DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 17 and 19 are amended.
3. Claims 2, 4, and 13-16 are cancelled.
4. Claims 6 and 9-12 are previously prevented.
5. Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 5-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20130084838 A1), hereinafter Smith, in view of Tucker (US 20090121933 A1), hereinafter Tucker.
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a computing system for displaying graphic content regarding a mapping site on a user device, the computing system comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (Fig. 1, paragraph 36, wherein an input device is interpreted as a communication interface); and a memory device storing executable code (Fig. 14, paragraph 60) that, when executed, causes the processor to: generate a map-viewing interface viewable on the user device, the map-viewing interface including a display window visually presenting at least one of one or more display layers associated with the mapping site therein (Fig. 5, paragraph 44, “differing layers that can be selectively viewed”), each of the display layers corresponding to a graphical representation of at least one structure or utility present at the mapping site (Fig. 5, paragraph 44, “different structure types may be considered differing layers”, wherein structures are defined as including utilities), wherein each of the display layers is associated with geo-positional data (paragraph 37, wherein location or orientation info of underground structure data is interpreted as geo-positional data) to establish a relative position of each of the display layers within the display window and relative to the mapping site (Fig. 3-4, paragraph 42, wherein visualizing differentiated underground structures on a graphical representation of an area is interpreted as establishing relative positions of each structure within a display window); and display a file tag within the display window of the map-viewing interface, wherein the file tag is associated with a file accessible to the computing system and including data relating a corresponding structure or utility present at the mapping site (paragraph 51, wherein associated media content is interpreted as an accessible data relating to one of the structures or utilities, and “icons or other indicators” are interpreted as a file tag), wherein the file tag is associated with a task previously performed or a task to be performed with respect to the corresponding structure or utility (Fig. 7, paragraph 47, wherein the status and alert indicator for a given structure is interpreted as a file tag identifying a specific task to be performed related to the given structure) to which the file tag corresponds to visually identify the specific position of the task previously performed or to be performed with respect to the corresponding structure or utility relative to the entirety of the corresponding structure or utility (Fig. 6-7, paragraph 46-47, wherein the navigational instructions to the structures suggests the position of the status and alert indicator for a given structure is relative to the representative area; Fig 11A-11B, paragraph 54-55, wherein the 3D rendering may correspond to different portions of a structure to provide indications and reference points for the structures, which suggests that displayed navigational instructions can point to different portions of a structure, which is interpreted as being relative to the entirety of the corresponding structure or utility).
Smith does not teach where the file tag is associated with geo-positional data to establish a position of the file tag within the display window relative to each of the display layers instantaneously being visually presented within the display window, wherein the geo-positional data associated with the file tag corresponds to a specific position within the display window relative to an entirety of the structure or utility.
Tucker teaches a file tag associated with geo-positional data (paragraph 154, wherein the GIS formatted data is interpreted as a file associated with geo-positional data) to establish a position of the file tag within the display window (Fig. 16-17, paragraph 165, 169, wherein pop-up display screen which provides vital data identifying characteristics of selected utilities is interpreted as the file tag within the display window), wherein the geo-positional data associated with the file tag corresponds to a specific position within the display window relative to an entirety of the structure or utility (paragraph 23, wherein data is shown in the context of a project area map, which is interpreted as the geo-positional data corresponding to a position relative to the entirety of the structure or utility).
It would have been obvious to modify Smith to incorporate the teachings of Tucker before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a system of displaying layers representing a structure or utility of a mapping site, and displaying associated files and file tags. Both Smith and Tucker discuss systems of viewing and displaying underground structures and utilities on a display device, for the purposes of easily keeping track of the location and data associated with these structures and utilities, as well as making maintenance and inspections for these structures easier. Tucker additionally discusses displaying precise geo-positional data for these structures within a display, for the purposes of both more accurately leading maintenance workers to these structures and for workers to avoid damaging underground structures while digging or drilling. As Smith already discusses tracking the geo-positional data of structures as well, and both references discuss tracking utilities for the purposes of maintenance, it would be obvious to combine the two references.
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Tucker discloses the system of claim 1. Additionally, Smith teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the file is an image, video, or document having content relating to the previously performed task (paragraph 51, wherein associated media content includes images, videos, or documents, and wherein the media content being associated with a given structure suggests it can also include content related to tasks performed on that given structure).
Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Tucker discloses the system of claim 1. Additionally, Smith teaches providing a selection to a user of the user device regarding which of the plurality of the display layers to display within the display window (Fig. 5, paragraph 44, selection menu, selecting one or more structure types controls what underground structures are displayed on the GUI, wherein structure types are defined to be considered differing layers); and reconfiguring the display window to display only the selected ones of the plurality of the display layers following the selection of the user (Fig. 5, paragraph 44, selection options, checkboxes, wherein differing layers that can be selectively viewed is interpreted as only the selected layers are displayed).
Regarding claim 7, Smith in view of Tucker discloses the system of claim 1. Additionally, Smith teaches the computing system of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more display layers associated with the mapping site includes a graphical representation of a structure or utility disposed below a ground surface of the mapping site (Fig. 5, paragraph 44, selecting one or more structure types controls what underground structures are displayed on the GUI, wherein underground structures are defined as a structure below a ground surface of the area).
Regarding claim 8, Smith in view of Tucker discloses the system of claim 1. Additionally, Tucker teaches the computing system of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more display layers associated with the mapping site includes a graphical representation of a structure or utility (Fig. 16, paragraph 165, displaying GPS coordinates of selected utilities interpreted as a graphical representation of utilities) sensed via a surface penetrating mapping process (paragraph 152, producing precision asset location data through transmitting radar and sonar signals into the ground).
The motivation to combine would be the same as that set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Smith in view of Tucker discloses the system of claim 8. Additionally, Tucker teaches the computing system of Claim 8, wherein the surface penetrating mapping process includes the use of a surface penetrating radar system (paragraph 152, transmitting radar and sonar signals into the ground; paragraph 153, ground penetrating radar readers).
The motivation to combine would be the same as that set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Smith in view of Tucker discloses the system of claim 8. Additionally, Tucker teaches the computing system of Claim 8, wherein the surface penetrating mapping process is performed by an agent of a first entity managing the computing system (paragraph 77, wherein the precision GPS receiver is interpreted as an agent device of a first entity, and the radar/sonar asset position reader and recorder is interpreted as the surface penetrating mapping process).
The motivation to combine would be the same as that set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Smith in view of Tucker discloses the system of claim 1. Additionally, Smith teaches the computing system of Claim 1, wherein a first entity manages the computing system, and wherein at least one of the one or more display layers associated with the mapping site is derived from data acquired by an agent of the first entity during a mapping process performed by the agent with respect to the mapping site (Fig. 2, paragraph 38, wherein mobile device operated by a user who is interpreted as an agent of a first entity, and “visualizations of one or more underground structures” interpreted as a mapping process).
Regarding claim 12, Smith in view of Tucker discloses the system of claim 1. Additionally, Smith teaches the computing system of Claim 11, wherein at least one of the one of more display layers associated with the mapping site is derived from data acquired from a second entity (Fig. 1-2, paragraphs 36-37, wherein host is interpreted as a second entity, and underground structure data sources is the data acquired from a second entity) independently of the mapping process performed by the agent of the first entity (paragraph 38, wherein “in addition to or instead of an underground structure data source” implies the data from the mobile device controlled by a user and the data from the host may be independent).
Smith does not teach where the file tag is associated with geo-positional data to establish a position of the file tag within the display window relative to each of the display layers instantaneously being visually presented within the display window, wherein the geo-positional data associated with the file tag corresponds to a specific position within the display window relative to an entirety of the structure or utility.
Tucker teaches a file tag associated with geo-positional data (paragraph 154, wherein the GIS formatted data is interpreted as a file associated with geo-positional data) to establish a position of the file tag within the display window (Fig. 16-17, paragraph 165, 169, wherein pop-up display screen which provides vital data identifying characteristics of selected utilities is interpreted as the file tag within the display window), wherein the geo-positional data associated with the file tag corresponds to a specific position within the display window relative to an entirety of the structure or utility (paragraph 23, wherein data is shown in the context of a project area map, which is interpreted as the geo-positional data corresponding to a position relative to the entirety of the structure or utility).
Regarding claim 21, Smith in view of Tucker discloses the system of claim 1. Additionally, Smith teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein each of the display layers is further associated with vertical position data to establish a relative height or depth position of each of the display layers within the display window and relative to the mapping site (paragraph 33-34, wherein structures can include data and parameters including depth, size, position, and orientation, which is interpreted as being associated with vertical position data and depth position; Fig. 2, 5, paragraph 38, 44, wherein the GUI shows a graphical representation of structures based on data sources associated with the structures, and wherein the display layers are associated with different given structures, which suggests that the given display layers are associated with vertical position data relative to the mapping site) and wherein the file tag is further associated with vertical position data relating to a height or depth of the task to be performed relative to an entirety of the corresponding structure or utility within the display window and relative to the mapping site (Fig. 6-7, paragraph 46-47, wherein the navigational instructions to the structures suggests the position of the status and alert indicator for a given structure is relative to the representative area, and the navigational instructions is based on structure data, which includes vertical position and depth data; Fig 11A-11B, paragraph 54-55, wherein the 3D rendering may correspond to different portions of a structure to provide indications and reference points for the structures, which suggests that displayed navigational instructions can point to different portions of a structure, which is interpreted as being relative to the entirety of the corresponding structure or utility).
9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Tucker as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Daoud (US 11579639 B2), hereinafter Daoud.
Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Tucker discloses the system of claim 1. Additionally, Daoud teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the file is associated with a work order relating to the task to be performed (Col. 5, lines 44-50, wherein maintenance reports converted into work orders is interpreted as a file related to a task to be performed associated with a work order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith in view of Tucker to incorporate the teachings of Daoud for this system of having files with associated geo-positional data represent a task performed at a position within a mapping site. Both Smith and Tucker discuss locating and displaying various structures and utilities of an area, for the purposes of allowing workers to easily find and track them for repairs and maintenance. Likewise, Daoud also teaches keeping track of the positions of various structures and rooms in an area, for the purposes of guiding workers to find and track them down for repairs and maintenance. Additionally, Daoud discusses letting those workers note down tasks for each structure, either recording past tasks performed for each structure, or noting future tasks to be performed on the structure. As both Smith and Tucker detail how additional files and media may be linked to each structure, it would be obvious to incorporate the modifications of Daoud.
10. Claims 17-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Daoud, and further in view of Tucker.
Regarding claim 17, Smith teaches a method to establish a task to be performed at a mapping site, where the relative position of the task is relative to the mapping site (Fig. 6-7, paragraph 46-47, wherein the status and alert indicator is interpreted as a task to be performed, the navigational instructions to the structures suggests the position of the status and alert indicator for a given structure is relative to the entirety of the corresponding structure or utility); generating a display window on the user device of the service provider following the sending step, the display window visually presenting at least one of one or more display layers associated with the mapping site therein (Fig. 5, paragraph 44, “differing layers that can be selectively viewed”), each of the display layers corresponding to a graphical representation of at least one structure or utility present at the mapping site (Fig. 5, paragraph 44, “different structure types may be considered differing layers”, wherein structures are defined as including utilities), wherein each of the display layers is associated with geo-positional data (paragraph 37, wherein location and/or orientation info of underground structure data is interpreted as geo-positional data) to establish a relative position of each of the display layers within the display window (Fig. 3-4, paragraph 42, wherein visualizing differentiated underground structures on a graphical representation of an area is interpreted as establishing relative positions of each structure within a display window) and relative to the mapping site, wherein the task to be performed is associated with a corresponding structure or utility graphically represented in one or more of the display layers (Fig. 6-7, paragraph 46-47, wherein the status and alert indicator is interpreted as a task to be performed, and include navigational instructions to the corresponding structure; Fig. 5, paragraph 44, wherein structure types on the GUI correspond to one or more display layers, which suggests the associated task can also correspond to one or more display layers), wherein the geo-positional data corresponds to a specific position within the display window relative to an entirety of the structure or utility to which the file tag corresponds to visually identify the specific position of the task previously performed or to be performed with respect to the corresponding structure or utility relative to the entirety of the corresponding structure or utility (Fig. 6-7, paragraph 46-47, wherein the status and alert indicator is interpreted as a type of file tag that corresponds to visually identify a specific position of a task, wherein the navigational instructions represent the location and/or orientation of the structure, which is interpreted as corresponding geo-positional data; Fig. 5, paragraph 44, wherein the structures are displayed relative to a graphical representation of an area; Fig 11A-11B, paragraph 54-55, wherein the 3D rendering may correspond to different portions of a structure to provide indications and reference points for the structures, which suggests that displayed navigational instructions can point to different portions of a structure, which is interpreted as being relative to the entirety of the corresponding structure or utility).
Smith does not teach a method of assigning a work order to a service provider comprising the steps of: sending a notification to a user device of the service provider indicating the generation of the work order, the work order corresponding to a task, wherein the work order is associated with geo-positional data; and tagging a position within the display window, relative to each of the display layers instantaneously visually presented therein, at which the task corresponding to the work order is to be performed based on the geo-positional data associated with the work order.
Daoud teaches a method of assigning a work order to a service provider comprising the steps of: sending a notification to a user device of the service provider indicating the generation of the work order (Col. 12 lines 12-26, wherein automatically notifying the user who submitted the report or is assigned the report is interpreted as notifying the generation of the work order, wherein reports are defined as converted into work orders), the work order corresponding to a task to be performed at a mapping site (Col. 5, lines 44-50), wherein the work order is associated with geo-positional data (Fig. 1A-1B, Col. 5 lines 21-36, wherein geo-located reports are interpreted as a file with associated geo-positional data, and maintenance and inspection reports are interpreted as work orders), at which the task corresponding to the work order is to be performed based on the geo-positional data associated with the work order (Fig. 4A, Col. 10 lines 7-22, wherein report records corresponding to particular locations is interpreted as tasks performed based on the geo-positional data associated with the work orders).
Smith and Daoud do not teach tagging a position within the display window, relative to each of the display layers instantaneously visually presented therein.
Tucker teaches tagging a position within the display window, relative to each of the display layers instantaneously visually presented therein (Fig. 16-17, paragraph 165, 169, wherein pop-up display screen which provides vital data identifying characteristics of selected utilities is interpreted as tagging a position within the display window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Tucker and Daoud for this method of assigning a work order based on its geo-positional data for a structure or utility, and displaying them in layers in a display window. Both Smith and Tucker discuss systems of viewing and displaying underground structures and utilities on a display device, for the purposes of easily keeping track of the location and data associated with these structures and utilities, as well as making maintenance and inspections for these structures easier. Additionally, Tucker discusses tagging and displaying the exact positions of structures on a user device for the purposes of more precisely guiding workers to the structures, as well as providing information on tasks that need to be done on the structures. It would be obvious to combine Smith with the teachings of Tucker, for the purposes of better and more precisely guide workers to structures and utilities. Furthermore, Daoud discusses a system for users and workers to submit and file maintenance and repair reports of rooms and structures while keeping track of their locations, for the purposes of more efficiently maintaining and issuing work orders. It would be obvious to incorporate this system of filing reports and work orders with the system of Smith, which already visually displays the location and associated data and files of structures and utilities, to also visually display associated work orders.
Regarding claim 18, Smith in view of Tucker and Daoud discloses the method of claim 17. Additionally, Daoud teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the sending of the notification includes the user device of the service provider automatically signaling the receipt of the notification (Col. 12 lines 12-26, automatically notifying the user who submitted the report or is assigned the report, wherein email, text, or in-app notification is interpreted as a receipt).
The motivation to combine would the be the same as that set forth for claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Smith in view of Tucker and Daoud discloses the method of claim 17. Additionally, Tucker teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising a step of displaying a file tag within the display window, wherein the file tag is associated with a file including data relating to one of the structures and/or utilities present at the mapping site (paragraph 150, wherein asset location data is interpreted as data relating to structures or utilities, and asset is defined as an underground utility), wherein the file is associated with geo-positional data (paragraph 154, wherein the GIS formatted data is interpreted as a file associated with geo-positional data) to establish a position of the file tag within the display window relative to each of the display layers instantaneously being visually presented within the display window (Fig. 16-17, paragraph 165, 169, wherein the pop-up display screen which provides vital data identifying characteristics of selected utilities is interpreted as the file tag within the display window).
The motivation to combine would be the be the same as that set forth for claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, Smith in view of Tucker and Daoud discloses the method of claim 19. Additionally, Smith teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising a step of redirecting the user device of the service provider to view the contents of the file upon an interaction (Fig. 9, paragraph 49-50, wherein a user device requesting to edit underground structure data is interpreted as redirecting the user device to view the contents of the file, where underground structure data is interpreted as the file) of the service provider (paragraph 53, wherein a particular user or administrator is interpreted as the server provider) with the file tag displayed within the display window (Fig. 8, paragraph 48, wherein display box 129 of underground structure data is interpreted as a file tag displayed within the display window).
Regarding claim 22, Smith in view of Tucker and Daoud discloses the method of claim 17. Additionally, Smith teaches the method of claim 17, wherein each of the display layers is further associated with vertical position data to establish a relative height or depth position of each of the display layers within the display window and relative to the mapping site (paragraph 33-34, wherein structures can include data and parameters including depth, size, position, and orientation, which is interpreted as being associated with vertical position data and depth position; Fig. 2, 5, paragraph 38, 44, wherein the GUI shows a graphical representation of structures based on data sources associated with the structures, and wherein the display layers are associated with different given structures, which suggests that the given display layers are associated with vertical position data relative to the mapping site) and wherein the file tag is further associated with vertical position data relating to a height or depth of the task to be performed relative to an entirety of the corresponding structure or utility within the display window and relative to the mapping site (Fig. 6-7, paragraph 46-47, wherein the navigational instructions to the structures suggests the position of the status and alert indicator for a given structure is relative to the representative area, and the navigational instructions is based on structure data, which includes vertical position and depth data; Fig 11A-11B, paragraph 54-55, wherein the 3D rendering may correspond to different portions of a structure to provide indications and reference points for the structures, which suggests that displayed navigational instructions can point to different portions of a structure, which is interpreted as being relative to the entirety of the corresponding structure or utility).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to amendments and arguments that Smith in view of Tucker and Daoud do not teach a task associated with a specific geographic location with relative to the identified structure or utility, examiner replies that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, examiner replies that Smith (Fig. 11A-11B, paragraphs 54) discloses that the renderings of different target areas may represent different portions of the structures. As the rendering of the target area may be only a portion of a selected structure, this suggests that the navigational instructions (Fig. 6, paragraph 46) that shows the relative location of the selected structure given a graphical representation of an area (Fig. 3, paragraph 42), should also be capable to navigating a user to a portion of a selected structure, which is interpreted as identifying a specific geographic location relative to a an identified structure. Similarly, this suggests the status message and alert indicator (Fig. 7, paragraph 47) may also be capable of being directed to a specific portion of a selected structure, wherein the status message and alert indicator is interpreted as a type of file tag.
In conclusion, the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected above. To the extent that new citations and parenthetical remarks can be considered new grounds of rejection, such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claim as well as the claims newly added by the applicant. Therefore, the present office action is made final.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN W YICK whose telephone number is (571)272-4063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/JORDAN WAN YICK/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612