DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim(s) 1 and 6 recite(s) steps of receiving, determining, transmitting, receiving, and verifying (re claim 1), and sending, receiving, capturing, transmit, receiving, determining, transmitting, receiving, and verifying.
Taking into account independent claims 1 and 6 with regard to step 1, it is a statutory category because the claims are drawn to a system and method.
Re step 2a prong 1, a judicial exception is recited because the claims as a whole recites a method of mental steps. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of the independent claim 1 recites receiving/ sending/ transmitting and determining/ verifying, which fall under the mental process category as they involve only routine data gathering using generic computer components and comparing data to make a mental determination. Such limitations are similar to those in Electric Power wherein a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Displaying results or outputting results is insignificant post solution activity. Independent claim 6 is similar, including additional elements for routine data gathering and communication that are generic computer components performing abstract st4epes.
That is, other than a device (user/ computer) nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind/ user calculating/ fetching/ retrieving/ manipulating data, via a combination of generic computer implemented steps.
Re step 2A prong 2, the claim as a whole merely describes how to apply the concept of storing and fetching data in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing data fetching process, storing, displaying etc. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The only additional elements are a “device” which is recited in a high level of generality which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Re step 2b, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally apply the concept of fetching data, displaying data, storing data (generic data manipulation). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim add significantly more to the abstract idea. Receiving data/ notifications are seen as merely data communication/ manipulation. Displaying data can be seen as post solution activity. Storing data is generic computer functionality as is sending and retrieving data. Scanning only requires generic computer components and capturing evidence under its broadest reasonable interpretation can merely be data storage/ saving of data. The independent claims are ineligible and the dependent claims are ineligible at least based on their dependency, as they merely recite only specific additional limtaitons of the abstract idea such as more data, types of data, and other routine data gathering limitations regarding storing/ sending/ receiving data as part of the abstract idea. While “sensors” are recited, specific limitations about the sensors are not recited such that they are not generic computer components gathering data, or that the sensors are arranged in a specific/ unique arrangement as per Thales (non-conventional placement).
The nature of the claims is not to define a specific technological improvement, but merely recites steps necessary to perform the abstract idea itself, with specific limitations drawn to data further specifying the abstract idea. Mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improve in computer technology and are not focused on a specific means or method that improves the technology, as they are merely a generic computer implementation (including scanning). The claims appear to be towards improving the abstract idea itself, by reciting specific types of data to send and display, and thus is not an improvement to a technological process.
Re the newly added limitations to claim 1 reciting receiving data from a user device, this is interpreted as routine data gathering using generic computer components. The new determining limitations falls under mental steps as it is the generic computerization of abstract comparison steps. Transmitting is part of the routine data gathering as part of the abstract idea being completed. Verifying, again is mental steps being performed by generic computer components, similar to those ideas discussed above re Electric Power. A computing device and user device are interpreted as generic computer components performing generic computer steps. Sensors are broadly recited and a specific unique arrangement of sensors is not recited (In re Thales) and thus again is seen as routine data gathering using generic computer components.
The dependent claims are rejected at least because of the dependency and recite additional limitations that only further serve to limit the abstract idea itself.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalous et al. (US 20130214903) in view of Manahan et al. (US 20200211803).
Re claim 1, Kalous et al. teaches:
Receiving by a computing device from a user device, evidence that indicates a user of the user device completed a step of a process for locking out or tagging out energy isolating device associated with one or more components wherein the evidence comprises image data record by the user device and verifying based on the evidence that the user properly completed the step of the process (FIG. 3+ and paragraph [0079]+).
Kalous et al. is silent to also using sensor data to verify the LOTO process.
Manahan et al. teaches in paragraph [0107]+ that confirmation of devices being turned off or warning messages from sensors of the device are sent to remote devices for assurance analysis, record keeping, etc.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine such teachings in order to provide confirmation of powering off as part of the LOTO process, for safety in determining LOTO processing completion (verification), thus using sensor information for assurance in combination with the photos would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for expected results in accuracy of assuring completion of LOTO procedures.
Re the newly added limitation of receiving by a computer device from a user device, a communications transmission comprising a scan of a machine readable identified affixed to a component of an electrically powered device, paragraph [0041]+ teaches the location tag is read and can include a LOTO procedure, and that the location tag data is fetched from a remote database by the reading device (see also paragraph [0053]+).
Re the newly added limitation that the computing device determines the LOTO process based on the machine readable indicator, this has been discussed above where the LOTO sequence is stored remotely (computing device) based on the machine readable indicator processed by the reading device (mobile phone, PDA, etc. of the user).
Re the newly added limitation of transmitting the process from the computing device to the user device, this is taught above where the PDA/ mobile device fetches the LOTO procedure from a remote database.
Re the newly added litmaiton of verifying by the computing device and based on the sensor data and photographic evidence, the process step being completed, FIG. 3+ and paragraph [0075]+ and [0079]+ teaches the remote computer 116 has memory and databases for executing the processes described including providing the LOTO procedures to a user and verifying the completion including sending pictures to the computer to verify completion.
Re claim 2, as discussed above, the data is stored, and as such a record is interpreted as a forensic trail.
Re claims 3-4, acknowledgements are taught in paragraph [0051]+ of Kalous et al., which can be to a user, supervisor, or another entity.
Re claim 5,storing has been taught above, and 516 of Kalous et al. is a LOTO data in memory 512, 564 a lockout database of memory 566 obviating a database for event recording.
Re claim 6, the limitations have been discussed above wherein the user device takes images (photographic evidence).
Re claim 7, the transmitting of LOTO data to the computer is interpreted to a notification in response to display of content items/ process (LOTO process information sent to the user device).
Re claim 8, the logging/ recording has been discussed above including photographs.
Re claims 9-10, as discussed above, image data is recorded to confirm the LOTO.
Re claim 17, the limitations have been discussed above including reading/ imaging (second indicator). The Examiner notes that it is obvious that a plurality of device readable (machine readable) indicators indicates or can be applied to a plurality of different areas where work is being performed on components that are read by the first user device and send notifications as discussed above.
Re claim 18, FIG. 3 at 304 teaches checking authorization for working on a component, and thus teaches claim 13 limitations, responsive to reading the location identifier.
Re claim 20, Kalous et al. teaches that the log 160 maintains a log of when the equipment was locked and unlocked, thus obviating providing instructions for starting, as obviated by the teachings for LOTO.
Claim(s) 11-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalous et al./ Manahan et al., as discussed above, in view of Daino et al. (US 20140283008).
Re claims 11-12, the teachings of Kalous et al. have been discussed above but are silent to transmitting and receiving the notification/ confirmation as claimed.
Daino et al. teaches at 402 that affected persons are notified. It would have been obvious to have a confirmation sent to the server/ computing device so as to record that confirmation was received/ the notification received, for accuracy, as notifying is an obvious expedient to provide information.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for logging purposes.
Re claim 12, notification logic 50 helps send notifications including texts, emails, phone calls, audio files, etc. which can be interpreted as in person notifications.
Re claim 13, the teachings of Kalous et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the location of the isolation point. Kalous et al. teaches at FIG. 2+ and col 8, lines 45+ providing graphical user interfaces and instructions and capturing an image of an isolation device (lock) at an isolation point, scanning it and sending it to the computing device. It would have been obvious to display an indication and location of the point as part of the guiding of the user of the procedure, as the user needs to be authorized to perform LOTO at the location. Accordingly displaying information on the screen indicating the point and location, would have been obvious to provide basic information as part of the process. Additionally, as the LOTO procedures can be provided with a high level of granularity to aid the user, it would have been obvious to provide instruction including where (location) the isolation point is and what it looks like (indication) so as to provide guidance to the user. The claim does not specify that the user device communicates a message causing the display of such information prior to the user arriving at the scanning location, for example. As discussed above, scanning and transmitting a notification has been taught at the isolation points where a LOTO is attempted.
Nonetheless, Daino et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0086] + and [0120]+ using GPS signals to determine the coordinate of the location and a route for the use wherein the identity and location of the first isolation point and performs scanning.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to guide the user by displaying an indication and location.
Re claim 14, absent a specific definition of a verification point, the rejection to claim 13 can apply here, for a different location. Further, it would have been obvious to try at a verification point for expected results such as those obtained via the isolation point.
Alternatively, step 314 of Kalous et al. teaches indicating the LOTO procedure is complete can include the scanning of a final items. As displaying instructions and user interfaces/guides for scanning have been discussed above, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to display such information to a user device in order for them to scan the third indicator to verify completion of a procedure, as an obvious expedient to guide the user.
Re claim 15, Kalous et al. teaches reporting module 570 of the remote / server can generate a report listing all procedures performed in a given time or a given location and all locks, and equipment used as well. It would have been obvious therefore to therefore transmit the list of isolated components and a location of the group device as part of the LOTO procedure.
Re claim 16, Daino et al. teaches that a LOTO procedure includes plurally isolation points (paragraph [0091]+). Therefore, scanning plural readable indicators is implicit when there are plural points to be isolated. Providing notification to a computer from scanning has been taught above re record keeping/ tracking. Though silent to a group device vs isolated components, the Examiner has interpreted that plural locks are possible of being used at a given location, and thus obviates such limitations. As discussed above, locations/ routes are provided to the user computer device.
Re claim 19, as discussed above, Daino et al. teaches the user can scan the isolation point and take images (paragraph [0086]+, which can include it not being locked out/ tagged out. Scanning the indicator and transmitting a notification has been discussed above as part of the LOTO process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments re the 112 rejection have been fully considered. The Examiner has intpereted in light of the specification and that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a lockout tagout process as a safety practice to secure a machine or energy isolating device with a log and tag to prevent injury from accidental/ unintended re-energization during work/ use/ servicing of the machine/ device.
Re the 101 rejection, the Examiner maintains the 101. A specific arrangement of sensors is not recited. While photographic evidence is recited, structure that amounts to more than routine data gathering has not been positively recited such as a specific camera placement/ arrangement. The limitations appear still drawn to routine data gathering and then comparing that data to stored data to output a result, which falls under mental concepts that are being executed using generic computer components which are working in their routine and expected way.
Re the 103 rejection, the Examiner has addressed the newly added limitations in the rejections above.
Re the Applicants argument about claim 1 and 6 that the Daino references teaches the elements of claim 1 and 6, the Examiner notes that Daino was not applied to such claims.
Re the Applicants argument that Manahan does not teach verifying based on photographic and sensor information, the Examiner notes that Manahan teaches using sensor information for assurance analysis, record keeping, etc. as discussed above, as it applied to both ON and OFF states of devices. Thus the Examiner maintains as Kalous teaches verifying using images, and Manahan teaches using sensor information for assurance analysis, record keeping, etc. that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such sensor information could be applied as part of the verifying in order to assure that safety and proper LOTO procedures can be verified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure ( US 9613233) which teaches in FIG. 11 and (55) LOTO processes similar to that claimed in the instant application.
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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876