DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This Final action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 30 October 2025.
Claims 1, 8, 13, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised, those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 103 rejections previously raised, these rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 30 October 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, applicant argues that the “automatically associating…before the step is completed…from a photo control on the screen) are sufficient amendments to overcome a 101 rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The “automatic” portion of the associating function is considered to merely apply the step by linking the associating to a generic computerized function. This is not indicative of integration into a practical application but instead merely uses a computer as a tool to automate the step without explicitly limiting the implementation in a meaningful way.
Applicant argues that the claims provide a technical system that improves a validation system by removing human input which is prone to errors. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Humans are still essential to the methodology claimed. There is not automated or computerized validation functionality that is integrated in the methodology. Therefore any purported improvement is wholly realized within the identified abstract idea.
The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant argues that the asserted combination does not teach or suggest the amended claims, specifically that Neilson does not teach associating the photo with a work order before the step is completed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims have necessitated updated grounds of rejection below. Nielson is not relied upon to teach the amended associating steps. Alonzo teaches a n interface element that can be interacted with to indicate the status of a task and in response can trigger further actions, Alonzo also teaches the ability to overlay directions on a camera thus associating pictures captured with steps before completion of the steps.
Applicant argues that Alonzo’s images being taken relate to a method of determining the location of the mobile device not the completion of a task. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The photos are associated with steps to be performed before completion of the steps on the screen. Additionally, the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural or functional difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim, i.e. capturing pictures via a camera and associating pictures with steps in a mobile application.
See updated grounds of rejection set forth below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 describe generating a work order comprising a set of steps to be carried out by a technician, i.e. instructions, determining that a technician has actuated an interface element and recite the ability to automatically associate a picture taken to the step or connection made before completion and after performance of the step with the step. These limitations, as drafted, illustrates processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. But for the use of a mobile application executing on a mobile device and configured work order entity, the claims encompass a user simply observing, determining actuation and determining to take further action, e.g. in response to determining, and making determinations of a set of steps, e.g. generating a work order, and forming associations in their mind. The generic tie to the “using the mobile application” in the mobile device environment does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The claims do not set forth any detail as to how the association of the picture with the step is accomplished, only that it is done automatically using the mobile application executing on the mobile device. The mere nominal recitation of a generic mobile application on a mobile device, configured entity or the general link to the use of a the mobile application on a mobile device environment does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite an aggregation point to receive and store information accessible from a photo control, receiving a work order at a mobile application executing on a mobile device, displaying a step screen, a user interface element by an application on a mobile device display, using a camera in the mobile device and taking pictures, receiving inputs at a mobile application screen executing on the device, that the user input accesses the camera or storage on the device, and pictures via photo control, communicating the at least one picture from the device to an entity and that a generically configured entity generates the work order. The receiving, displaying, storing, accessing a stored image via a photo control, i.e. a generic interface element, taking a picture using a mobile device camera, receiving at an application on a device and communicating data are all recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and transmission, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity. The mobile phone and configured entity to automatically perform steps are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating and associating steps and generally link the use of the exception and recited to a particular technological environment, a mobile application executing on a mobile device in mobile phone network. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generically recited components. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a generic networked environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2 above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the receiving, displaying, storing, accessing a camera to take a picture, accessing stored data from a photo control, receiving inputs and communicating steps that were considered extra solution activity in step 2A, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the aggregation point, mobile device, control element, executing application or configured entity are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components or software elements, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the mere collection, receipt and transmission of data over a network are well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as they are here.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-12 and 14-20 include all of the limitations of the independent claims and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the abstract idea be describing the steps of the work order. The additional limitations describing displaying, recording, receiving input and describing the device do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons and rationale set forth above. They include insignificant extra solution activity, e.g. data gathering and transmission, that when reconsidered, as supported by MPEP section 2106.05d, are well understood, routine and conventional activities that do not meaningful limit the implementation of the claims.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (US 2013/0006718) in view of Stanescu (US 6,784,802) further in view of Alonzo (US 2013/0288719).
As per Claim 1 Nielsen teaches:
A method of validating performance of steps of an electronic work order that involves one or more items of equipment, the one or more items of equipment having a plurality of ports, the method comprising:
receiving the electronic work order by a mobile application executing on a mobile device, the electronic work order comprising data indicative of a set of steps that are to be carried out by a single technician at a particular location (Nielsen in at least [0118, 0164,0203, 0206-0209] describe a technician located at a particular geo location receiving a work order, the work order including activities to be carried out, [0164, 0183, 0186-0188, 0192, 0221] and Figs. 1A and 7 describe and illustrate how the technician receives data via a mobile application operating on a mobile device such as a smart phone);
capturing at least one picture with a camera documenting a state of the a task, process or activity (Nielsen in at least [0154, 0164, 0221, 0249-0268] and Fig. 1A and 7 describe and illustrate the ability to use any devices capable of providing useful information with respect to chronicling the activities of field technicians including a digital camera and cell phone capable of data communication over a cellular network, [0232 and 0235] explicitly recite that digital outputs can be provided from any commercially available digital camera and that the cell phone may be any commercially available cell phone);
storing information, by the mobile application executing on the mobile device, to associate the at least one picture taken with the at least one step of the set of steps of the electronic work order (Nielsen [0164, 0249-0268] and Figs. 1A and 7 describe how the activity tracking system uses digital cameras and mobile or cellular telephones and smart phones and video to capture times, durations and other readings, that are input by field technicians via mobile devices as is illustrated in Fig. 1A, associated with the usage and activities of media capture devices, [0006, 0167, 0190-0191, 0202, 0209, 0211] further describes including imagery that provides contextual information about field service activities, associating and saving captured image data with specific events or operations listed in a work order via data processing and other executing applications applications); and
communicating the at least one picture and the information from the mobile device to an entity (Nielsen in at least [0164,0186, 0190-0191, 0200, 0209, 0211, 0249] describe the ability to save and transmit images associated with specific activities and transmit or provide information to the system memory, other technicians, or the communication interface in order to chronicle and depict actual work being performed, see Figs. 1A and 7) for use in documenting the state of the connection made using the at least two ports of the plurality of ports.
Nielsen does not explicitly recite that the step of the set of steps includes adding, moving or changing a connection made at a port of a device. However, Stanescu teaches a system and method for real time monitoring connectivity in a cable system. Stanescu further teaches:
wherein at least one step of the set of steps includes adding, moving, or changing a connection made using at least two ports of the plurality of ports (Stanescu Col. 3: 62-67 describes providing step by step visual guidance using LEDs to complete work orders, e.g. receiving an indication that indicators should be actuated by issuing virtual work orders, the work order is issued and its completion is checked, Col. 4: 48-65 describes a cross-connect system where at least two ports of a plurality of ports are cross linked through patch cords, any port has the ability to be connected with any other and the moves, add-ons, and changes (MACs) produce changes in connect configurations of the patch panels and electronic labels can be added to cables, patch panels, etc., e.g. electronic visual indicators located on a device distinct from a mobile device, Col. 5:1-35 describes how work orders contain instructions for MACs and visual information such as LEDS are used to aid in the sequential execution of the connection changes and to indicate completion);
documenting a state (or storing image and information results) of the connection made using the at least two ports of the plurality of ports after the performance of the at least one step of the set of steps
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to chronicle the activities of field technicians using mobile devices to include the techniques for monitoring and managing specific intelligent infrastructure such as the ports of a device because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements performs the same function as they did individually. By utilizing a mobile device including a camera to capture images relating to technician performed activities on a patch panel the combination enables a visual verification of task completion which can improve accuracy and auditing capabilities.
Neither Nielson nor Stanescu explicitly recite that the camera is in the mobile device and accessed via the device, automatically associating the picture with the step before completion of the step, or that the associated image is based on an input that accesses a camera to take a picture or select a stored picture from the phone’s memory through a photo control on the step screen. However, Alonzo teaches an augmented reality for maintenance management. Alonzo further teaches:
displaying, by the mobile application on a display of the mobile device, a step screen associated with the at least one step of the set of steps that includes at least one user interface element related to the at least one step of the set of steps (Alonzo in at least Fig. 7-13, 16 and 18 and [0109] illustrate and describe a screen associated with at least one set of a set of steps including elements, e.g. hyperlinks, related to the at least one step in the set of steps, e.g. task 1 in worker order 000105 and its associated status, item 194) and;
determining that the single technician has actuated the at least one user interface element (Alonzo in at least [0121-0123] describes a user employing a status user interface control to update the status of a work order to complete, the change may then be saved, thus the system determines that the save button has been selected and updates the ERP system 18 of Fig. 2, other functions can also occur after saving);
in response to determining that the single technician has actuated the least one user interface element, capturing data documenting a change or update (Alonzo in at least [0121-0123] describe es triggering next actions in response to determining that an element has been actuated, i.e. saving a status update),
capturing at least one picture with a camera included in the mobile device relating to the performance of the at least one step of the set of steps in a manner specified in the at least one step of the set of steps to complete the at least one step (Alonzo [0025, 0034, 0036, 0043, 0045, 0047, 0054, 0056-0059 and 0091-0094, 0099-0102, 0109, 0130-0131] describe using a camera in a smartphone to take pictures related to task performance for work orders, the mobile application matches images taken with stored images related to work orders, users have the option to augment camera images with user interface controls and associated the particular work orders with actual locations and work being performed via the camera of the mobile device and mobile application running on the mobile device)
automatically associating the at least one picture with the at least one step of the plurality of steps with the mobile application before the completion of the at least one step of the plurality of steps on the screen (Alonzo [0025, 0034, 0036, 0043, 0045, 0047, 0054, 0056-0059 and 0091-0094, 0099-0102, 0109, 0130-0131] and Figs. 7-13, 16 and 18 describe and illustrate associating pictures with steps before completing at least one of a plurality of steps on the screen through overlay on camera images and other overlay options for a plurality of steps as well as update status, save to map capabilities, and overlay directions on camera);
wherein the picture is accessible in the mobile application executing on the mobile device from a photo control on the step screen that shows the at least one step of the set of steps (Alonzo in at least Fig. 2 illustrates a touch screen and other UI features that are part of the mobile computing device that enable the display of information, including photos on the mobile device, Fig. 7 further teaches the ability to tap a feature to display photos associated with work order steps, [0025, 0034, 0036, 0043, 0045, 0047, 0054, 0056-0059 and 0091-0094, 0099-0102, 0109, 0130-0131] and Figs. 7-13, 16 and 18 describe and illustrate the ability to access photos through different interface elements including hyperlinks and other clickable elements such as overlay options and overlay on camera image options, i.e. photo controls, on the step screen that show at least one step of the set of steps)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the general teaches of a digital camera and mobile phone in Nielsen to include the techniques for utilizing a GUI and determining actuation to trigger further actions in a system that also captures image data with a mobile device camera because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements performs the same function as it did individually. By utilizing the camera and applications on the mobile device to associate gathered information with particular work order steps, the combination enables real time access to a vast amount of supplemental information that results in increased user options and interactive features that can improve overall enterprise productivity (Alonzo [0001-0013]).
As per Claim 2 Nielsen does not teach but Stanescu further teaches:
wherein at least one step of the set of steps involves something other than adding, moving, or changing the connection made using the at least two ports of the plurality of ports (Stanescu Col. 3: 62-67 describes providing step by step visual guidance using LEDs to complete work orders, e.g. receiving an indication that indicators should be actuated by issuing virtual work orders, the work order is issued and its completion is checked, Col. 4: 48-65 describes a cross-connect system where ports are cross linked through patch cords, any port has the ability to be connected with any other and the moves, add-ons, and changes (MACs) produce changes in connect configurations of the patch panels and electronic labels can be added to cables, patch panels, etc., e.g. electronic visual indicators located on a device distinct from a mobile device, Col. 5:1-35 describes how work orders contain instructions for MACs and visual information such as LEDS are used to aid in the sequential execution of the connection changes and to indicate completion).
Stanescu is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 3 Nielsen teaches:
displaying information about events and alarms using the mobile application executing on the smartphone (Nielsen in at least [0181, 0189, 0206-0208, 0283] describe the ability to display information and graphics as well as generate and track message alerts to field technicians or other operators using the cell phone or personal computing devices illustrated in at least Figs. 1A, 2, and 7) .
As per Claim 4 Nielsen teaches:
recording a comment in the mobile application related to the at least one step of the set of steps (Nielsen in at least [0288 and 0300] describes the ability to provide comments and add comments in the activity tracking system as well as providing memos or notes within the activity system via the mobile applications).
Nielsen does not explicitly recite that the step of the set of steps includes adding, moving or changing a connection made at a port of a device. However, Stanescu further teaches:
at least one step of the set of steps includes adding, moving, or changing a connection made using the at least two ports of the plurality of ports (Stanescu Col. 3: 62-67 describes providing step by step visual guidance using LEDs to complete work orders, e.g. receiving an indication that indicators should be actuated by issuing virtual work orders, the work order is issued and its completion is checked, Col. 4: 48-65 describes a cross-connect system where ports are cross linked through patch cords, any port has the ability to be connected with any other and the moves, add-ons, and changes (MACs) produce changes in connect configurations of the patch panels and electronic labels can be added to cables, patch panels, etc., e.g. electronic visual indicators located on a device distinct from a mobile device, Col. 5:1-35 describes how work orders contain instructions for MACs and visual information such as LEDS are used to aid in the sequential execution of the connection changes and to indicate completion);
Stanescu is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 5 Nielsen teaches in at least [0181, 0189, 0206-0208, 0283] describe the ability to display detailed information and graphics about the activities but does not explicitly recite that the steps involve cables. However, Stanescu further teaches:
displaying details about a cable involved in at least one step of the set of steps that includes adding moving, or changing the connection made using the at least two ports of the plurality of ports (Stanescu Col. 3: 62-67 describes providing step by step visual guidance using LEDs to complete work orders, e.g. receiving an indication that indicators should be actuated by issuing virtual work orders, the work order is issued and its completion is checked, Col. 4: 48-65 describes a cross-connect system where ports are cross linked through patch cords, any port has the ability to be connected with any other and the moves, add-ons, and changes (MACs) produce changes in connect configurations of the patch panels and electronic labels can be added to cables, patch panels, etc., e.g. electronic visual indicators located on a device distinct from a mobile device, Col. 5:1-35 describes how work orders contain instructions for MACs and visual information such as LEDS are used to aid in the sequential execution of the connection changes and to indicate completion);
Stanescu is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 6 Nielsen in at least [0202, 0269] and Table 2 illustrate and describe the ability of the mobile application to receive inputs indicating the progress or completion of pending activities in real time and the ability to associate pictures with steps. Nielsen/Stanescu do not teach but Alonzo further teaches:
wherein the mobile application is configured to display photos on the mobile device that are associated with the at least one step of the set of steps upon a tapping on a photo control on the mobile device that lists any photo associated with the at least one step of the set of steps (Alonzo in at least Fig. 2 illustrates a touch screen and other UI features that are part of the mobile computing device that enable the display of information, including photos on the mobile device, Fig. 7 further teaches the ability to tap a feature to display photos associated with work order steps, see also Fig.18).
Alonzo is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 7 Nielsen does not teach but Stanescu further teaches:
wherein the device is an unmanaged device that does not include physical layer management functionality (Stanescu Col. 3: 62-67 describes providing step by step visual guidance using LEDs to complete work orders, e.g. receiving an indication that indicators should be actuated by issuing virtual work orders, the work order is issued and its completion is checked, Col. 4: 48-65 describes a cross-connect system where ports are cross linked through patch cords, any port has the ability to be connected with any other and the moves, add-ons, and changes (MACs) produce changes in connect configurations of the patch panels and electronic labels can be added to cables, patch panels, etc., e.g. electronic visual indicators located on a device distinct from a mobile device, Col. 5:1-35 describes how work orders contain instructions for MACs and visual information such as LEDS are used to aid in the sequential execution of the connection changes and to indicate completion).
Stanescu is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claims 8-12 and 13-20 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in claims 1-7 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejections of claims 1-7 above. Nielsen further teaches:
an aggregation point configured to receive and store information about activities made in a communication network (Nielsen in at least [0186] describes the networked data sources and the ability of the system to receive and store aggregate information as is illustrated in at least Fig. 1A-C, 2);
Nielsen does not explicitly recite how the work orders are generated or that the activity information is about connections made, however Stanescu further teaches:
an electronic work order entity configured to generate an electronic work order (Stanescu Col. 4: 33-43 describes the central monitoring unit which exchanges data with the field programmable unit or the local monitoring unit, it acquires and generates the initial information on the cabling system and transfers it, Col. 5: 5-35 describe generating a virtual or written work order based on configuration through the interface),
Stanescu is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623