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 .
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 5/8/26, the Applicant argued claims previously rejected in the Office Action dated 1/13/26. Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18-23 are pending examination.
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 user’s 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 filed 5/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
103 Rejections
Applicant argues Stanke teaches granting a device access to applications and APIs when the device communicates with an authorized device at an incident scene and these teachings of Stanke certainly do not amount to identifying a set of fields designated as high-priority based on their suitability for manual on-scene data input.
The Examiner disagrees.
Stanke teaches an incident commander can authorize the first responder's device so that it can receive a profile update (i.e. of the important fields/data) from a local device manager, or such that a full set, or a subset (i.e. the high priority data), of the incident commander's profile can be shared and used by the first responder. Once the profile is updated on the first responder's device, a profile manager in the region reports to the incident agency's CAD and the responders device is available and the CAD can track it. Thus, Stanke teaches determining when the user is on scene and making the subset of important data available to the user.
Applicant argues The modification of content taught by Williams appears to be based solely on location, not on the specific need for on-scene manual input. The analysis focuses on location-based modification generally, but fails to disclose the
concept of tailoring the rearrangement to fields that are best suited for manual completion at the incident location.
The Examiner disagrees.
Williams teaches modifying the form/content for the incident based on user’s geographic location based on the incident location (see paragraph [0023], [0084] and [0182]). Williams teaches determining a user’s geographic location and determining if they are near the emergency. Once it is determined that the locations overlap, the content displayed at the user’s device is modified and data and content on the display screen is altered.
Applicant argues Therefore, it is submitted that there is no teaching or suggestion that would lead person of ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter "POSITA") to modify Stanke with the teachings of Williams to arrive at the claimed invention and incorporate the concept of rearranging the fields that are best suited for manual completion at the incident location.
The Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Stanke teaches managing user and device profiles for response to one or more incidents; and for each of the plurality of devices, providing applications and profile configurations for operation on the one or more networks during the one or more incidents based on geographic location.
Williams teaches an emergency preparation and response method includes end user interfaces are displayed on a device, having input fields configured to store user profiles in the database, each user profile including a geographic location. On a subset of the second computing devices associated with end users whose geographic locations fall within a geographic zone affected by an actual emergency, the end user interfaces display one of the emergency types matching the actual emergency and one of the emergency descriptions an inputs matching the actual emergency.
Thus, it would be advantageous to include input fields matching the emergency type based on the geographic location. Stanke teaches determining the important apps and fields based on the geographic location and Williams teaches determining the input fields and content data based on the geographic location.
Applicant argues Padgett generally teaches rearranging a layout of a form based on historical usage patterns not based on incident location. The OA on Pg. 10 does not provide a teaching or suggestion to combine Padgett for the purpose of highlighting fields designated for on-scene manual entry.
The Examiner disagrees.
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 (see paragraphs [0019] and [0023]). Padgett recites “gradual de-emphasis of form fields on existing forms may be utilized by adding graying effects to field labels, then allowing the user to reorganize form fields or automatically reorganizing form fields after a certain period of time of de-emphasis. Additionally, highlighting high-usage fields may be utilized by automatically drawing a surrounding box or colored box around those fields, then allowing the user to reorganize form fields or automatically reorganizing form fields after a certain period of time of highlighting”. The Examiner does not use Padgett to teach highlighting fields based on location, therefore the combination of Stanke, Williams and Padgett teaches the argued limitations.
The Applicant argues A POSITA would not have been motivated to apply Phillips to Applicant's claims, as Phillips actively works against making relevant information available to the user at the scene. As such, there is no motivation to combine the references. Phillips teaches only offering additional restaurant menu options while within a geofence. Once out of the geofence, the menu options are no longer displayed to the user and the original data is displayed.
The Examiner disagrees.
Phillips teaches only offering additional data while within the geofence. Once out of geofence the additional data is no longer displayed to the user and the original data is displayed (see column 15 lines 23-34). Philips teaches the argued limitation of determining that a user is no longer is the geographic location and changing the data.
Applicant argues The Applicant respectfully submits that the OA has not established a sufficient motivation for a POSITA to combine these disparate references and OA still fails to address the designation of a high-priority field based on its suitability for manual on-scene data input. The OA combines Stanke and Williams, Padgett for highlighting, and Phillips for only displaying information within a geofence.
.
The Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Stanke teaches managing user and device profiles for response to one or more incidents; and for each of the plurality of devices, providing applications and profile configurations for operation on the one or more networks during the one or more incidents based on geographic location.
Williams teaches an emergency preparation and response method includes end user interfaces are displayed on a device, having input fields configured to store user profiles in the database, each user profile including a geographic location. On a subset of the second computing devices associated with end users whose geographic locations fall within a geographic zone affected by an actual emergency, the end user interfaces display one of the emergency types matching the actual emergency and one of the emergency descriptions an inputs matching the actual emergency.
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.
Phillips teaches only offering additional data while within the geofence. Once out of geofence the additional data is no longer displayed to the user and the original data is displayed
Thus, it would be advantageous to include input fields matching the emergency type based on the geographic location, highlight the fields of importance and take away fields and data once the user leaves the geographic location. Stanke teaches determining the important apps and fields based on the geographic location and Williams teaches determining the input fields and content data based on the geographic location. Therefore, the combination of Stanke, Williams, Padgett and Phillips teaches the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 7/15/26
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights