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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahuja et al. (US 2018/0349823 A1, hereinafter “Ahuja”).
Ahuja teaches:
1. A system comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a problem definition component that receives a work order associated with a problem of an asset, determines critical factors of related work orders, and defines the problem of the asset based on the critical factors and the work order [Ahuja, ¶ 0027];
a scoring component that generates user scores indicating a skill level of a user tasked with resolving the problem of the asset for each asset component of the asset based on a user profile [Ahuja, ¶ 0030]; and
a customization component that:
determines a task-required score based on the user scores for the asset components associated with the problem and the user scores for related asset components [Ahuja, ¶ 0030]; and
generates a customization guide based on the task-required score [Ahuja, ¶¶ 0048 & 0049].
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the problem definition component analyzes related work orders based on a timeline associated with the related work orders and generates weighted determiners to determine the critical factors [Ahuja, ¶ 0038].
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the user profile comprises one or more of a group consisting of: historical work orders associated with the user, an amount of work experience of the user, a work log of the user, a self-assessment of the user, and review comments associated with the user [Ahuja, ¶ 0030].
Claims 11 & 16 recite limitations similar to those in claims 1 & 6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
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.
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 2-5, 8-10, 12-15 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja in view of Zhang & Roy’s 2019 article (hereinafter “Zhang”, see Form 892).
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer executable components further comprise: a document filter component that generates a coarse-grained document tree for each document in a document library based on predefined dimensions and matches the documents at a paragraph granularity based on the critical factors and related asset components, and performs fine-grained semantic analysis on the content of the matched documents at a sentence level; and a document assembling component that generates an assembled document based on an integrity analysis and a semantic similarity analysis on the content of related paragraphs of the matched documents. [Zhang, pages 2768-2771, tree matching for semantic similarity and page 2775].
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the computer executable components further comprise: a document essentializing component that generates an essentialized document based on the assembled document and the customization guide [Zhang, pages 2768-2771, tree matching for semantic similarity and page 2775].
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the computer executable components further comprise: an asset component net generator that identified each asset component of an asset and clusters the asset components based on semantic similarity to generate an asset component net [Zhang, pages 2768-2771, tree matching for semantic similarity and page 2775].
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the customization component determines the related asset components based on the asset component net [Zhang, pages 2768-2771, tree matching for semantic similarity and page 2775].
8. The system of claim 2, wherein the document assembling component generates an assembled document by identifying paragraphs for the addition of a reference or other supplementary information [Ahuja, ¶ 0038].
9. The system of claim 3, wherein the document essentializing component prevents the insertion of redundant information to the essentialized document based on the assembled document [Ahuja, ¶ 0041].
10. The system of claim 3, wherein the document essentializing component generates the essentialized document by adding and omitting information to and from the essentialized document based on the customization guide [Ahuja, ¶ 0041].
Ahuja and Zhang are analogous art in the same field of endeavor, similarity matching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the references due to the advantage of fine tuned similarity matching.
Clamis 12-15 and 17-20 are similar to claims 2-5, 8-10 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights