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 1-20 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
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 1-20 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 1-20 are directed to a method and system.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-20 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 business rules; based on the one or more business 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.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of tracking, sending/receiving, calculating, verifying, 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. 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 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.
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 business 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, and wireless communication infrastructure
Claims 2 and 13 recite a wireless telecommunications network
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
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Smith (US20040143466A1) in further view of Devulapalli (US20050288948A1) in further view of Carzoli (US20220301357A1) in further view of Gilligan (US20060277079A1). However, with respect to exemplary claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20.
Claims 4, 7, 15, and 18 are allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Smith (US20040143466A1) in further view of Devulapalli (US20050288948A1) in further view of Carzoli (US20220301357A1) in further view of Gilligan (US20060277079A1) in further view of Ball (US20140257895A1) who teaches a crew skill indicator. However, with respect to exemplary claims 4, 7, 15, and 18, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claims 4, 7, 15, and 18.
Claims 8 and 19 are allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Smith (US20040143466A1) in further view of Devulapalli (US20050288948A1) in further view of Carzoli (US20220301357A1) in further view of Gilligan (US20060277079A1) in further view of Sundia (US20190340560A1) who teaches facial recognition. However, with respect to exemplary claims 8 and 19 the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claims 8 and 19.
Claims 10 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Smith (US20040143466A1) in further view of Devulapalli (US20050288948A1) in further view of Carzoli (US20220301357A1) in further view of Gilligan (US20060277079A1) in further view of Winsen (US20240220908A1) who teaches team wellness metrics. However, with respect to exemplary claim 10 the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 10.
Claims 11 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Smith (US20040143466A1) in further view of Devulapalli (US20050288948A1) in further view of Carzoli (US20220301357A1) in further view of Gilligan (US20060277079A1) in further view of Stark (US20210004798A1) who teaches receipt images with optical character recognition. However, with respect to exemplary claim 11 the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US20040143466A1) in further view of Devulapalli (US20050288948A1) in further view of Carzoli (US20220301357A1) in further view of Gilligan (US20060277079A1).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claim 12, Smith teaches
A computer-implemented method (See abstract-A variety of methods for obtaining and updating vehicle activity information are disclosed, as are various applications for the system.) This teaches a method.
A system…the system comprising: a memory with program instructions; a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor is configured to cause the processor to perform the steps of operating on a server (See abstract-A system for controlling vehicles to provide transportation services without need for human intervention) This teaches a system. (See para 0012-The processing circuitry may be a microcomputer running a multitasking operating system, a network of computers, or any other arrangement of computing hardware, including an arrangement of computers spread geographically in a wide-area network. There may be multiple processes to dispatch and monitor vehicles, running simultaneously on networked computers or in a multitasking operating system) This teaches computers. Computers include processor and memory.
operating on a server, a time and expense management interface to track a plurality of crews to perform work in a target geographic location. (See fig. 3a) This teaches an interface by way of displaying an electronic file that a user interacts with. This file includes management of time and expense with respect to a crew going to a task location (i.e. target geographic location) and tracking them. (See para 0068-As these events occur, the automated dispatch processes 24, 26 and 28 fill out fields 16-23 of the dispatch record to indicate the time that the crew of the vehicle was notified) This deals with multiple crews (See para 0070) since there are multiple dispatch files (See para 0069).
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 (See para 0089-If an available vehicle is located in step 70, dispatching process 26 proceeds to step 72 at which it updates the current dispatch record by inserting the identification of the current vehicle and the identification of the crew (i.e., driver and attendant).) This shows crew information that includes identifiers such as the name of the driver and attendant.
sending a mobilization work order from the server to a portable electronic device associated with the selected crew (See para 0033-The dispatching facility also includes a number of human dispatchers 16 who interact with data in the database 10 to dispatch vehicles. Dispatchers 16 may interact with the database and server 10 and an AVL system 16 to perform dispatching of vehicles 20 in the same manner as is performed in known dispatching systems as discussed above. Particularly, dispatchers 16 may review request records in database server 10, and in response to these records interact with AVL system 18 to request vehicle location information and routing information and to relay dispatching command) This shows sending mobilization work orders (i.e. dispatch for a task) from the AVL system to a portable electronic device of the crew such as a pager or other device such as a cellphone. (See para 0090-Next, the dispatching process 26 proceeds to step 74, at which it prepares to notify the crew of the new assignment. To do so, the dispatching process 26 pages the driver, by using the driver's mobile pager to inform the driver that a new job has been assigned to him.). (See para 0037-may communicate with the driver through the AVL system (in the manner described below) or through a radio, cellular phone, pager, or satellite communications to determine the cause of the exception and resolve the exception).
receiving a mobilization start time by the server from the portable electronic device (See para 0068-As these events occur, the automated dispatch processes 24, 26 and 28 fill out fields 16-23 of the dispatch record to indicate the time that the crew of the vehicle was notified, the time that they were dispatched with the specific instructions, the time that they responded and indicated that they were en route) This teaches receiving a mobilization start time (i.e. time the crew responded/leaves and on route to fulfill task). This response is with respect to electronic device as seen here (See para 0037-may communicate with the driver through the AVL system (in the manner described below) or through a radio, cellular phone, pager, or satellite communications to determine the cause of the exception and resolve the exception).
automatically sending a mobilization end time to the server from the portable electronic device (See fig. 3A) This shows mobilization end time such as item 20 and 22 which shows time the crew arrived.
Even though Smith teaches managing a crew, it doesn’t teach an estimated mobilization time period, however Devulapalli further teaches
calculating by the server, an estimated mobilization time period to have the selected crew relocate from its current geographic position to the target geographic location (See para 0007- An estimate of the amount of time required for the technician to travel is calculated using a historical sample of travel times within the defined area where the plurality of tasks will be completed)
Devulapalli further teaches an actual elapsed time period and also teaches mobilization end time like Smith as seen here automatically sending a mobilization end time to the server from the portable electronic device…based on receiving the mobilization end time, automatically calculating by the server an actual elapsed mobilization time from the start time (See para 0020- The total actual travel time 144 represents the actual time that the technician's vehicle was in motion during the day, from the time that the vehicle left the service center for the first job, until the vehicle came to a stop back at the service center after all of the jobs were completed. This time is preferably measured using precision instrumentation such as a global positioning system (GPS) mounted within the technician's vehicle. The GPS system can be programmed to record only the time that the vehicle is in motion or stopped for less than a predetermined time, i.e. 90 seconds. By programming the system to continue recording when the vehicle is stopped for less than 90 seconds, the time that the vehicle is stopped at traffic lights and stop signs will be captured. It is to be understood that the actual travel time may be measured not only using a GPS, but also using any means now known or developed in the future.) This teaches determining an actual mobilization time period that is based on times associated with the GPS system which includes an end time such as returning back to the service center. The system receives the end time from the GPS system mounted in the car which also corresponds to a portable electronic device as already taught in the primary art of Smith.
Smith and Devulapalli are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of carrying out tasks and managing personnel that do those tasks. In addition, both arts also belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Smith’s invention by incorporating the method of Devulapalli because Smith would also be able to determine estimated mobilization times, this would allow Smith to determine the efficiency of the crew as taught in Devulapalli. Knowing the efficiency of crews would help the user of Smith determine the best crews to carryout tasks.
Even though Smith and Devulapalli teach mobilization end time, they do not teach that it is with respect to based on the portable electronic device associated with the selected crew being in proximity to a wireless communication infrastructure in the target geographic location,
However Carzoli teaches based on the portable electronic device associated with the selected crew being in proximity to a wireless communication infrastructure in the target geographic location (See para 0007- A method of reporting a login geo-location for geo-fenced remote clock-in/clock-out verification of a remote employment management system is described. The method includes determining the login geo-location of a mobile device when a user notifies the mobile device of arrival within a predetermined geo-fenced area of a remote job location.) (See para 0031- The mobile device 110 includes access to a network 150. The network 150 may be a wireless or fixed network. The location server 160 is also attached to the network 150. An employment server (not shown in FIG. 1A) may be connected to the location server 160 to request and receive a verified geo-location of the mobile device 110 within a predetermined geo-fenced clock-in verification area of a remote job location.) This shows a portable device is in proximity to wireless infrastructure such as a geofence set up at a job location (i.e. target location).
Smith, Devulapalli, and Carzoli are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of carrying out tasks and managing personnel that do those tasks. In addition, all arts also belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Smith’s and Devulapalli invention by incorporating the method of Carzoli because both Smith and Devulapalli would be able to implement geofencing technology. This would make determining times when crews arrive and leave easier in the art of the Smith. Smith would then take those times and implement them in the dispatch record. Devulapalli would also use geofence technology to verify actual travel times. This would make determining the efficiency of the technicians more accurate in addition to just relying on GPS data.
In addition, Smith teaches verifying information as seen here verifying by the server…in accordance with one or more business rules (See para 0109- Furthermore, it is a related aspect of the invention to automatically perform such verification upon an ambulance service invoice to determine if the mileage charges on the invoice are within parameters set by a Government or insurance agency.) This teaches verification based on business rules (i.e. parameters set by government/insurance agency).
However Smith doesn’t teach this is based on actual and estimate mobilization times. However Devulapalli already teaches these actual and estimated times as seen above. (See para 0007 and 0020 of Devulapalli).
Smith and Devulapalli are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of carrying out tasks and managing personnel that do those tasks. In addition, both arts also belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Smith’s invention by incorporating the method of Devulapalli because Smith would also be able to determine and verify estimated and actual mobilization times. This would allow Smith to determine the efficiency of the crew that is carrying out the tasks. Knowing the efficiency of crews would help the user of Smith determine the best crews to carryout tasks.
Smith further teaches and changing a status of the selected crew from a mobilization mode to an arrival mode Smith teaches the status change from dispatched (i.e. mobilization) to arrival mode (See para 0119- The vehicle status will be one of “notified”, “dispatched”, “en route to pickup”, “arrived at pickup”, “en route to destination”, “arrived at destination”, or “available”. )
Even though Smith teaches mobilization times, it is not clear that it teaches an approval process, however Gilligan teaches based on the one or more business rules being verified, placing the elapsed mobilization time for the selected crew as part of the mobilization work order into an approval process (See para 0084-0085 A best match option is an option which most closely correlates to the trip information, e.g. a desired travel date and time. In certain implementations, the best match option also determined based on a travel policy of an organization (also referred to as an organizational travel policy) authorizing the trip (e.g. the enterprise employing the traveling user or the organization with whom the user is traveling to meet) and/or the user's stored preferences. The travel policy identifies at least one of: a travel budget maximum, a travel authorizing individual in the organization, a preferred airline, a preferred hotel chain, and a preferred vehicle rental company… The groupware client 110A presents the results to the user with the best match itinerary components pre-selected.)(See para 0086- At 204, the itinerary is submitted to another workflow participant for approval) This shows the itinerary/mobilization work order is verified with the travel policy (i.e. business rules) since they are used when coming up with the itinerary, and this shows an approval process as well.
and based on the approval process being complete, sending from the server to the portable electronic device, an authorization to submit an invoice for portions of the mobilization work order which have completed the approval process. (See para 0093- At 214, the groupware client and/or the backend application generates an expense report based on the approved travel itinerary. In one implementation, the expense report is automatically generated in response to an approval of the selection. The expense report is based on one or more of the selections in the travel itinerary. The expense report is transmitted to the traveling user 102A, the supervising user 102B, any other workflow participants who may be associated with the trip, and/or a backend application (e.g. an accounting application).) (See figure 2) This teaches that after approval is complete, an authorization is received by the system to send an invoice (i.e. expense report) to electronic devices of users based on the approval being complete. Expense report is not generated if there is no approval.
Smith and Gilligan are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area managing personnel and time management. In addition, both arts also belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Smith’s invention by incorporating the method of Gilligan because Smith would also be able to implement an approval process with respect to the invoice and dispatch files. This would allow a verification check to make sure the vehicle data extracted and the correct amount is billed for the task service. This would make the system of Smith more sophisticated.
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.
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