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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1 – 15 in the reply filed on November 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 20, 2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
Claim 1:
displaying an indicator that corresponds to each of one or more of a plurality of devices of the building;
receiving a selection by the respective inspector;
capturing a time duration taken by the respective inspector to inspect the selected device;
retrieving inspection data, wherein the inspection data includes, for each of the plurality of devices of the building:
a device type;
a device location;
the time duration taken to inspect the respective device;
determining an inspection zone score for each of a plurality of zones of the building, wherein the inspection zone score for each of the plurality of zones represents a ratio of a number of devices having a device location that is in the respective zone over a total number of devices in the plurality of zones of the building, divided by a ratio of a time duration taken to inspect the devices having a device location that is in the respective zone over a predetermined time allocated to inspect all of the devices in the building; and
display the inspection zone score for one or more of the plurality of zones of the building
Claim 9:
displaying an indicator that corresponds to each of one or more of a plurality of devices of the building;
receiving a selection by the respective inspector;
capturing time stamps associated with inspection of the selected device;
retrieving inspection data, wherein the inspection data includes, for each of a plurality of devices of the building:
a device type;
a device location;
the time stamps associated with the inspection of each of the plurality of devices;
determining an inspection device health score for each of the plurality of devices of the building, wherein the inspection device health score includes one or more of:
a device under inspection score, which represents a degree at which the respective device was under inspected relative to a predetermined inspection schedule;
a device over inspection score, which represents a degree at which the respective device was over inspected relative to the predetermined inspection schedule; and
display the inspection device health score for one or more of the plurality of devices.
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of personnel performance evaluation, which corresponds to “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., the claimed invention is directed towards evaluating the performance of inspection obligations performed by inspectors by having an inspector perform an inspection on an asset, writing down their finding and when the job was performed, (Claim 1) perform mathematical calculation to determine the percent progress for a plurality of inspection tasks assigned to a plurality of inspectors; (Claim 9) evaluate the performance of an inspector, and displaying (Claim 1) a score representing the percent progress; (Claim 9) a score of an inspectors’ performance.
The limitations of:
Claim 1:
displaying an indicator that corresponds to each of one or more of a plurality of devices of the building;
receiving a selection by the respective inspector;
capturing a time duration taken by the respective inspector to inspect the selected device;
retrieving inspection data, wherein the inspection data includes, for each of the plurality of devices of the building:
a device type;
a device location;
the time duration taken to inspect the respective device;
determining an inspection zone score for each of a plurality of zones of the building, wherein the inspection zone score for each of the plurality of zones represents a ratio of a number of devices having a device location that is in the respective zone over a total number of devices in the plurality of zones of the building, divided by a ratio of a time duration taken to inspect the devices having a device location that is in the respective zone over a predetermined time allocated to inspect all of the devices in the building; and
display the inspection zone score for one or more of the plurality of zones of the building
Claim 9:
displaying an indicator that corresponds to each of one or more of a plurality of devices of the building;
receiving a selection by the respective inspector;
capturing time stamps associated with inspection of the selected device;
retrieving inspection data, wherein the inspection data includes, for each of a plurality of devices of the building:
a device type;
a device location;
the time stamps associated with the inspection of each of the plurality of devices;
determining an inspection device health score for each of the plurality of devices of the building, wherein the inspection device health score includes one or more of:
a device under inspection score, which represents a degree at which the respective device was under inspected relative to a predetermined inspection schedule;
a device over inspection score, which represents a degree at which the respective device was over inspected relative to the predetermined inspection schedule; and
display the inspection device health score for one or more of the plurality of devices
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic mobile devices, generic user interface, and generic dashboard for generically displaying information. That is, other than reciting generic mobile devices, generic user interface, and generic dashboard nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic mobile devices, generic user interface, and generic dashboard in the context of this claim encompasses a user can observe and evaluate information regarding the performance of a job’s progress, perform a mathematical calculation, and write down and present data representing the calculation; a user can observe and collect information regarding another user’s performance and write down and present the results of their findings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic mobile devices, generic user interface, and generic dashboard, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” 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 – generic mobile devices, generic user interface, and generic dashboard to communicate and display information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. performing a mathematical calculation; evaluating a user’s performance. The generic mobile devices, generic user interface, and generic dashboard in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic mobile devices, generic user interface, and generic dashboard can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating and displaying information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic mobile devices, generic user interface, and generic dashboard are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or 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 generic mobile devices, generic user interface, and generic dashboard.
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 generic mobile devices, generic user interface, and generic dashboard to perform the steps of:
Claim 1:
displaying an indicator that corresponds to each of one or more of a plurality of devices of the building;
receiving a selection by the respective inspector;
capturing a time duration taken by the respective inspector to inspect the selected device;
retrieving inspection data, wherein the inspection data includes, for each of the plurality of devices of the building:
a device type;
a device location;
the time duration taken to inspect the respective device;
determining an inspection zone score for each of a plurality of zones of the building, wherein the inspection zone score for each of the plurality of zones represents a ratio of a number of devices having a device location that is in the respective zone over a total number of devices in the plurality of zones of the building, divided by a ratio of a time duration taken to inspect the devices having a device location that is in the respective zone over a predetermined time allocated to inspect all of the devices in the building; and
display the inspection zone score for one or more of the plurality of zones of the building
Claim 9:
displaying an indicator that corresponds to each of one or more of a plurality of devices of the building;
receiving a selection by the respective inspector;
capturing time stamps associated with inspection of the selected device;
retrieving inspection data, wherein the inspection data includes, for each of a plurality of devices of the building:
a device type;
a device location;
the time stamps associated with the inspection of each of the plurality of devices;
determining an inspection device health score for each of the plurality of devices of the building, wherein the inspection device health score includes one or more of:
a device under inspection score, which represents a degree at which the respective device was under inspected relative to a predetermined inspection schedule;
a device over inspection score, which represents a degree at which the respective device was over inspected relative to the predetermined inspection schedule; and
display the inspection device health score for one or more of the plurality of devices,
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:
Claim 2 is directed towards human activities involving the removal and addition of information.
Claim 3 is directed towards human activities involving the allocation of resources (inspectors) based on the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, identifying low performance/progress areas and allocating resources to those areas.
Claim 4 is directed towards human activities involving evaluating the performance of personnel and writing down the results of the evaluation.
Claims 5, 6 are directed towards mathematical concepts for evaluating the performance of personnel and writing down the results of the evaluation.
Claim 7 is directed towards human activities and mathematical concepts involving the collection and organization of information based on the performance evaluation that was performed.
Claim 8 is directed towards human activities involving the allocation of resources (inspectors) based on the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, identifying low performance/progress areas and allocating resources to those areas.
Claim 13 is directed towards human activities involving the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, evaluating the personnel performance to determine if training is needed.
Claim 14 is directed towards the recitation of generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea.
Although the claim recites “training a generative artificial intelligent model,” the claims and specification fail to provide sufficient disclosure regarding an improvement to how the generative AI model can be trained, but simply recites a high-level generic recitation that a generative AI model is being trained. There is insufficient evidence from the specification to indicate that the use of the generative AI model involves anything other than the generic application of a known technique or that the claimed invention purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or the generative AI model. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Even training and applying a generative AI model is simply an application of a computer model, itself an abstract idea manifestation. Further, such training and applying of a model is no more than putting data into a black box machine learning operation. The nomination as being a generative AI model is a functional label, devoid of technological implementation and application details. The specification does not contend it invented any of these activities, or the creation and use of such generative AI models. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Examiner asserts that the scope of the disclosed invention, as presented in the originally filed specification, is not directed towards the improvement of machine learning, but directed towards evaluating the performance of a job by assessing the percent completion and/or personnel performance. The specification’s disclosure on machine learning is nothing more than a high general explanation of generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea. Referring to MPEP § 2106.05(f), the training is merely being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, which provides nothing more than a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP § 2106.05(f). The Examiner asserts that in light of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, the claimed invention is analogous to Example 47, Claim 2.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system with generative AI model. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 remaining claims recite subject matter that has already been discussed above.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for evaluating the performance of a job. 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, 3 – 8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US PGPub 2017/0061961 A1) in view of Mitti et al. (US PGPub 2014/0164039 A1) in further view of Wilson et al. (US PGPub 2022/0251817 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Nichols discloses a method for determining an inspection efficiency of a plurality of inspectors inspecting devices of a building, the method comprising:
for each of a plurality of mobile devices carried by a respective one of the plurality of inspectors (Fig. 1, 3; ¶ 34, 43, 47, 70 wherein a plurality of inspectors carrying and utilizing a respective portable inspection device is disclosed):
displaying an indicator on a display of the corresponding mobile device that corresponds to each of one or more of a plurality of devices of the building (¶ 30, 46, 47, 58, 66 wherein the inspection device displays and indicator corresponding to the asset or section of an asset that an assigned inspector has been assigned to inspect);
receiving a selection by the respective inspector of one of the plurality of devices via a user interface of the corresponding mobile device (¶ 46, 47, 55, 56, 68 wherein the inspector provides selections regarding their inspection of their assigned asset);
[…];
retrieving inspection data, wherein the inspection data includes, for each of the plurality of devices of the building (¶ 46, 47, 55, 56, 68 wherein the system receives inspection data regarding assets):
a device type (¶ 47, 71, 73 wherein the inspection data includes the asset type (e.g., building, tractor-trailer, jet engine, automobile, or etc.) that is to be inspected by a corresponding inspector);
a device location (¶ 47 wherein the inspection data includes the location of the asset that will be inspected by a corresponding inspector, e.g. components (asset) located at the front of a jet engine and components (asset) located at the rear of a jet engine);
[…];
[…]; and
[…].
Nichols discloses a system and method for managing the inspection of a wide range of assets using inspection devices assigned to inspectors who have been assigned to inspect a particular asset type and its location. Although Nichols discloses an inspection schedule and inputs may be defined for entering dates and times (¶ 61, 67), as well as allowing an inspector to input and confirm their findings and employing available inspectors to assist other inspectors to help complete inspections in a reasonable amount of time, Nichols fails to disclose all types of inspection data that can be provided, such as, data representing the time it took to inspect an asset.
To be more specific, Nichols fails to explicitly disclose:
capturing a time duration taken by the respective inspector to inspect the selected device;
the time duration taken to inspect the respective device.
However, Mitti, which is also directed towards managing inspectors and inspections, as well as assigning multiple inspectors to perform an inspection, further teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to track the time for an inspection to be performed by a respective inspector. Mitti teaches that this information can be utilized to evaluate the performance of an inspector as well as maintain a historical record of the expected time an inspection of the asset should take in the future, which, in turn, would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine if a future inspector is taking too long or too little time to inspect an asset and allow for a performance analysis of that future inspector and also determine whether that future inspector is qualified to inspect that same asset or other assets. Additionally, by tracking how long a particular inspector takes to inspect an asset, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine if an inspector is qualified to inspect an asset before its inspection due date.
(For support see: ¶ 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 39)
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline.
The combination of Nichols and Mitti discloses a system and method for managing the inspection of an asset and inspectors by evaluating the performance of inspectors to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected time frame and to determine whether an inspector may need the assistance of another inspector in order to complete an inspection within the expected time frame. Despite this, the combination of Nichols and Mitti fails to explicitly disclose determining the percent complete for a plurality of inspection tasks with reference to a deadline and presenting results representing the analysis.
To be more specific, the combination of Nichol and Mitti fails to explicitly disclose:
determining an inspection zone score for each of a plurality of zones of the building, wherein the inspection zone score for each of the plurality of zones represents a ratio of a number of devices having a device location that is in the respective zone over a total number of devices in the plurality of zones of the building, divided by a ratio of a time duration taken to inspect the devices having a device location that is in the respective zone over a predetermined time allocated to inspect all of the devices in the building; and
display on a dashboard the inspection zone score for one or more of the plurality of zones of the building.
However, Wilson, which is also directed towards the management of inspections, evaluating the performance of inspectors to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected time frame, and assigning other inspectors to uncompleted inspections, further teaches providing a centralized system with a dashboard that monitors the progress of a plurality of inspections occurring at respective sites (zones) in a region (aggregation of zones) and evaluating whether an inspection will be completed within an expected time frame and, if not, assigning another inspector to ensure that the inspection will be completed in order to remain in compliance (expected time to perform an inspection at a zone and time all zones are expected to be completed) and to ensure that an asset will operate as intended. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a centralized system and dashboard to monitor the progress of a plurality of inspection sites across a region and to determine if inspection tasks will be completed within in a timely manner as this ensures that an asset will operate as intended when it is needed, as well as to determine whether another inspector should be assigned to an inspection site so as to ensure that the inspection is performed timely.
(For support see: Fig. 3A, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11A, 13A; ¶ 45, 46, 47)
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 management system and method of the combination of Nichols and Mitti with the ability to track the progress of a plurality of inspections over a region, determine whether the inspections will be completed within an expected timeframe, and to display information representing completion progress, as taught by Wilson, because this allows for determining whether additional manpower should be assigned to an inspection so that the inspection task can be completed within an expected timeframe, thereby maintaining compliance and ensuring that an asset will function as intended and/or will be available.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: subsequently automatically allocating more inspection resources to the zone of the building that had the lowest inspection zone score (Wilson – ¶ 45 wherein another inspector is assigned to a zone (inspection site) that has the lowest inspection zone score (inspection has not been completed and likely will not be completed that day); See also: Nichols – ¶ 70 wherein another inspector is assigned to an inspection if the inspection will not be able to be completed by a single inspector within a particular timeframe.
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 management system and method of the combination of Nichols and Mitti with the ability to track the progress of a plurality of inspections over a region, determine whether the inspections will be completed within an expected timeframe, and to display information representing completion progress, as taught by Wilson, because this allows for determining whether additional manpower should be assigned to an inspection so that the inspection task can be completed within an expected timeframe, thereby maintaining compliance and ensuring that an asset will function as intended and/or will be available.).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an inspection device health score for each of the plurality of devices of the building, wherein the inspection device health score includes one or more of:
a device under inspection score, which represents a degree at which the respective device was under inspected relative to a predetermined inspection schedule;
a device over inspection score, which represents a degree at which the respective device was over inspected relative to the predetermined inspection schedule; and
displaying on the dashboard the inspection device health score for one or more of the plurality of devices of the building
(Mitti – ¶ 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 39 wherein the system tracks how long an inspector took to inspect an asset and maintains a record on how long an inspection should take based on historical information to determine the performance of the inspector, i.e. did the inspector take too long, too little, or as expected and displaying this information for current and future assessment/determinations.
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline.).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising:
determining an inspector rank score for each of at least some of the plurality of inspectors, wherein each of the plurality of inspectors inspects a subset of the plurality of devices of the building, and wherein the inspector rank score for each inspector represents a ratio of the time duration taken by the respective inspector to inspect all of the devices in the subset of the plurality of devices of the building associated with the respective inspector over a total number of devices in the subset of the plurality of devices of the building associated with the respective inspector; and
displaying on the dashboard the inspector rank score for one or more of the plurality of inspectors
(Mitti – ¶ 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 39 wherein the system tracks how long an inspector took to inspect an asset and maintains a record on how long an inspection should take based on historical information to determine the performance of the inspector, i.e. did the inspector take too long, too little, or as expected and displaying this information for current and future assessment/determinations. In other words, inspectors are graded/ranked based on how long they are taking to perform a job and a record is maintained of all their inspections to determine how long the inspector is taking on all of their assigned jobs to that they can be ranked/graded on their performance.
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline.).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an inspector rank score for each of at least some of the plurality of inspectors, wherein each of the plurality of inspectors inspects a subset of the plurality of devices of the building, and wherein the inspector rank score for each inspector represents a ratio of the time duration taken by the respective inspector to inspect all of the devices in the subset of the plurality of devices of the building associated with the respective inspector over a total number of devices in the subset of the plurality of devices of the building associated with the respective inspector; and
displaying on the dashboard the inspector rank score for one or more of the plurality of inspectors
(Mitti – ¶ 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 39 wherein the system tracks how long an inspector took to inspect an asset and maintains a record on how long an inspection should take based on historical information to determine the performance of the inspector, i.e. did the inspector take too long, too little, or as expected and displaying this information for current and future assessment/determinations. In other words, inspectors are graded/ranked based on how long they are taking to perform a job and a record is maintained of all their inspections to determine how long the inspector is taking on all of their assigned jobs to that they can be ranked/graded on their performance.
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising determining an inspector rank score for each of a plurality of different types of devices (Mitti – ¶ 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 39 wherein the system tracks how long an inspector took to inspect an asset and maintains a record on how long an inspection should take based on historical information to determine the performance of the inspector, i.e. did the inspector take too long, too little, or as expected and displaying this information for current and future assessment/determinations. In other words, inspectors are graded/ranked based on how long they are taking to perform a job and a record is maintained of all their inspections to determine how long the inspector is taking on all of their assigned jobs to that they can be ranked/graded on their performance. Additionally, this information is also used by the system to determine whether the inspector has the necessary qualifications and/or skill to inspect a particular asset.
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising allocating inspectors for inspecting devices of a building based at least in part on the inspector rank score for each of at least some of the plurality of inspectors (Nichols – ¶ 70 wherein another inspector is assigned to an inspection if the inspection will not be able to be completed by a single inspector within a particular timeframe.; Mitti – ¶ 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 39 wherein the system tracks how long an inspector took to inspect an asset and maintains a record on how long an inspection should take based on historical information to determine the performance of the inspector, i.e. did the inspector take too long, too little, or as expected and displaying this information for current and future assessment/determinations.; Wilson – ¶ 45 wherein another inspector is assigned to a zone (inspection site) that has the lowest inspection zone score (inspection has not been completed and likely will not be completed that day).
The combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson provides a system and method for evaluating the performance of an inspector to determine whether the inspector is performing at an expected performance level and/or determine whether an assigned inspection will be completed within an expected timeframe and, if not, assign another inspector to complete or assist with the completion of the inspection if they are qualified or have the necessary skills to perform the inspection.
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline.
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 management system and method of the combination of Nichols and Mitti with the ability to track the progress of a plurality of inspections over a region, determine whether the inspections will be completed within an expected timeframe, and to display information representing completion progress, as taught by Wilson, because this allows for determining whether additional manpower should be assigned to an inspection so that the inspection task can be completed within an expected timeframe, thereby maintaining compliance and ensuring that an asset will function as intended and/or will be available).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Nichols and Mitti discloses a system and method for managing the inspection of an asset and inspectors by evaluating the performance of inspectors to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected time frame and to determine whether an inspector may need the assistance of another inspector in order to complete an inspection within the expected time frame. Despite this, the combination of Nichols and Mitti fails to explicitly disclose determining the percent complete for a plurality of inspection tasks with reference to a deadline and presenting results representing the analysis.
To be more specific, the combination of Nichol and Mitti fails to explicitly disclose:
the method of claim 9, further comprising:
determining an inspection zone score for each of a plurality of zones of the building, wherein the inspection zone score for each of the plurality of zones represents a ratio of a number of devices having a device location that is in the respective zone over a total number of devices in the plurality of zones of the building, divided by a ratio of a time duration taken to inspect the devices having a device location that is in the respective zone over a predetermined time allocated to inspect all of the devices in the building; and
display on the dashboard the inspection zone score for one or more of the plurality of zones of the building.
However, Wilson, which is also directed towards the management of inspections, evaluating the performance of inspectors to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected time frame, and assigning other inspectors to uncompleted inspections, further teaches providing a centralized system with a dashboard that monitors the progress of a plurality of inspections occurring at respective sites (zones) in a region (aggregation of zones) and evaluating whether an inspection will be completed within an expected time frame and, if not, assigning another inspector to ensure that the inspection will be completed in order to remain in compliance (expected time to perform an inspection at a zone and time all zones are expected to be completed) and to ensure that an asset will operate as intended. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a centralized system and dashboard to monitor the progress of a plurality of inspection sites across a region and to determine if inspection tasks will be completed within in a timely manner as this ensures that an asset will operate as intended when it is needed, as well as to determine whether another inspector should be assigned to an inspection site so as to ensure that the inspection is performed timely.
(For support see: Fig. 3A, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11A, 13A; ¶ 45, 46, 47)
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 management system and method of the combination of Nichols and Mitti with the ability to track the progress of a plurality of inspections over a region, determine whether the inspections will be completed within an expected timeframe, and to display information representing completion progress, as taught by Wilson, because this allows for determining whether additional manpower should be assigned to an inspection so that the inspection task can be completed within an expected timeframe, thereby maintaining compliance and ensuring that an asset will function as intended and/or will be available.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US PGPub 2017/0061961 A1) in view of Mitti et al. (US PGPub 2014/0164039 A1) in view of Wilson et al. (US PGPub 2022/0251817 A1) in further view of Bobbitt (The Complete Guide When to Remove Outliers in Data).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: processing the retrieved inspection data to:
[…]; and
add at least some derived inspection data that is derived from the retrieved inspection data, wherein the derived inspection data includes the time duration taken to inspect the devices having a device location that is in the respective zone (Mitti – ¶ 26, 29, 49, 54 wherein historical information it utilized by the system to derive relevant information that assists with the inspection of an asset, e.g., time to inspect an asset, inspection scheduling, whether to assign a particular inspector, and etc.
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline.).
The combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson discloses a system and method for collecting observation data to perform an evaluation. Despite this, the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson fails to explicitly disclose removing some data.
To be more specific, the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson fails to explicitly disclose:
remove at least some of the retrieved inspection data
However, Bobbitt teaches:
“An outlier is an observation that lies abnormally far away from other values in a dataset.
Outliers can be problematic because they can affect the results of an analysis.
However, they can also be informative about the data you're studying because they can reveal abnormal cases or individuals that have rare traits.
In any analysis, you must decide to remove or keep outliers.
…
Sometimes outliers in a dataset are simply a result of data entry error.
…
If the biologist kept this observation and calculated a descriptive statistic like the mean height of the plants in the sample, this observation would greatly skew the results and give an inaccurate picture of the true mean height of the plants.
In this scenario (and in scenarios similar to this one) it makes sense to remove this outlier from the dataset because it's an error and is not a legitimate data point to include in the analysis.
…
If an observation is a true outlier and not just a result of a data entry error, then we need to examine whether or not the outlier affects the results of the analysis.
…
If an observation is a true outlier and not just a result of a data entry error, then we need to examine whether or not the outlier affects the results of the analysis.”
One of skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Bobbitt would have found it obvious and beneficial to evaluate the inspection data collected by the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson, especially when historical information is being stored and utilized for future inspections, because an inspector could incorrectly input information that can skew the inspection results, affect compliance, and result in storing improper inspection results. One of ordinary skill in the art utilizing the system and method of the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson can compare current inspection results with historical inspection results to determine if the data should be removed and whether an inspection should be performed again, especially if there is information indicating that the inspector did not do their job correctly, e.g., performed their inspection too quickly.
(For support see: Pages 1 – 6)
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 management systema and method of the combination of Nichols, Mitti, and Wilson with the ability to evaluate inspection data and remove some data, e.g., outliers, as taught by Bobbitt, because outliers can negatively affect the data set, which, in turn, can convey an improper condition of an inspected asset and result in a dangerous outcome, e.g., malfunctioning asset, damaged asset, non-compliant asset, and/or etc.
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US PGPub 2017/0061961 A1) in view of Mitti et al. (US PGPub 2014/0164039 A1).
In regards to claim 9, Nichols discloses a method for determining an inspection efficiency of a plurality of inspectors inspecting devices of a building, the method comprising:
for each of a plurality of mobile devices carried by a respective one of the plurality of inspectors (Fig. 1, 3; ¶ 34, 43, 47, 70 wherein a plurality of inspectors carrying and utilizing a respective portable inspection device is disclosed):
displaying an indicator on a display of the corresponding mobile device that corresponds to each of one or more of a plurality of devices of the building (¶ 30, 46, 47, 58, 66 wherein the inspection device displays and indicator corresponding to the asset or section of an asset that an assigned inspector has been assigned to inspect);
receiving a selection by the respective inspector of one of the plurality of devices via a user interface of the corresponding mobile device (¶ 46, 47, 55, 56, 68 wherein the inspector provides selections regarding their inspection of their assigned asset);
[…];
retrieving inspection data, wherein the inspection data includes, for each of a plurality of devices of the building (¶ 46, 47, 55, 56, 68 wherein the system receives inspection data regarding assets):
a device type (¶ 47, 71, 73 wherein the inspection data includes the asset type (e.g., building, tractor-trailer, jet engine, automobile, or etc.) that is to be inspected by a corresponding inspector);
a device location (¶ 47 wherein the inspection data includes the location of the asset that will be inspected by a corresponding inspector, e.g. components (asset) located at the front of a jet engine and components (asset) located at the rear of a jet engine);
[…];
In regards to:
determining an inspection device health score for each of the plurality of devices of the building, […]:
[…];
[…]; and
display on a dashboard the inspection device health score for one or more of the plurality of devices
(¶ 2, 44, 46, 64, 67, 68 wherein the inspector provides the results of their inspection to determine if the asset is in compliance, i.e. inspection device health score, and displays the results for the inspector and/or recipient to review).
Nichols discloses a system and method for managing the inspection of a wide range of assets using inspection devices assigned to inspectors who have been assigned to inspect a particular asset type and its location. Although Nichols discloses an inspection schedule and inputs may be defined for entering dates and times (¶ 61, 67), as well as allowing an inspector to input and confirm their findings and employing available inspectors to assist other inspectors to help complete inspections in a reasonable amount of time, Nichols fails to disclose all types of inspection data that can be provided, such as, data representing the time it took to inspect an asset.
To be more specific, Nichols fails to explicitly disclose:
capturing time stamps associated with inspection of the selected device;
the time stamps associated with the inspection of each of the plurality of devices;
determining an inspection device health score for each of the plurality of devices of the building, wherein the inspection device health score includes one or more of (¶ ):
a device under inspection score, which represents a degree at which the respective device was under inspected relative to a predetermined inspection schedule;
a device over inspection score, which represents a degree at which the respective device was over inspected relative to the predetermined inspection schedule
However, Mitti, which is also directed towards managing inspectors and inspections, as well as assigning multiple inspectors to perform an inspection, further teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to track the time for an inspection to be performed by a respective inspector. Mitti teaches that this information can be utilized to evaluate the performance of an inspector as well as maintain a historical record of the expected time an inspection of the asset should take in the future, which, in turn, would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine if a future inspector is taking too long or too little time to inspect an asset and allow for a performance analysis of that future inspector and also determine whether that future inspector is qualified to inspect that same asset or other assets. Additionally, by tracking how long a particular inspector takes to inspect an asset, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine if an inspector is qualified to inspect an asset before its inspection due date.
(For support see: ¶ 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 39)
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Nichols and Mitti discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
determining an inspector rank score for each of at least some of the plurality of inspectors, wherein each of the plurality of inspectors inspects a subset of the plurality of devices of the building, and wherein the inspector rank score for each inspector represents a ratio of a time duration taken by the respective inspector to inspect all of the devices in the subset of the plurality of devices of the building associated with the respective inspector over a total number of devices in the subset of the plurality of devices of the building associated with the respective inspector; and
displaying on the dashboard the inspector rank score for one or more of the plurality of inspectors
(Mitti – ¶ 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 39 wherein the system tracks how long an inspector took to inspect an asset and maintains a record on how long an inspection should take based on historical information to determine the performance of the inspector, i.e. did the inspector take too long, too little, or as expected and displaying this information for current and future assessment/determinations. In other words, inspectors are graded/ranked based on how long they are taking to perform a job and a record is maintained of all their inspections to determine how long the inspector is taking on all of their assigned jobs to that they can be ranked/graded on their performance.
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline.).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Nichols and Mitti discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising allocating inspectors for inspecting devices of a building based at least in part on the inspector rank score for each of at least some of the plurality of inspectors (Nichols – ¶ 70 wherein another inspector is assigned to an inspection if the inspection will not be able to be completed by a single inspector within a particular timeframe.; Mitti – ¶ 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 39 wherein the system tracks how long an inspector took to inspect an asset and maintains a record on how long an inspection should take based on historical information to determine the performance of the inspector, i.e. did the inspector take too long, too little, or as expected and displaying this information for current and future assessment/determinations.).
The combination of Nichols and Mitti provides a system and method for evaluating the performance of an inspector to determine whether the inspector is performing at an expected performance level and/or determine whether an assigned inspection will be completed within an expected timeframe and, if not, assign another inspector to complete or assist with the completion of the inspection if they are qualified or have the necessary skills to perform the inspection.
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline.).
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US PGPub 2017/0061961 A1) in view of Mitti et al. (US PGPub 2014/0164039 A1) in further view of Bobbitt (The Complete Guide When to Remove Outliers in Data).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Nichols and Mitti discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: processing the retrieved inspection data to:
[…]; and
add at least some derived inspection data that is derived from the retrieved inspection data, wherein the derived inspection data includes a number of times each device was inspected (Mitti – ¶ 26, 29, 49, 54 wherein historical information it utilized by the system to derive relevant information that assists with the inspection of an asset, e.g., time to inspect an asset, inspection scheduling, whether to assign a particular inspector, and etc.
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 management system and method of Nichols with the ability to track the time it takes an inspector to inspect an asset, as taught by Mitti, because inspection scheduling can be optimized, inspectors performance and qualification can be evaluated and determined, and future scheduling of an asset and inspectors can be performed more efficiently to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected deadline.).
The combination of Nichols and Mitti discloses a system and method for collecting observation data to perform an evaluation. Despite this, the combination of Nichols and Mitti fails to explicitly disclose removing some data.
To be more specific, the combination of Nichols and Mitti fails to explicitly disclose:
remove at least some of the retrieved inspection data
However, Bobbitt teaches
“An outlier is an observation that lies abnormally far away from other values in a dataset.
Outliers can be problematic because they can affect the results of an analysis.
However, they can also be informative about the data you're studying because they can reveal abnormal cases or individuals that have rare traits.
In any analysis, you must decide to remove or keep outliers.
…
Sometimes outliers in a dataset are simply a result of data entry error.
…
If the biologist kept this observation and calculated a descriptive statistic like the mean height of the plants in the sample, this observation would greatly skew the results and give an inaccurate picture of the true mean height of the plants.
In this scenario (and in scenarios similar to this one) it makes sense to remove this outlier from the dataset because it's an error and is not a legitimate data point to include in the analysis.
…
If an observation is a true outlier and not just a result of a data entry error, then we need to examine whether or not the outlier affects the results of the analysis.
…
If an observation is a true outlier and not just a result of a data entry error, then we need to examine whether or not the outlier affects the results of the analysis.”
One of skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Bobbitt would have found it obvious and beneficial to evaluate the inspection data collected by the combination of Nichols and Mitti, especially when historical information is being stored and utilized for future inspections, because an inspector could incorrectly input information that can skew the inspection results, affect compliance, and result in storing improper inspection results. One of ordinary skill in the art utilizing the system and method of the combination of Nichols and Mitti can compare current inspection results with historical inspection results to determine if the data should be removed and whether an inspection should be performed again, especially if there is information indicating that the inspector did not do their job correctly, e.g., performed their inspection too quickly.
(For support see: Pages 1 – 6)
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 management systema and method of the combination of Nichols and Mitti with the ability to evaluate inspection data and remove some data, e.g., outliers, as taught by Bobbitt, because outliers can negatively affect the data set, which, in turn, can convey an improper condition of an inspected asset and result in a dangerous outcome, e.g., malfunctioning asset, damaged asset, non-compliant asset, and/or etc.
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US PGPub 2017/0061961 A1) in view of Mitti et al. (US PGPub 2014/0164039 A1) in further view of Continu (8 Powerful KPIs to Meaure Training and Development).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Nichols and Mitti discloses a system and method for managing the inspection of an asset and inspectors by evaluating the performance of inspectors to ensure that an asset will be inspected within an expected time frame and to determine whether an inspector may need the assistance of another inspector in order to complete an inspection within the expected time frame. Despite this, the combination of Nichols and Mitti fails to explicitly disclose whether performance information can be used to identify training needs.
To be more specific, the combination of Nichol and Mitti fails to explicitly disclose:
the method of claim 11, further comprising identifying training needs for one or more of the plurality of inspectors based at least in part on the inspector rank score for each of at least some of the plurality of inspectors.
However, Continu, which is directed towards assessing the performance of personnel, further teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to evaluate a user’s post-training KPI to determine if the user requires additional training. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the teachings of Continu into the KPI assessment system and method of the combination of Nichols and Mitti as this ensures that inspectors are qualified and have the necessary skill set to perform their job while also assisting with more efficiently managing jobs by having as many well-qualified personnel available to complete as many jobs as possible.
(Pages 8, 9)
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 KPI assessment system and method of the combination of Nichols and Mitti with the ability to evaluate a user’s performance to identify training needs, as taught by Continu, because this would ensure that inspectors are qualified and have the necessary skill set to perform their job while also assisting with more efficiently managing jobs by having as many well-qualified personnel available to complete as many jobs as possible.
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US PGPub 2017/0061961 A1) in view of Mitti et al. (US PGPub 2014/0164039 A1) in further view of Winn (Study finds ChatGPT boosts worker productivity for some writing tasks).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Nichols and Mitti discloses an inspection management system and method that assists inspectors with performing their assigned duties by utilizing a provided computing device that guides and reviews their submissions. Despite this, the combination of Nichols and Mitti fails to explicitly disclose utilizing generative artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP) to assist a user with completing their assigned task.
To be more specific, the combination of Nichols and Mitti fails to explicitly disclose:
the method of claim 9, further comprising:
training a generative artificial intelligent model regarding inspection tasks associated with devices of a building;
receiving a natural language query from one of the plurality of inspectors regarding how to perform an inspection task on one or more of the devices in the building; and
providing the natural language query to the generative artificial intelligent model, and in response, the generative artificial intelligent model returning a natural language description of how to perform the inspection task identified in the natural language query.
However, Winn teaches:
“Amid a huge amount of hype around generative Al, a new study from researchers at MIT sheds light on the technology's impact on work, finding that it increased productivity for workers assigned tasks like writing cover letters, delicate emails, and cost-benefit analyses.
…
Access to the assistive chatbot ChatGPT decreased the time it took workers to complete the tasks by 40 percent, and output quality, as measured by independent evaluators, rose by 18 percent.
…
Half of participants were given access to the chatbot ChatGPT-3.5, developed by the company OpenAI, for the second assignment. Those users finished tasks 11 minutes faster than the control group, while their average quality evaluations increased by 18 percent.
…
The study offered a close-up look at the impact that tools like ChatGPT can have on certain writing tasks. But extrapolating that impact out to understand generative Al's effect on the economy is more difficult. That's what the researchers hope to work on next.
…
The tasks in the study weren't quite replicas of real work: They didn't require precise factual accuracy or context about things like a company's goals or a customer's preferences. Still, a number of the study's participants said the assignments were similar to things they'd written in their real jobs - and the benefits were substantial. Access to the assistive chatbot ChatGPT decreased the time it took workers to complete the tasks by 40 percent, and output quality, as measured by independent evaluators, rose by 18 percent.”
One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the combination of Nichols and Mitti would have found that efficiency and optimization is one of the many goals that the combination of Nichols and Mitti is attempting to achieve and, accordingly, with advancements in technology, it would have been obvious to incorporate a generative AI model that utilizes NLP, such as, ChatGPT, to assist a worker with completing their task quicker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that applying a generative AI model that utilizes NLP would allow a worker to naturally communicate and work with a repository of information that can more effectively and quickly address and resolve any concerns they may have with respect to completing their job.
(For support see: Pages 1 – 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to update the computer-based task assistance system and method of the combination of Nichols and Mitti using modern electronic components, e.g., generative AI and NLP, as taught in Winn, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as efficiency and speed, which, in turn, can result in reduced costs.
Accommodating the prior arts more manual and antiquated process with modern electronics, in this case, generative AI and NLP to assist a worker with completing their tasks, e.g., writing up an inspection report, would have been obvious. As stated in Leapfrog, “applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years.”
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.
Human Resources Western Washington University - Calculating Percentages of Time Spent on Job Responsibilities); Chukwu )Time on task Definition, strategy and advice); Kinsey (21 Essential Production KPIs for Manufacturing Success); Landau (How to Calculate Percent Complete in Project Management); Nemcova (12 Productivity Metrics Examples for Working Effectively); OKRify (Time-on-Task or Task Completion Time); Pump Academy (5 Basic KPI Formulas to Quantify Performance Measures); Schwarz (A Comprehensive Guide to Operational Metrics and KPIs); Wimi Staff (14 KPIs to know in order to evaluate a project’s progress) – which are directed towards evaluating the performance of personnel and/or tasks
Gibson (et al. (US PGPub 2021/0398690); Ho et al. (US PGPub 2011/0173127 A1); Park Min Woo et al. (EP 4068175 A1); Popkowski et al. (US PGPub 2019/0266884 A1); Zhang et al. (CA 3219901 A1); Bayat et al. (US PGPub 2021/0334766 A1); Miller et al. (WO 2015/023957 A1); Pierson et al. (WO 2019/112844 A1); Wolf et al. (EP 3971853 B) – which are directed towards inspection and inspector management systems
Mitchell et al. (US PGPub 2010/0312604 A1); Bowman (US PGPub 2018/0211262 A1); Ito (WO 2015/019806 A1); Kamath et al. (US PGPub 2025/0037090 A1); Lai et al. (US PGPub 2025/0222889 A1); Manning et al. (US PGPub 2022/0335521 A1); Snyder et al. (US PGPub 2024/0020656 A1); Snyder et al. (US PGPub 2024/0020655 A1); Rosental et al. (US PGPub 2020/0210961 A1); Brand et al. (US PGPub 2020/0210918 A1) – which are directed towards monitoring and managing personnel schedules for task scheduling and management
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 2/26/2026