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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 have been amended.
Claims 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16 have been cancelled.
Claims have been added.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 – 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 – 15, 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
generating, by a first business entity, a survey template comprising a plurality of asset assessment queries, each of the asset assessment queries corresponding to a request for data regarding an assessment of a status and/or condition of an associated one of the plurality of assets disposed at the survey site, each of the asset assessment queries including a unique identifier and a reference to an asset type, a model, or a geographic location within the survey site;
conducting the survey by a surveyor, the conducting of the survey including the surveyor accessing the survey template, the conducting of the survey further including the surveyor submitting survey related data regarding the status and/or condition of each of the associated assets as an entry to each of the corresponding asset assessment queries, wherein a copy of an asset assessment query associated with a first asset may be created either by an administrator during generation of the survey template or by the surveyor and during conducting the survey, the copy being created for a second asset having at least one matching characteristic to the first asset, wherein the copied asset assessment query retains at least some of the previously entered asset information while automatically assigning a distinct identifier to the new asset assessment query, wherein for each asset assessment query enables the surveyor to capture a photographic image of the corresponding asset, generate an annotation over the photographic image, and submit the image with the annotation and corresponding survey related data, allow the surveyor to generate a customized annotation configuration via drawing an identifying marker or shape on the photographic image via finger gesture input, and wherein the geographic location of the first user is determined at the time of capture of the photographic image and automatically associated with the corresponding asset assessment query;
digitally reporting results of the survey to the customer organization following completion of the conducting of the survey, wherein digitally reporting the results of the survey to the customer organization includes displaying the results, the display including, for at least one asset, the photographic image, the customized annotation configuration, the associated geographic coordinates, and the unique asset identifier associated with the corresponding asset assessment query.
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of asset inspection and reporting, which corresponds to “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having a user be provided with an inspection/survey form, perform an inspection, fill out the form, drawing/annotating on an image information associated with their inspection, and submit the form.
The limitations of:
generating, by a first business entity, a survey template comprising a plurality of asset assessment queries, each of the asset assessment queries corresponding to a request for data regarding an assessment of a status and/or condition of an associated one of the plurality of assets disposed at the survey site, each of the asset assessment queries including a unique identifier and a reference to an asset type, a model, or a geographic location within the survey site;
conducting the survey by a surveyor, the conducting of the survey including the surveyor accessing the survey template, the conducting of the survey further including the surveyor submitting survey related data regarding the status and/or condition of each of the associated assets as an entry to each of the corresponding asset assessment queries, wherein a copy of an asset assessment query associated with a first asset may be created either by an administrator during generation of the survey template or by the surveyor and during conducting the survey, the copy being created for a second asset having at least one matching characteristic to the first asset, wherein the copied asset assessment query retains at least some of the previously entered asset information while automatically assigning a distinct identifier to the new asset assessment query, wherein for each asset assessment query enables the surveyor to capture a photographic image of the corresponding asset, generate an annotation over the photographic image, and submit the image with the annotation and corresponding survey related data, allow the surveyor to generate a customized annotation configuration via drawing an identifying marker or shape on the photographic image via finger gesture input, and wherein the geographic location of the first user is determined at the time of capture of the photographic image and automatically associated with the corresponding asset assessment query;
digitally reporting results of the survey to the customer organization following completion of the conducting of the survey, wherein digitally reporting the results of the survey to the customer organization includes displaying the results, the display including, for at least one asset, the photographic image, the customized annotation configuration, the associated geographic coordinates, and the unique asset identifier associated with the corresponding asset assessment query,
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computing system, generic camera, generic user interface, and generic touchscreen capabilities. That is, other than reciting a generic computing system, generic camera, generic user interface, and generic touchscreen capabilities nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. For example, but for the generic computing system, generic camera, generic user interface, and generic touchscreen capabilities in the context of this claim encompasses a human performing an inspection and, using pen and paper, filling out an inspection form, submitting their inspection results, and drawing a picture or drawing on a picture. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computing system, generic camera, generic user interface, and generic touchscreen capabilities, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic computing system, generic camera, generic user interface, and generic touchscreen capabilities to communicate and display information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper, i.e. filling out (writing) an inspection form and drawing on an image. The generic computing system, generic camera, generic user interface, and generic touchscreen capabilities in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system, generic camera, generic user interface, and generic touchscreen capabilities can perform the extra solution steps of communicating and displaying information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic computing system, generic camera, generic user interface, and generic touchscreen capabilities are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing system, generic camera, generic user interface, and generic touchscreen capabilities.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing system, generic camera, generic user interface, and generic touchscreen capabilities to perform the steps of:
generating, by a first business entity, a survey template comprising a plurality of asset assessment queries, each of the asset assessment queries corresponding to a request for data regarding an assessment of a status and/or condition of an associated one of the plurality of assets disposed at the survey site, each of the asset assessment queries including a unique identifier and a reference to an asset type, a model, or a geographic location within the survey site;
conducting the survey by a surveyor, the conducting of the survey including the surveyor accessing the survey template, the conducting of the survey further including the surveyor submitting survey related data regarding the status and/or condition of each of the associated assets as an entry to each of the corresponding asset assessment queries, wherein a copy of an asset assessment query associated with a first asset may be created either by an administrator during generation of the survey template or by the surveyor and during conducting the survey, the copy being created for a second asset having at least one matching characteristic to the first asset, wherein the copied asset assessment query retains at least some of the previously entered asset information while automatically assigning a distinct identifier to the new asset assessment query, wherein for each asset assessment query enables the surveyor to capture a photographic image of the corresponding asset, generate an annotation over the photographic image, and submit the image with the annotation and corresponding survey related data, allow the surveyor to generate a customized annotation configuration via drawing an identifying marker or shape on the photographic image via finger gesture input, and wherein the geographic location of the first user is determined at the time of capture of the photographic image and automatically associated with the corresponding asset assessment query;
digitally reporting results of the survey to the customer organization following completion of the conducting of the survey, wherein digitally reporting the results of the survey to the customer organization includes displaying the results, the display including, for at least one asset, the photographic image, the customized annotation configuration, the associated geographic coordinates, and the unique asset identifier associated with the corresponding asset assessment query,
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claims 2 – 4 are directed towards descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing the survey related data.
Claim 7 is directed towards the recitation of generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, in this case, using a digital camera to take an image.
Claim 8 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of retrieving data.
Claim 10 is directed towards descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing the annotation.
Claim 13 is directed towards descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing the survey related data.
Claim 14 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of transmitting data and describing the survey related data.
Claim 15 is directed towards descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing the survey related data.
Claims 17 – 20 are directed towards human activities.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for making the decision discussed above. Accordingly, the claims 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 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 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 1 – 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 – 15, 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US PGPub 2011/0173127 A1) in view of Pierson et al. (WO 2019/112844 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Nichols discloses a method of conducting and reporting a survey regarding an assessment of a plurality of assets disposed at a survey site associated with a customer organization, the method comprising:
generating, by a computing system of a first business entity, a survey template comprising a plurality of asset assessment queries, each of the asset assessment queries corresponding to a request for data regarding an assessment of a status and/or condition of an associated one of the plurality of assets disposed at the survey site, each of the asset assessment queries including a unique identifier and a reference to an asset type, a model, or a geographic location within the survey site (¶ 53, 70, 121, 123, 124, 132, 134 wherein an inspection template is generated and is comprised inspection criteria and standard codes that are required to be evaluated by an inspector for the particular asset, wherein the asset includes a unique identifier, type, and location. The inspector also scans a tag associated with the asset to retrieve information specific to the particular asset.);
conducting the survey by a surveyor, the conducting of the survey including the surveyor accessing the survey template during execution of a software application managed by the computing system on a first user device of the surveyor, the conducting of the survey further including the surveyor submitting survey related data to the computing system regarding the status and/or condition of each of the associated assets as an entry to each of the corresponding asset assessment queries during execution of the software application on the first user device of the surveyor, wherein a copy of an asset assessment query associated with a first asset may be created either by an administrator during generation of the survey template or by the surveyor via the first user device and during conducting the survey, the copy being created for a second asset having at least one matching characteristic to the first asset, wherein the copied asset assessment query retains at least some of the previously entered asset information while automatically assigning a distinct identifier to the new asset assessment query, wherein for each asset assessment query the software application enables the surveyor to capture a photographic image of the corresponding asset using a camera feature of the first user device, generate an annotation over the photographic image via interaction with an annotation editing interface of the software application, and submit the image with the annotation and corresponding survey related data, wherein the annotation editing interface is configured to allow the surveyor to generate a customized annotation configuration by interacting with a graphical user interface of the software application during execution on a touch-screen display of the first user device via drawing an identifying marker or shape on the photographic image via finger gesture input, and wherein the geographic location of the first user is determined at the time of capture of the photographic image and automatically associated with the corresponding asset assessment query (¶ wherein the inspector conducts an inspection of the asset using the generated template on their inspection device, which encompasses the inspector taking a photograph of the asset, annotating the photograph, providing input required by inspection criteria and standard codes to assess the status/condition of the asset, and the system verifies all inspection requirements, e.g., media sample (e.g., photograph), timestamp, GPS location, identification of the inspector, and security signature. The inspection report can be saved for record keeping, as well as for later retrieval if changes need to be made. The system further allows for copies of the generated template to be made as a particular template can be used for another asset that may be of the same type, but the template can be differentiated from other assets of the same type by an identification number/asset identifier in order to avoid redundant entries. The system also allows for the inspector to utilize the touchscreen capabilities of their device to annotate a photograph by allowing the inspector to draw a circle to more accurately identify a particular issue.);
digitally reporting results of the survey to the customer organization following completion of the conducting of the survey, wherein digitally reporting the results of the survey to the customer organization includes displaying the results in a graphical user interface accessible […], the display including, for at least one asset, the photographic image, the customized annotation configuration, the associated geographic coordinates, and the unique asset identifier associated with the corresponding asset assessment query (¶ 77 wherein the inspection report can be saved for record keeping, as well as for later retrieval if changes need to be made, to a customer organization, wherein the report is digitally created, stored, and available for retrieval and further includes media sample (e.g., photograph), timestamp, annotations, and GPS location corresponding to the asset.).
Ho discloses a system and method of providing an inspection device to an inspector that provides the inspector with an inspection plan, which outlines, guides, and assists the inspector with performing an inspection on an asset. Although Ho discloses that the inspection device communicates the results over the Internet to a host computer, Ho fails to explicitly disclose whether information is communicated and accessed on a generated inspection reporting website.
To be more specific, Ho fails to explicitly disclose:
digitally reporting results of the survey to the customer organization following completion of the conducting of the survey, wherein digitally reporting the results of the survey to the customer organization includes displaying the results in a graphical user interface accessible via a website, the display including, for at least one asset, the photographic image, the customized annotation configuration, the associated geographic coordinates, and the unique asset identifier associated with the corresponding asset assessment query
However, Pierson, which is very similar to Ho because it is also directed towards, at least, providing an inspector with an inspection device in order to assist with the inspection of an asset, further teaches that it is not only old and well-known in the art to provide the inspection device with the ability to communicate with a central system over the Internet, but generate an inspection reporting and management website to facilitate the reporting and access of inspection related information. Pierson teaches generating an inspection website allows for inspectors and owners (or the like) of the asset to manage and disseminate inspection related information, which, in turn, facilitates the inspection and management of assets, e.g., identifying assets that require repair and/or replacement.
(¶ 20, 33, 39, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 159)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the inspection system and method of Ho, which includes a communication network, e.g., the Internet, to allow for inspection devices to communicate with a central system regarding inspection related data, tasks, and the like, with the ability to generate an inspection reporting website, as taught by Pierson, as this allows for inspectors and owners (or the like) of the asset to manage and disseminate inspection related information, which, in turn, facilitates the inspection and management of assets, e.g., identifying assets that require repair and/or replacement.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the survey related data corresponds to a text-based description of the status and/or condition of one of the assets (Ho – ¶ 55, 123 wherein the survey related data corresponds to a text-based description of the status and/or condition of one of the assets).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the survey related data corresponds to a numerical rating of the status and/or condition of one of the assets (Ho – ¶ 55, 123 wherein the survey related data corresponds to a text-based description of the status and/or condition of one of the assets. The Examiner asserts that whether the assessment corresponds to words, numbers, or etc. is a matter of design choice and that these various options are obvious variations of one another. The inspector is providing their assessment accord to inspection criteria and standard codes and the results of their assessment could be bad/good, satisfactory/unsatisfactory, pass/fail, green/red, 0/100 or etc. while all conveying the same result. Although the combination of Ho and Pierson do not explicitly disclose how the input looks, i.e. words, numbers, or etc., the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, if not, inherent, that numbers are text and that it is up to the practitioner of the invention on how to convey inspection results using any known and established manner of how to convey inspection results.).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the photographic image shows the status and/or condition of the corresponding one of the assets (Ho – ¶ 63 wherein the photographic image shows the status and/or condition of the corresponding one of the assets).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the software application is configured to redirect the first user device of the surveyor to the camera feature thereof when the surveyor is taking the photographic image (Ho – ¶ 63, 124 wherein the image is a photographic image taken via utilization of a camera feature of the inspector’s device, i.e. the device contains the software to allow for execution of the camera functionality, and wherein for the system to verify the report as completed the inspector is required to take an image).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the software application is configured to retrieve a previously taken photographic image from a storage device of the first user device (Ho – ¶ 63, 76, 124, 125 wherein reports, which include, at least, the image, are saved by the system and can be retrieved for subsequent inspections, repairs, or etc., which can be updated after a subsequent inspection and/or fix).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the annotation includes text, an identifying marker, or a combination thereof (Ho – ¶ 55, 63, 123 wherein the annotation includes text, an identifying marker, or a combination thereof).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the geographic location of the first user device corresponds to coordinates of the one of the assets according to the geographic coordinate system (GCS) (Ho – ¶ 121; Pierson – ¶ 144, 145 wherein Pierson discloses a plurality of non-limiting equivalent location determination systems and that one of ordinary skill in the art of geographical location determination systems would have within their ability to utilize whatever system is currently available and/or best suited for the task at hand in order to capture location coordinates).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 13, wherein the geographic location of the first user device is submitted when a GPS tracking feature of the first user device is activated (Ho – ¶ 121; Pierson – ¶ 23, 26, 46, 63, 144 wherein the inspector is required to be within proximity of the device in order to allow the inspector to perform the inspection, thereby allowing for the inspection report to be submitted).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the survey related data corresponds to an optical code identifying one of the assets (Ho – ¶ 56 wherein the survey related data corresponds to an optical code identifying one of the assets).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising a step of assigning a surveyor to complete the survey (Ho – ¶ 122, 123, 124; Pierson – ¶ 83 wherein an inspector is assigned and authenticated to complete the inspection).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the conducting of the survey further includes the surveyor adding new asset assessment queries to the survey template via use of the software application (Ho – ¶ 60, 63, 121 wherein the template is filled out by the inspector and/or created by a supervisor to include information specific to the asset that is being inspected, which results in adding new asset assessment queries to the template as this information corresponds to the particular asset).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the customer organization is associated with a plurality of survey sites, and wherein the digitally reporting the results of the survey to the customer organization following completion of the conducting of the survey includes reporting the results of a plurality of the surveys conducted with respect to the plurality of the survey sites (Pierson – ¶ 88, 89, 92, 109, 110, 111 wherein the customer organization is associated with a plurality of survey sites, and wherein the digitally reporting the results of the survey to the customer organization following completion of the conducting of the survey includes reporting the results of a plurality of the surveys conducted with respect to the plurality of the survey sites).
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Ho and Pierson discloses the method of Claim 19, wherein the reporting of the results of a plurality of the surveys conducted with respect to the plurality of the survey sites includes grouping the results of a subset of the surveys for display together (¶20, 33, 39, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 83, 159, 120 wherein the reporting of the results of a plurality of the surveys conducted with respect to the plurality of the survey sites includes grouping the results of a subset of the surveys for display together. Pierson teaches to group similar inspection sites, e.g., group of medical equipment, or, alternatively, performing an inspection of an asset at different location (inspection sites). Pierson further teaches that this allows for more effective tracking of a group of similar devices over an assigned inspection area, thereby allowing for the system to better track and inform/notify an owner of the status/condition of their equipment. For example, an owner would be notified that a group of medical equipment require servicing or that a particular asset has been used at various locations and an inspection record can be maintained for the product all for the purpose of determining whether the asset(s) requires repair, replacement, servicing, or the like. Additionally, this allows for inspectors and owners (or the like) of the asset to manage and disseminate inspection related information, which, in turn, facilitates the inspection and management of assets, e.g., identifying assets that require repair and/or replacement, as well as the current location of the asset).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The claim objection has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention recites generic technology recited at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea. The claimed invention is not improving technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology, but using generic computing devices that includes a generic camera and generic touchscreen interface to perform the generic functions of capturing an image and receiving user input. The claimed invention is not improving upon or resolving an issue that arose in the generic computing device, the generic camera, or generic touchscreen, but simply utilizing the generic technology for the benefits that it provides, e.g., more efficient, faster, and etc.
The claimed invention can be performed by a human using pen and paper and is, therefore, not deeply rooted in technology. The generic technology is simply being utilized to communicate, store, and display information and is dependent on the user providing all of the information. In other words, the generic technology is being used to make information available to a user in as much the same way that a paper form provides information to a user and to receive user input in as much the same way that a user can fill out information in the paper form. The use of the camera is only being used to take a picture in as much the same way that a user can simply draw a picture of the asset and drawing, highlighting, or the like on the picture to point out a particular element or simply handing the user a picture of the asset and having the user draw/write on it. Similarly, the touchscreen is a generic touchscreen to allow for user input in as much the same way that a user can write or draw on an image or paper form. Although the claimed invention later recites GPS technology, similar to above, the claimed invention is reciting generic GPS technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea and not to the improvement of GPS technology, the resolution of an issue that arose in GPS technology, or deeply rooted in GPS technology.
The claimed invention is a fundamental economic practice as it is directed towards an interaction with a user and, more specifically, an inspector carrying out an inspection for another user that they have a business relationship with.
Finally, copying and providing written information is not an improvement to technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology. The concept is directed towards having a generic paper form/template with information that is applicable to many scenarios and filling in the form with information that corresponds to the scenario in as much the same way that tax forms are templates that are then later filled out be a respective human with information that corresponds to the particular human or a school having paperwork about a student, writing down the students demographic information, and updating the form to indicate the new grade level that the student is in, i.e. some information is saved and reused, but the paperwork can be updated to reflect new information. Simply having a generic computing devices store information to then later be retrieved and updated is not an improvement to technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology.
Rejection under 35 USC 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 – 15, 17 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8, 9, filed 8/4/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 – 15, 17 – 20 under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ho et al. (US PGPub 2011/0173127 A1) in view of Pierson et al. (WO 2019/112844 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Avrahami et al. (US Patent 12,347,090 B2); Swansey et al. (US PGPub 2019/0250882 A1); Stancato et al. (US PGPub 2017/0358072 A1); Collins (US PGPub 2018/0322598 A1); Kneppers et al. (WO 2012/012303 A1); Kneppers et al. (US PGPub 2012/0023435 A1); York et al. (WO 2011/005513 A1); York et al. (WO 2011/005513 A1); York et al. (US PGPub 2010/0185549 A1); Telingator et al. (WO 96/11433 A1) – which are directed towards the utilization of a computing device to assist an inspector with an inspection, as well as utilizing templates, allowing for annotations/notes, and the use of touchscreen technology
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 GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 9/12/2025