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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the Pre-Appeal meeting on 10/14/25. PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new set of rejections are set forth below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 371 of PCT/CN2019/091896, filed on 8/20/21.
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 1-4, 7, 10, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanke et al., United States Patent Publication 2016/0088463 (hereinafter “Stanke”), in view of Williams et al., United States Patent Publication 20190230467 (hereinafter “Williams”).
Claim 1:
Stanke discloses:
A method for modifying a form, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, from a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system, public-safety incident data for an active public-safety incident, the received data comprising (i) public-safety incident data indicating a type of the public-safety incident and (ii) first location data indicating a location of the public-safety incident (see paragraph [0024]). Stanke teaches receiving, from a CAD, a public safety incident data for an active public safety incident including the type and location in case additional resources are needed;
based on the public-safety incident data indicating the type of the public-safety incident, determining a particular computerized form for the public-safety incident, the particular computerized form comprising a plurality of fields in an initial arrangement (see paragraphs [0029]-[0040]). Stanke teaches determining to type of profile/form based on the incident data. The profile/form comprising an arrangement of the plurality of fields based on the incident data;
identifying a set of fields from among the plurality of fields in the particular computerized form that are designated as high-priority fields based on the set of fields being characterized as suitable for manual on-scene data input at the location of the public safety incident (see paragraphs [0109] and [0110]). Stanke teaches identifying a set of fields/apps/data that are designated as high-priority needs for the incident when on location;
determining a location of a scene of the public-safety incident based on the first location data (see paragraph [0044]). Stanke teaches determining the location of incident based on the incident data;
receiving second location data indicating a location of a mobile electronic device of a user (see paragraph [0111]. Stanke teaches determining the location of incident based on the device data;
determining that the user is currently located at the scene of the public-safety incident based on the second location data (see paragraph [0011]). Stanke teaches tracking the user’s and determining if they are on scene.
causing the mobile electronic device of the user to display the modified version of the particular computerized form for data input into the form while the user is located at the scene of the public-safety incident (see paragraph [0110]). Stanke teaches causing the users mobile device to display the modified version for data input while the user is authenticated at the scene of the incident.
Stanke fails to expressly discloses automatically modifying the form once the user is on scene with fields needed for input.
Williams discloses:
modifying the particular computerized form for the public-safety incident based on the user being currently located at the scene of the public-safety incident by automatically rearranging the set of high-priority fields within the particular computerized form (see paragraph [0023], [0084] and [0182]). Williams teaches modifying the form/content for the incident based on user’s geographic location based on the incident location.;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke to include rearranging fields based on the current location being on-scene for the purpose of being user friendly and efficient of delivering data of use at the scene of the incident, as taught by Williams.
Claim 2:
Stanke discloses:
wherein receiving the public-safety incident data comprises receiving the public-safety incident data at an over-the-air receiver (see paragraph [0025]). Stanke teaches using an over-the-air receiver for receiving incident data.
Claim 3:
Stanke discloses:
wherein receiving the first location data indicating the location of the public-safety incident comprises receiving the first location data at an over-the air receiver (see paragraphs [0042]-[0057], [0092] and [0093]). Stanke teaches using an over-the-air receiver for receiving incident data including location for profile data.
Claim 4:
Stanke fails to expressly discloses gps for determining a second location.
Williams discloses:
wherein receiving the second location data indicating the location of the mobile electronic device of the user comprises receiving the second location data from a GPS receiver of the mobile electronic device of the user (see paragraph [0017]). Williams teaches determining a users location using a gps;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke to include using a gps to determine the location of the user device for the purpose of being user friendly and efficient of delivering data of use at the scene of the incident, as taught by Williams.
Claims 7, 10:
Although Claims 7 and 10 are apparatus claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the method of Claims 1, 4, respectively.
Claim 13:
Stanke discloses:
A method for modifying a form, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, from a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system, public-safety incident data for an active public-safety incident, the received data comprising (i) public-safety incident data indicating a type of the public-safety incident and (ii) first location data indicating a location of the public-safety incident (see paragraph [0024]). Stanke teaches receiving, from a CAD, a public safety incident data for an active public safety incident including the type and location in case additional resources are needed;
based on the public-safety incident data indicating the type of the public-safety incident, determining a particular computerized form for the public-safety incident, the particular computerized form comprising a plurality of fields in an initial arrangement (see paragraphs [0029]-[0040]). Stanke teaches determining to type of profile/form based on the incident data. The profile/form comprising an arrangement of the plurality of fields based on the incident data;
identifying a set of fields from among the plurality of fields in the computerized form that are designated as high-priority fields based on the set of fields being characterized as suitable for manual on-scene data input at the location of the incident; (see paragraphs [0109] and [0110]). Stanke teaches identifying a set of fields/apps/data that are designated as high-priority needs for the incident when on location;
receiving location data indicating a location of a mobile electronic device of a user (see paragraph [0111]. Stanke teaches determining the location of incident based on the device data;
based on the location data, determining that the user is currently located at a scene of the incident (see paragraph [0011]). Stanke teaches tracking the user’s and determining if they are on scene.
presenting the modified version of the computerized form for data input into the form while the user is located at the scene of the incident (see paragraph [0110]). Stanke teaches causing the users mobile device to display the modified version for data input while the user is authenticated at the scene of the incident.
Stanke fails to expressly discloses automatically modifying the form once the user is on scene with fields needed for input.
Williams discloses:
presenting a computerized form having a plurality of fields in an initial arrangement, the computerized form being associated with an active incident occurring at a particular location (see paragraph [0084]). Williams teaches notifications in an initial arrangement associated with an incident types and only presented when the user is on location.
modifying the computerized form based on the determination that the user is currently located at the scene of the incident by automatically rearranging the set of high-priority fields within the computerized form (see paragraph [0023], [0084] and [0182]). Williams teaches modifying the form/content for the incident based on user’s geographic location based on the incident location;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke to include rearranging fields based on the current location being on-scene for the purpose of being user friendly and efficient of delivering data of use at the scene of the incident, as taught by Williams.
Claim 15:
Stanke fails to expressly discloses automatically modifying the form once the user is on scene with fields needed for input.
Williams discloses:
wherein receiving the location data comprises receiving an indication from the mobile electronic device that the user has arrived at the particular location of the incident. (see paragraphs [0084]). Williams teaches receiving an indication from the mobile device that the device is in location by notification;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke to include rearranging fields based on the current location being on-scene for the purpose of being user friendly and efficient of delivering data of use at the scene of the incident, as taught by Williams.
Claims 11, 16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanke, in view of Williams, in further view of Padgett et al., United States Patent Publication 2018/0276194 (hereinafter “Padgett”).
Claim 11:
Stanke and Williams fail to expressly disclose highlighting priority fields.
Padgett discloses:
wherein modifying the particular computerized form further comprises highlighting one or more fields of the set of high-priority fields (see paragraphs [0019] and [0023]). Padgett teaches modifying the fields by causing a visual distinction in the field by populating the field. This is a design feature to perform a visual distinction once the user is in close proximity to the incident.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke and Williams to include highlighting the fields based on priority of fields for the purpose of being user friendly and efficiently creating forms based on usage patterns, as taught by Padgett.
Claim 16:
Stanke discloses:
wherein modifying the computerized form based on the determination that the user is currently located at the scene of the incident (see paragraph [0011]). Stanke teaches tracking the user’s and determining if they are on scene.
Stanke and Williams fail to expressly disclose highlighting priority fields.
Padgett discloses:
further comprises highlighting one or more fields of the plurality of fields (see paragraphs [0019] and [0023]). Padgett teaches modifying the fields by causing a visual distinction in the field by populating the field. This is a design feature to perform a visual distinction once the user is in close proximity to the incident.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke and Williams to include highlighting the fields based on priority of fields for the purpose of being user friendly and efficiently creating forms based on usage patterns, as taught by Padgett.
Claim 21:
Stanke and Williams fail to disclose moving the priority fields to the top of the form.
Padgett discloses:
wherein rearranging the set of high-priority fields within the particular computerized form comprises moving the set of high-priority fields closer to the top of the computerized form (see paragraph [0020]). Padgett teaches rearranging the form by putting the important fields at the top of the form.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke and Williams to include rearranging forms based on priority of fields for the purpose of being user friendly and efficiently creating forms based on usage patterns, as taught by Padgett.
Claim 22:
Stanke and Williams fail to disclose moving the priority fields to the top of the form.
Padgett discloses:
wherein rearranging the set of high-priority fields within the computerized form comprises moving the set of high-priority fields closer to the top of the computerized form (see paragraph [0020]). Padgett teaches rearranging the form by putting the important fields at the top of the form.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke and Williams to include rearranging forms based on priority of fields for the purpose of being user friendly and efficiently creating forms based on usage patterns, as taught by Padgett.
Claim 23:
Stanke and Williams fail to disclose moving the priority fields to the top of the form.
Padgett discloses:
wherein rearranging the set of high-priority fields within the particular computerized form comprises moving the set of high-priority fields closer to the top of the computerized form (see paragraph [0020]). Padgett teaches rearranging the form by putting the important fields at the top of the form.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke and Williams to include rearranging forms based on priority of fields for the purpose of being user friendly and efficiently creating forms based on usage patterns, as taught by Padgett.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanke and Williams, in view of Padgett, in further view of Phillips et al., United States Patent No. 11044575 (hereinafter “Phillips”).
Claim 18:
Stanke and Williams fail to expressly disclose highlighting priority fields.
Padgett discloses:
set of high-priority fields (see paragraphs [0019] and [0023]). Padgett teaches modifying the fields by causing a visual distinction in the field by populating the field. This is a design feature to perform a visual distinction once the user is in close proximity to the incident.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke and Williams to include rearranging forms based on priority of fields for the purpose of being user friendly and efficiently creating forms based on usage patterns, as taught by Padgett.
Stanke, Williams and Padgett fail to expressly disclose only displaying information while within location.
Phillips discloses:
determining that the user is no longer located at scene of the incident (see column 20 lines 19-28). Phillips teaches determining when the user left the geofenced area; and
based on the determination that the user is no longer located at the scene of the incident, unmodifying the particular computerized form by returning the set of fields to their positions in the initial arrangement. (see column 15 lines 23-34). Phillips teaches only offering additional restaurant menu options while within the geofence. Once out of geofence the menu options are no longer displayed to the user and the original data is displayed.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke and Williams to include offering additional menu options/information while inside the geofence for the purpose of efficiently offering location based services, as taught by Phillips.
Claim 19:
Stanke and Williams fail to expressly disclose highlighting priority fields.
Padgett discloses:
set of high-priority fields (see paragraphs [0019] and [0023]). Padgett teaches modifying the fields by causing a visual distinction in the field by populating the field. This is a design feature to perform a visual distinction once the user is in close proximity to the incident.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke and Williams to include rearranging forms based on priority of fields for the purpose of being user friendly and efficiently creating forms based on usage patterns, as taught by Padgett.
Stanke, Williams and Padgett fail to expressly disclose only displaying information while within location.
Phillips discloses:
determining that the user is no longer located at scene of the incident (see column 20 lines 19-28). Phillips teaches determining when the user left the geofenced area; and
based on the determination that the user is no longer located at the scene of the incident, unmodifying the particular computerized form by returning the set of fields to their positions in the initial arrangement. (see column 15 lines 23-34). Phillips teaches only offering additional restaurant menu options while within the geofence. Once out of geofence the menu options are no longer displayed to the user and the original data is displayed
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke, Williams and Padgett to include offering additional menu options/information while inside the geofence for the purpose of efficiently offering location based services, as taught by Phillips.
Claim 20:
Stanke and Williams fail to expressly disclose highlighting priority fields.
Padgett discloses:
wherein modifying the particular computerized form further comprises highlighting one or more fields of the set of high-priority fields (see paragraphs [0019] and [0023]). Padgett teaches modifying the fields by causing a visual distinction in the field by populating the field. This is a design feature to perform a visual distinction once the user is in close proximity to the incident.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke and Williams to include rearranging forms based on priority of fields for the purpose of being user friendly and efficiently creating forms based on usage patterns, as taught by Padgett.
Stanke, Williams and Padgett fail to expressly disclose only displaying information while within location.
Phillips discloses:
determining that the user is no longer located at the location of the incident (see column 20 lines 19-28). Phillips teaches determining when the user left the geofenced area; and
based on the determination that the user is no longer located at the location of the incident, unmodifying the computerized form by returning set of fields of the plurality of fields to their positions in the initial arrangement. (see column 15 lines 23-34). Phillips teaches only offering additional restaurant menu options while within the geofence. Once out of geofence the menu options are no longer displayed to the user and the original data is displayed.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Stanke, Williams and Padgett to include offering additional menu options/information while inside the geofence for the purpose of efficiently offering location based services, as taught by Phillips.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pre-Appeal, filed, 10/14/25 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18-23 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Stanke and Williams.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 1/3/26
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178