owner of the owned asset an ability to solicit bids for inspection of the owned asset.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 49 recites “further comprising allowing access to a database of inspectors to perform the inspection of the owned asset.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 50 recites “further comprising transmitting a report based upon the information from the inspector to the approval authority.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 51 recites “further comprising: providing the noted deficiency to the owner of the owned asset; allowing the owner to correct the noted deficiency; and having a subsequent inspection performed.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 52 recites “further comprising forwarding updated compliance information of the owned asset to the approval authority” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 53 recites “further comprising providing cyclical methods that ensure annual compliance for life safety assets instead of for non-life safety assets where inspections are recorded based on an event or insurance request.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 54 recites “wherein several data points are analyzed, automatically instead of manually, to determine due dates for inspections while ensuring periodic compliance.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 55 recites “further comprising automatically updating cyclical life-safety compliance data based on past input from multiple users rather than by a single user.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 56 recites “further comprising: wherein the class of users comprises a non-owner user of the owned asset; and storing, in the database for use by the non-owner user in visually identifying the owned asset, at least one physical attribute of the owned asset.” which further the data/information recited in the abstract idea and further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 57 recites “wherein the class of users comprises a non-owner user of the owned asset; and storing, in the database for the non-owner user of the owned asset, information regarding a status of operation of the owned asset.” which further the data/information recited in the abstract idea and further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 58 recites “
further comprising: wherein the class of users comprises a non-owner user of the owned asset; and storing, in the database for the non-owner user of the owned asset, an indication of whether the owned asset is functioning properly.” which further the data/information recited in the abstract idea and further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 59 recites “further comprising: tracking inspection compliance of multiple owned assets of a kind; wherein the class of users comprises a non-owner user of at least one of the multiple owned assets of the kind; and storing, in the database for a non-owner user of the at least one of the multiple owned assets of the kind, an indication of which of the multiple owned assets of the kind is best suited for an application.” which further the data/information recited in the abstract idea and further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 60 recites “
further comprising storing, in the data base, a quality of water related to the owned asset.” which further the data/information recited in the abstract idea and further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 61 recites “further comprising: wherein the class of users comprises a non-owner user of the owned asset; and storing, in the database for the non-owner user of the owned asset, a quality of water related to the owned asset.” which further the data/information recited in the abstract idea and further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 62 recites “
further comprising: wherein the class of users comprises a member of the general public; and receiving, in the database from the member of the general public, information regarding the owned asset.” which further the data/information recited in the abstract idea and further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 63 recites “further comprising with the asset management software system and in response to approval of the report by the approval authority, transferring a payment from the owner of the owned asset to the inspector.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 64 recites “further comprising: wherein the owned asset includes at least one fire hydrant; and retrieving a record of the at least one fire hydrant from a database in response to a request from a firefighter responding to a fire.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 66 recites “further comprising: wherein the owned asset includes a fire hydrant; receiving, from a firefighter responding to a fire, a request for information regarding the fire hydrant; retrieving, from a database in response to the request, a record of the fire hydrant, the record indicating whether the fire hydrant is properly functioning; and providing the retrieved record to a firefighter responding to the fire.” which further the data/information recited in the abstract idea and further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Therefore, the claims do not add any meaningful limitations and the additional elements recited in the claims when considered individually and in combination with the judicial exception are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, the dependent claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
12. Claims 17-61, 63-64, and 66 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Key (US 2007/0179912 A1) in view of in Sweeney (2005/0021449 A1) in view of Lloyd (US 5,950,150 B1) in further view of Miles (US 2006/0118636 A1).
With respect to claim 17, Key discloses
a computer-implemented method for using an asset management software system accessible via a web registry to track a requisite inspection of an owned asset (¶ 0016-0021, 0046, 0059: discloses a centralized system includes a jurisdiction online manger. The jurisdiction online manager stores object data, schedules, and inspections, provides the appropriate jurisdiction forms, accepts inspection data, provides inspection and repair data for jurisdictional review, accepts repair information, provides inspection certificates. ¶ 0016-0021, 0046-0047, 0059: discloses the system is applicable to pressure vessels, boilers, elevators, amusement park rides, and other required jurisdictional inspections of objects. Objects under pressure can be dangerous if they ae not properly maintained and operated.)
selectively allowing a class of users access to the asset management software system (¶ 0066, 0071: discloses the client computers run web browsing applications that retrieve and display the jurisdiction online manager’s web pages.),
wherein the class of users comprises: (1) an owner of the owned asset (¶ 0066, 0071: discloses web interface 411 provides access for owners of the objects via a web browser.), (2) an approval authority (¶ 0066, 0071: discloses web interface 411 provides access for jurisdiction reviewers 125.), and (3) inspectors(¶ 0066, 0071: discloses web interface 411 provides access for company inspectors 135.);
retrieving records of the owned asset from a database (Fig. 7, ¶ 0018: discloses the central system enables real time availability of current data.) that is remotely accessible by at least two users of the class of users and augmentable by at least one user of the class of users (Fig. 7, ¶ 0018, 0060, 0070, 0105-0115: discloses database 350 stores information associated with a plurality of different owners, inspectors, and jurisdiction reviewer…information stored in database 350 can be retrieved for data manipulation and reporting.);
analyzing, by the asset management software system, the records of the owned asset from the database to determine whether the owned asset is due for inspection or overdue for inspection (¶ 0046, 0081: discloses the jurisdiction online manger analyzes the database to determine those objects requiring scheduling of an inspection.);
creating, by the asset management software system, an inspection list based on the analyzing of the records of the owned asset from the database (¶ 0088: discloses the jurisdiction online manger generates an appropriate inspection form based upon the object to be inspected. The JOM retrieves the inspection format for that jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction has its own categories, domains, and required information.),
wherein the inspection list includes a current status of the owned asset (¶ 0194: discloses the inspection webpage includes an inspection status box 1925 that indicates the current status of the problem.),
wherein the current status includes whether the owned asset is due for inspection or overdue for inspection (¶ 0021, 0088, 0184, 0194: discloses a task listing includes tasks that need to be performed. The inspection webpage includes basic object information associated with the inspection and the inspection status box indicates the current status such as open or closed.);
retrieving a list of at least one qualified inspector of the inspectors (¶ 0043, 0049, 0075, 0077: discloses the jurisdiction online manger is designed to automatically provide the appropriate jurisdiction inspection data requirements and forms to commissioned inspectors from a plurality of insurance carriers. An inspector must be qualified by a jurisdiction and receive a commission in order to perform an inspection in that jurisdiction.);
notifying the approval authority of the current status of the owned asset (¶ 0018, 0020, 0071, 0184, 0196: discloses the notification system of the JOM is operative to send communications to users of the JOM.);
notifying the owner of the owned asset of an impending deadline for the inspection and of a description of the type of inspection (¶ 0021: discloses the system can automatically determine objects with upcoming inspections due dates and provide this information to the inspection entity. ¶ 0072, 0079, 0085: discloses the notification system is operative to send communications to users of the jurisdiction online manager.);
receiving a request from the owner to schedule an inspection of the owned asset by the at least one qualified inspector (Fig. 10, ¶ 0054, 0071, 0077, 0135-0137: discloses the owner arranges for repair of the object. The web interface 410 provides access for an owner portal 413 and the assignment unit allows a user to access or modify assignment information.);
scheduling, in response to the request, an inspection of the owned asset by the at least one qualified inspector (Fig. 10, ¶ 0054, 0071, 0077, 0135-0137: discloses after arranging for repairs in which an authorized repairer makes the necessary changes to bring the object within specifications. The scheduled work assignment is operative to generate and place the task in the insurance company scheduled inspection listing.);
receiving information from the at least one qualified inspector regarding the inspection (¶ 0090-0092: discloses the jurisdiction online manager receives inspection information via interaction with the inspector’s web browser.);
compiling a report based upon the information from the at least one qualified inspector regarding the inspection of the owned asset (¶ 0090-0092: discloses the jurisdiction online manager stores the inspection report in connection with the object.);
transmitting the report to the approval authority (¶ 0046, 0090-0092: discloses the jurisdiction online manager provides inspection data and repair data for jurisdictional review. The JOM schedules the inspection report to be reviewed by the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction online manager generates and places a task in the jurisdiction task listing.);
wherein, if the information includes a noted deficiency (¶ 0053-0054: discloses examples of violations include insufficient combustion air available for a boiler, improperly set safety value, or unsuitable clearance. A recommendation is a non-mandatory suggestion to improve the safety of the object.),
transmitting, via the asset management software system, a deficiency notice to the owner of the owned asset (¶ 0046, 0053-0054: discloses if the cited problem is certificate blocking the yes branch of step 225 if followed by step 230 in which the owner arranges for repair of the object. Violations must be rectified before the jurisdiction will allow the object to be placed into service.);
augmenting, at the database, the records relative to the owned asset to reflect an updated status of the owned asset by the approval authority (Fig. 7, ¶ 0010, 0018, 0060, 0070, 0105-0115: discloses database 350 stores inspection and review information including certificate information, the reviewer, jurisdiction performing the review, the result, and associated comments. The data stored in the database consists of new information appended to the existing information.);
The Key reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Sweeney reference is related to methods and systems for online management of construction assets (¶ 0007) and teaches:
providing access to inspection data including the inspection list and the list of at least one qualified inspector to an owner of the owned asset before an inspection of the owned asset (¶ 0034, 0039, 0042, 0047: discloses the asset owner may be provided with access to a webpage listing all construction assets owned by the owner. The inspection report 12 includes recommendations regarding maintenance of the construction asset and photographs before any repairs. The report includes contractors responsible for construction of or repairs to the asset. Online consultation may be provided before the project is set up to bid.);
providing access to inspection data including the inspection list and the list of at least one qualified inspector to an approval authority before an inspection of the owned asset (¶ 0028, 0034, 0039-0040, 0042, 0047: discloses the asset owner may be any person or entity responsible for maintaining or managing the asset. The inspection report 12 includes recommendations regarding maintenance of the construction asset and photographs before any repairs. The report includes contractors responsible for construction of or repairs to the asset. Online consultation may be provided before the project is set up to bid.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Key to include the ability to provide access to inspection data before an inspection of the asset, as disclosed by Sweeney to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Sweeney, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide the advantage of allowing asset owners and managers to easily manage a large number of assets and view all current projects. (¶ 0055)
The combination of Key and Sweeney references does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Lloyd reference discloses a system and method for operational compliance verification of fire/life system and components whose operations, maintenance, and testing are established by predetermined operational criteria, such as industry standards and fire/life safety codes including providing reports to the owner, insurer, or management company at any time such as on a scheduled basis of system/components conditions, testing and needed maintenance (abstract) and teaches:
at least one fire hydrant and that also include at least one of a fire sprinkler system, a kitchen hood system, a fire extinguisher, fire pump, standpipe, or a backflow preventer (abstract, cols 1-2 and cols. 5-6:56-26: discloses various fire/life safety systems and components requiring compliance verification such as fire pump system, sprinkler systems, HVAC systems, fire detection systems, etc.)
As can be seen from the passages of the Lloyd reference techniques for compliance monitoring, testing, and reporting on various fire/life safety systems were known in the state of the art as the reference recognizes there is a need for such a fire/life safety system to verify compliance with respect to safety codes and industry standards.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have substituted the fire/life safety systems and components taught by Lloyd for the objects required under jurisdictional inspection of Key because both elements were known equivalents for equipment or assets requiring inspection within the industry. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of improved testing and maintenance practices so the reliability of fire/life safety systems and components will be greatly increased. (col. 7:24-42)
The combination of Key, Sweeny, and Lloyd does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Miles reference is related to a system and method for coordinating movement of personnel, i.e., firefighters and other first responders (¶ 0015-0016) and teaches:
receiving, from a handheld computing device being operated by a firefighter responding to a fire, a request for information regarding the at least one fire hydrant (¶ 0067-0069: discloses the member is also available to use tools available through the user interface to retrieve specific information about the site.);
retrieving, with the handheld computing device in response to the request for each of the at least one fire hydrant, a geographical location and availability for use of the respective fire hydrant (¶ 0034, 0068: discloses the additional data may include a description of a location, operating instructions, shut-off instructions, removal instructions, handling instructions, a photo of the feature, a video of the location of the feature, and contact information for an organization associated with the feature.); and
displaying, with the handheld computing device, a map showing the respective geographical location and the respective availability of each of the at least one fire hydrant. (¶ 0041-0042, 0061, 0068-0069: discloses portable device assigned to a firefighter includes a map indicating the locations of the fire hydrants. When a member selects a fire hydrant additional data about the feature may be displayed on the user interface. The additional data may include a description of a location, operating instructions, shut-off instructions, removal instructions, handling instructions, a photo of the feature, a video of the location of the feature, and contact information for an organization associated with the feature)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the combination of Key, Sweeny, and Lloyd to include receiving, from a handheld computing device being operated by a firefighter responding to a fire, a request for information regarding the at least one fire hydrant; retrieving, with the handheld computing device in response to the request for each of the at least one fire hydrant, a geographical location and availability for use of the respective fire hydrant; displaying, with the handheld computing device, a map showing the respective geographical location and the respective availability of each of the at least one fire hydrant, as disclosed by Miles to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Miles, the motivation for the combination would have been to advantages for coordinating movement of personnel and allow a firefighter to act more quickly during time-sensitive scenario