DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgments
Claims 2 and 13 are cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 are new claims.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are pending.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 11-12
None of these operations can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. A human cannot communicate with a server or portable device, cannot exchange electrical messages therebetween, cannot receive or read any electronic messages, detect proximity to wireless communication infrastructure, detect that a wireless telecommunications network connection cannot be established, locally cache data into a memory of a portable electronic device, or automatically transmit digital data between a server and a portable electronic device.
Much like Example 37 Claim 2, amended independent claims 1 and 12 are not directed to a mental process because the claimed features - detecting proximity to wireless communication infrastructure, detecting that a wireless telecommunications network connection cannot be established, locally caching data into a memory of a portable electronic device, and automatically transmitting data between the server and the portable electronic device - cannot be "practically performed in the human mind" as discussed above.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner interprets the server, portable electronic device, wireless communication infrastructure, and wireless telecommunications network as additional elements that carryout the abstract idea steps such as exchanging data or receiving data. Additional elements are not part of the Step 2A prong 1 analysis. These additional elements are mere tools with respect to the abstract idea grouping of a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application which include merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
In addition, there is no active step of detecting whether a wireless communication connection can be established. The claims recite this as condition that the portable electronic device already does and then the system decides whether or not to cache locally. In addition, caching is merely just storing data.
Applicant argues on page 13
However, the fact that the claimed technology may be used in a business context does not make the claims directed to organizing human activity. Instead, Applicant submits that the claimed features as recited in amended independent claim 1 and analogously recited in amended independent claim 12 are directed to concrete operations associated with practical electronic devices, which are technically driven and trigger specific device-level actions
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The fact that the claims recite tracking crews with respect to time and expense, put the claims in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, interactions between people, fundamental economic practices). This clearly teaches personnel management with respect to getting tasks/workflows done. In addition, Applicant’s Specification in para 0002 talks about resource management which also corresponds with business relations and fundamental economic practices (See para 0002-organizations that manage, track, and pay resources for all kinds of emergencies face similar challenges. These include wildland firefighters, search and rescue, delivering aid from humanitarian organizations, and more. These organizations, like utilities, must organize both internal and external resources to respond to a situation in which the teams must be accounted for both logistically and financially).
Applicant argues on pages 14-15
In particular, amended independent claims 1 and 12 recite concrete mechanisms to address the specific technical problem described in the Specification - that "cellular communications and other wireless communication is down" after disruptive events such as hurricanes and storms (see para. [0005]).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not addressing a technical problem but a business problem. Para 0002 of Applicant’s specification talks about the business problem of tracking repair teams with respect to distribution systems. This is not the same as a technical problem and solution as seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
Applicant Argues on page 16
Similarly here, the combination of elements in amended claims 1 and 12 operates in a nonconventional and non-generic way to address the unique problem of mobilization time tracking in environments where wireless infrastructure is unreliable, even though the individual steps may use well-known components. The Examiner has not provided evidence that this specific combination of elements was well-understood, routine, or conventional activity at the time of filing.
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees.
Examiner did not use the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101, the 101 rejection was not on the basis of step 2b being well understood, routine, or conventional but rather in the manner of "apply it.” The consideration of well understood, routine, or conventional is only one consideration of step 2B, it is not the sole consideration.
Applicant argues on page 17
Similarly, the combination of elements in amended claims 1 and 12 provides a hardware and software solution that improves upon previous paper-based time tracking techniques, and the claimed limitations confine the claims to a particular useful application of mobilization time tracking with offline caching capability.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention is merely improving upon the mental process step of tracking. The claimed invention is merely automating this mental process step which is not a technical improvement. Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality which include mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/2/2026, with respect to 35 USC 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner withdraws 35 USC 103 rejection.
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, 3-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are directed to a method and system.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 12 recite the limitations of
…to track a plurality of crews to perform work in a target geographic location, wherein the crew is associated with crew- specific information including an identifier of at least one or more members of a selected crew in the plurality of crews; sending a mobilization work order from…receiving a mobilization start time…calculating…an estimated mobilization time period to have the selected crew relocate from its current geographic position to the target geographic location… based…the selected crew being in proximity…in the target geographic location, sending a mobilization end time…based on receiving the mobilization end time…calculating…an actual elapsed mobilization time from the start time verifying…the actual elapsed mobilization time with the estimated mobilization time in accordance with one or more rules; based on the one or more rules being verified, placing the elapsed mobilization time for the selected crew as part of the mobilization work order into an approval process, and changing a status of the selected crew from a mobilization mode to an arrival mode; and based on the approval process being complete, sending an authorization to submit an invoice for portions of the mobilization work order which have completed the approval process.
With respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/2/2026, the claims further state
receiving a mobilization end time…the mobilization end time being…sent…
wherein the mobilization end time is…cached…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of tracking, sending/receiving, calculating, receiving, verifying, caching/storing, and changing/modifying data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system, the claim language encompasses simply tracking a crew which includes sending the crew a work order, receiving data such as mobilization start time for the work order, calculating and verifying data for the work order such as an actual and estimated mobilization time, changing the status of the crew with respect to a work order, sending a mobilization end time when determining the crew is in proximity to the work order area, putting the mobilization time in an approval process and sending an authorization for an invoice based on the completing the approval process. In addition, the claims state storing data such as mobilization end time based on a condition. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. For example, a manager can visually see if a crew is close to the work order area and determine a mobilization end time. A manager can also calculate an actual mobilization time by observing the crew and also calculate an estimated mobilization time. A manager can also send authorizations to the crew as well as send them a work order. Tracking a crew and task management are not novel and have been done before the technological age. The claimed invention is merely automating a manual process.
The fact that the claims recite tracking crews with respect to time and expense, put the claims in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, interactions between people, fundamental economic practices). Applicant’s Specification in para 0002 additionally talks about resource management which also corresponds with a business relations and fundamental economic practices (See para 0002-organizations that manage, track, and pay resources for all kinds of emergencies face similar challenges. These include wildland firefighters, search and rescue, delivering aid from humanitarian organizations, and more. These organizations, like utilities, must organize both internal and external resources to respond to a situation in which the teams must be accounted for both logistically and financially). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of operating on a server, a time and expense management interface, portable electronic device, wireless communication infrastructure, system, processor and memory, web interface, and wireless telecommunications network.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using 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.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe details about the crew such as their wellness metrics, skill, body temperature, and how many people are in the crew. In addition, the dependent claims further recite disputes with respect to a rule.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 1 further recites operating on a server, a time and expense management interface and portable electronic device, wireless telecommunications network and wireless communication infrastructure
Claim 8 and 19 recite facial recognition; fingerprint recognition; a near-field communication tags
Claim 12 recites system, memory, processor, server, time and expense management interface, portable electronic device, and wireless communication infrastructure, wireless telecommunications network
Claim 21 and 22 recite web interface
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0067.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0067. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Sundia (US20190340560A1) who teaches facial recognition.
Winsen (US20240220908A1) who teaches team wellness metrics.
Stark (US20210004798A1) who teaches receipt images with optical character recognition.
Ball (US20140257895A1) who teaches a crew skill indicator.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights