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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 recite(s) a system and series of steps for facilitating operational checks, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to managing interactions between people and concepts performed in the human mind. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The limitation(s) of, ‘obtaining asset operational check information’; ‘effectuating presentation of… an operational check element for individual operational checks in the list of operational checks for the asset, the operational check element including a verification element that enables a user to verify completion of a given operational check, an add note element that enables the user to add a note to the given operational check, and a not-applicable element that enables the user to mark the given operational check as being not applicable to the operational checks for the asset and skip the given operational check’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘an electronic display’, ‘one or more physical processors’, ‘a graphical user interface’, ‘a database’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 2-13 and 15-20 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for facilitating operational checks, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to managing interactions between people and concepts performed in the human mind. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-20 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knight (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20100217554).
In regards to claim 1, Knight teaches:
A system for facilitating operational checks, the system comprising: an electronic display; and one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions (Knight: ¶13-20, ¶57, ¶89) to:
obtain asset operational check information, the asset operational check information defining a list of operational checks for an asset (Knight: ¶64, ¶68-71, ¶91); and
effectuate presentation of a graphical user interface on the electronic display, the graphical user interface including interface elements (Knight: ¶14, Figs. 13-23), the interface elements including
an operational check element for individual operational checks in the list of operational checks for the asset, the operational check element including a verification element that enables a user to verify completion of a given operational check (Knight: ¶82, ¶84-85, Figs. 18 & 20),
an add note element that enables the user to add a note to the given operational check (Knight: ¶88, Figs. 18 & 23), and
a not-applicable element that enables the user to mark the given operational check as being not applicable to the operational checks for the asset and skip the given operational check (Knight: ¶15, ¶75, ¶84, Figs. 14, 18, & 20).
In regards to claim 2, Knight teaches the system of claim 1. Knight further teaches wherein the asset includes a well (Knight: ¶2-4, ¶18, ¶57).
In regards to claim 4, Knight teaches the system of claim 1. Knight further teaches wherein the verification element enables the user to verify completion of the given operational check by entering a comment on the given operational check (Knight: ¶82, ¶84-85, ¶88, Figs. 18, 20, & 23).
In regards to claim 5, Knight teaches the system of claim 1. Knight further teaches wherein the verification element enables the user to verify completion of the given operational check by selecting from a list of selectable options for the given operational check (Knight: ¶82, ¶84-85, ¶88, Figs. 18, 20, & 23).
In regards to claim 8, Knight teaches the system of claim 1. Knight further teaches wherein the interface elements further include a notification element that enables a user to view one or more notifications for the operational checks (Knight: ¶59, ¶80-81, Figs. 3 & 17).
In regards to claim 9, Knight teaches the system of claim 1. Knight further teaches wherein the interface elements further include a summary element, the summary element providing a number of pending operational checks, a number of verified operational checks, a number of operational checks marked as being not applicable, and a total number of operational checks (Knight: ¶70-78, Fig 14).
In regards to claim 14, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1.
In regards to claim 15, Knight teaches the method of claim 14. Knight further teaches
wherein the verification element enables the user to verify completion of the given operational check by making a swipe motion on the verification element, by entering a comment on the given operational check, or by selecting from a list of selectable options for the given operational check (Knight: ¶82, ¶84-85, ¶88, Figs. 18, 20, & 23).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20100217554), in view of Doan (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220414610).
In regards to claim 3, Knight teaches the system of claim 1. Although Knight teaches enabling the user to verify completion of the given operational check, the reference does not explicitly state wherein the verification is made using a swipe motion.
However, Doan teaches wherein the verification element enables the user to verify completion of the given operational check by making a swipe motion on the verification element (Doan: ¶27, ¶64).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the swipe motion, as taught by Doan, into the system and method of Knight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure “the field service technician's work is more efficient…the number of the field service technician's interactions with a work order are minimized” (Doan: ¶64).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20100217554), in view of Uomori (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20170262788).
In regards to claim 6, Knight teaches the system of claim 1. Although Knight teaches recording the user identity and timing of the verification, the reference does not explicitly state recording the location of the user.
However, Uomori teaches wherein responsive to verification by the user of the given operational check, identity of the user, location of the user, and timing of the verification by the user are recorded (Uomori: ¶42, ¶52-55).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recorded information, as taught by Uomori, into the system and method of Knight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create a report of which contents representing a state of each facility installed in the plant can be understood easily” (Uomori: ¶29).
In regards to claim 7, Knight and Uomori teach the system of claim 6. Knight and Uomori together further teach wherein the location of the user is obtained from a profile of the user (Uomori: ¶42, ¶52-55; Knight: ¶64-66).
In regards to claim 12, Knight teaches the system of claim 1. Although Knight teaches recording inspection data to generate reports, the reference does not explicitly state recording data in response to a receipt of acknowledgement.
However, Uomori teaches wherein: communication including information for the asset or a direction for the asset is transmitted to a group of users, the group of users including the user; the interface elements further include an acknowledgement element that enables the user to acknowledge the communication, wherein the acknowledgement of the communication includes receipt of the information for the asset or implementation of the direction for the asset; and responsive to acknowledgement by the user of the communication, identity of the user, location of the user, and timing of the acknowledgement by the user are recorded (Uomori: ¶30, ¶42, ¶45-46, ¶52-55, ¶59-63, ¶132).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recorded information, as taught by Uomori, into the system and method of Knight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create a report of which contents representing a state of each facility installed in the plant can be understood easily” (Uomori: ¶29).
In regards to claim 13, Knight and Uomori teach the system of claim 12. Knight and Uomori together further teach wherein a gap or a trend of user acknowledgement of the communication is determined in real time based on recordation of the identity of the user, the location of the user, and the timing of the acknowledgement by the user (Knight: ¶21, ¶26, ¶91-95; Uomori: ¶30, ¶42, ¶45-46, ¶52-55, ¶59-63, ¶132).
In regards to claim 16, Knight teaches the method of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 6. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 6 applies to the rejection of claim 16.
In regards to claim 19, Knight teaches the method of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 12 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 12. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 12 applies to the rejection of claim 19.
In regards to claim 20, Knight and Uomori teach the method of claim 19. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 13 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 13. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 13 applies to the rejection of claim 20.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20100217554), in view of Pierson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210074417).
In regards to claim 10, Knight teaches the system of claim 1. Although Knight teaches storing inspection information in a database, the reference does not explicitly state recording data offline and synchronizing the database when network connection is restored.
However, Pierson teaches wherein: the asset operational check information is obtained from a database before arrival of the user at the asset; the asset lacks Internet connection; user interaction with the graphical user interface to perform the operational checks is recorded without Internet connection; and the operational checks performed by the user without Internet connection is synchronized with the database after Internet connection is restored (Pierson: ¶21, ¶23, ¶43-46, ¶90, ¶96-97, ¶118).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data synchronization, as taught by Pierson, into the system and method of Knight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to ensure this equipment is in working order when needed” (Pierson: ¶2).
In regards to claim 11, Knight teaches the system of claim 1. Although Knight teaches storing inspection information in a database, the reference does not explicitly state propagating the database information to multiple computing devices.
However, Pierson teaches wherein: the asset operational check information is obtained from a database; the asset operational check information in the database is updated in real time to define a revised list of operational checks for the asset; and the updated asset operation check information is propagated from the database to multiple computing devices for use in performing the operational checks (Pierson: ¶21, ¶23, ¶39-46, ¶85-86, ¶90, ¶94-97, ¶118).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data propagation, as taught by Pierson, into the system and method of Knight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to ensure this equipment is in working order when needed” (Pierson: ¶2).
In regards to claim 17, Knight teaches the method of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 10 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 10. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 10 applies to the rejection of claim 17.
In regards to claim 18, Knight teaches the method of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 11 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 11. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 11 applies to the rejection of claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628