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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 14, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11 have been amended.
Claims 13, 19, 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 24, 25 have been added.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification does not disclose “provider device”, “user device” or “third party device”. The Examiner requests for the applicant to identify where in the specification where each of these generically labeled device types are supported or to whom each device corresponds to.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: “WIFI” should be written as “WiFi” in the transmitting limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 12, 14 – 18, 21 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1, 11, the claims recite:
wherein, only after successful credential verification and successful verification that the service personnel was within the configurable vicinity and radius during the specific time, the provider device transmits a state-change command to the display unit incorporated onto the unit of equipment to transition the display unit from a first one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states to a second one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the second one corresponding to the updated impairment status of the unit of equipment
(emphasis added)
However, it is unclear as to what the second “successful verification” is adding to the limitation since the limitation already recites “successful credential verification”. Is there another type of verification occurring? Is this a typographical error?wific
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 12, 14 – 18, 21 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Examiner asserts that the following is new matter:
“wherein, only after successful credential verification and successful verification that the service personnel was within the configurable vicinity and radius during the specific time, the provider device transmits a state-change command to the display unit incorporated onto the unit of equipment to transition the display unit from a first one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states to a second one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the second one corresponding to the updated impairment status of the unit of equipment”
The Examiner asserts that although ¶ 35 of the specification discloses:
“According to one embodiment of the present invention, the system may utilize a simple and easy to understand color code system to quickly identify any given unit status. The ADA compliant color code system starts with Green for Certified and Active, followed by Yellow for Minor impairments, Amber for Expired tags, Blue for Repaired, and Red, with white, for Major impairments.”
this is insufficient support that:
1) there is a transition from a “a first one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states to a second one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the second one corresponding to the updated impairment status of the unit of equipment” and
2) that this occurs “only after said successful credential verification and successful verification”
Although the specification discloses that a user is verified, there is no support of the specific order of operations that have been recited in the aforementioned limitation, i.e. “only after said successful credential verification and successful location verification” will “a state-change command to a display unit incorporated onto the unit of equipment to transition the display unit from a first one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states to a second one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states” occur.
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 – 12, 14 – 18, 21 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
a tag physical affixed to a unit of equipment, the tag being configured to provide a unique code associated with the unit of equipment;
display the impairment status of the unit of equipment in one of a plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the plurality of predefined color-coded states comprising at least Green for Certified and Active, Yellow for Minor impairment, Amber for Expired tag, Blue for Repaired, and Red for Major impairment;
store information about one or more units of equipment, the information about each of the one or more units of equipment comprising:
a Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinate of the unit of equipment; and
an impairment status of the unit of equipment;
store information about the one or service personnel, the information about each of the one or more service personnel comprising:
a GPS coordinate of the service personnel;
a credentials of the service personnel, the credentials evidencing that the service personnel is licensed and in good standing to perform a specific type of service;
transmit the stored information about one or more units of equipment and the stored information about one or more service personnel to at least one of the provider and the user;
receive a request to initiate a service update on a unit of equipment of the one or more units of equipment;
identify a service personnel from the one or more service personnel to conduct the service update based at least in part on the credentials of the service personnel and the GPS coordinate of the service personnel stored;
determine an optimized service route of the service personnel based at least in part on the GPS coordinate of the unit of equipment and the GPS coordinate of the service personnel;
transmit the optimized service route; and
update an impairment status of service associated with the unit of equipment and store the update;
verify the credentials of the service personnel;
display the optimized service route to the service personnel;
identify the unit of equipment via an identifier provided, wherein the identifier is associated with the unit of equipment;
track the GPS coordinate of the service personnel;
verify the service personnel was within a configurable vicinity and radius of the GPS coordinates of the identified unit of equipment during a specific time, the verification thereby providing inspection fraud control; and
transmit service confirmation, the credentials of the service personnel, and the service personnel being verified in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment to the provider;
wherein the update to the impairment status of the unit of equipment is based at least in part on the credentials of the service personnel and the service personnel being verified in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment
wherein, only after successful credential verification and successful verification that the service personnel was within the configurable vicinity and radius during the specific time, the provider device transmits a state-change command to transition from a first one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states to a second one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the second one corresponding to the updated impairment status of the unit of equipment
wherein the provider transmits the updated impairments status in real time to an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), the AHJ being configured to present visual and spatial tools for assessing the equipment status in the AHJ’s jurisdiction
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of maintenance scheduling and management and/or asset inspection and management, which corresponds to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by humans, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),e.g., a first human contacting a second human, informing the second human that their asset requires servicing, the second human, via collection and comparison of information, being verified to perform the service, and the second human performing the service and updating the status of the asset. The invention is also directed towards the inspection of assets that are due for inspection by a qualified inspector, as well as two humans conversing with one another to instruct or provide directions to one of the humans on how to arrive at a particular location.
The limitations of:
a tag physical affixed to a unit of equipment, the tag being configured to provide a unique code associated with the unit of equipment;
display the impairment status of the unit of equipment in one of a plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the plurality of predefined color-coded states comprising at least Green for Certified and Active, Yellow for Minor impairment, Amber for Expired tag, Blue for Repaired, and Red for Major impairment;
store information about one or more units of equipment, the information about each of the one or more units of equipment comprising:
a Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinate of the unit of equipment; and
an impairment status of the unit of equipment;
store information about the one or service personnel, the information about each of the one or more service personnel comprising:
a GPS coordinate of the service personnel;
a credentials of the service personnel, the credentials evidencing that the service personnel is licensed and in good standing to perform a specific type of service;
transmit the stored information about one or more units of equipment and the stored information about one or more service personnel to at least one of the provider and the user;
receive a request to initiate a service update on a unit of equipment of the one or more units of equipment;
identify a service personnel from the one or more service personnel to conduct the service update based at least in part on the credentials of the service personnel and the GPS coordinate of the service personnel stored;
determine an optimized service route of the service personnel based at least in part on the GPS coordinate of the unit of equipment and the GPS coordinate of the service personnel;
transmit the optimized service route; and
update an impairment status of service associated with the unit of equipment and store the update;
verify the credentials of the service personnel;
display the optimized service route to the service personnel;
identify the unit of equipment via an identifier provided, wherein the identifier is associated with the unit of equipment;
track the GPS coordinate of the service personnel;
verify the service personnel was within a configurable vicinity and radius of the GPS coordinates of the identified unit of equipment during a specific time, the verification thereby providing inspection fraud control; and
transmit service confirmation, the credentials of the service personnel, and the service personnel being verified in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment to the provider;
wherein the update to the impairment status of the unit of equipment is based at least in part on the credentials of the service personnel and the service personnel being verified in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment
wherein, only after successful credential verification and successful verification that the service personnel was within the configurable vicinity and radius during the specific time, the provider device transmits a state-change command to transition from a first one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states to a second one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the second one corresponding to the updated impairment status of the unit of equipment
wherein the provider transmits the updated impairments status in real time to an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), the AHJ being configured to present visual and spatial tools for assessing the equipment status in the AHJ’s jurisdiction
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor, modules, computing system, and generic electronic tags comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WiFi tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag. That is, other than reciting a generic processor, modules, computing system, and generic electronic tags comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WiFi tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor, modules, computing system, and generic electronic tags comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WiFi tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag in the context of this claim encompasses a user/inspector/technician (or the like) can observe/inspect the condition of an asset, have their credentials verified, e.g., comparing their name against a list of qualified inspectors, perform the inspection, and update the inspection records, as well as two humans conversing with one another to instruct or provide directions to one of the humans on how to arrive at a particular location. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor, modules, computing system, and generic electronic tags comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WiFi tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic processor, modules, computing system, and generic electronic tags comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WiFi tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag to receive and transmit information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind or using pen and paper, i.e. collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule, identify options, as well as writing down (updated/new) information. The generic processor, modules, computing system, and generic electronic tags comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WiFi tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor, modules, computing system, and generic electronic tags comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WiFi tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic processor, modules, computing system, and generic electronic tags comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WiFi tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, modules, computing system, and generic electronic tags comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WiFi tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic processor, modules, computing system, and generic electronic tags comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WiFi tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag to perform the steps of:
a tag physical affixed to a unit of equipment, the tag being configured to provide a unique code associated with the unit of equipment;
display the impairment status of the unit of equipment in one of a plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the plurality of predefined color-coded states comprising at least Green for Certified and Active, Yellow for Minor impairment, Amber for Expired tag, Blue for Repaired, and Red for Major impairment;
store information about one or more units of equipment, the information about each of the one or more units of equipment comprising:
a Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinate of the unit of equipment; and
an impairment status of the unit of equipment;
store information about the one or service personnel, the information about each of the one or more service personnel comprising:
a GPS coordinate of the service personnel;
a credentials of the service personnel, the credentials evidencing that the service personnel is licensed and in good standing to perform a specific type of service;
transmit the stored information about one or more units of equipment and the stored information about one or more service personnel to at least one of the provider and the user;
receive a request to initiate a service update on a unit of equipment of the one or more units of equipment;
identify a service personnel from the one or more service personnel to conduct the service update based at least in part on the credentials of the service personnel and the GPS coordinate of the service personnel stored;
determine an optimized service route of the service personnel based at least in part on the GPS coordinate of the unit of equipment and the GPS coordinate of the service personnel;
transmit the optimized service route; and
update an impairment status of service associated with the unit of equipment and store the update;
verify the credentials of the service personnel;
display the optimized service route to the service personnel;
identify the unit of equipment via an identifier provided, wherein the identifier is associated with the unit of equipment;
track the GPS coordinate of the service personnel;
verify the service personnel was within a configurable vicinity and radius of the GPS coordinates of the identified unit of equipment during a specific time, the verification thereby providing inspection fraud control; and
transmit service confirmation, the credentials of the service personnel, and the service personnel being verified in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment to the provider;
wherein the update to the impairment status of the unit of equipment is based at least in part on the credentials of the service personnel and the service personnel being verified in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment
wherein, only after successful credential verification and successful verification that the service personnel was within the configurable vicinity and radius during the specific time, the provider device transmits a state-change command to transition from a first one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states to a second one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the second one corresponding to the updated impairment status of the unit of equipment
wherein the provider transmits the updated impairments status in real time to an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), the AHJ being configured to present visual and spatial tools for assessing the equipment status in the AHJ’s jurisdiction
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 the collecting and comparison of information and, based on a rule, identify options, in this case, to perform a verification process.
Claim 3 is directed to human activities, in this case, removing a part from inventory to service an asset.
Claim 4 is directed towards the collecting and comparison of information and, based on a rule, identify options, in this case, determine if the service was property performed.
Claim 5 is directed towards human activities and descriptive subject matter, in this case, a user providing information and describing the information as images.
Claims 6, 24 are directed towards the reciting generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea. The machine learning module has already been trained and recited in a generic manner. There is no improvement or iterative steps to improve upon the technology.
Additionally, although the claim recites “trained machine learning software module,” the claims and specification fail to provide sufficient disclosure regarding an improvement to how a machine learning algorithm can be trained, but simply recites a high-level generic recitation that a machine learning algorithm is being trained. There is insufficient evidence from the specification to indicate that the use of the machine learning algorithm involves anything other than the generic application of a known technique in its normal, routine, and ordinary capacity or that the claimed invention purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or the machine learning algorithm. 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 a machine learning software module is simply 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 machine learning software modulis 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 machine learning 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 the collection of location information for the purpose of providing a route to a particular destination to service equipment at the destination, which are steps that can be performed by a human using generic technology (see ¶ 36, 41 of the applicant’s specification) and utilizing generic image analysis technology and machine learning to provide information to a human for review. 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. The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention fails to recite any iterative process being performed on the machine learning algorithm/model in order to demonstrate that the machine learning algorithm/model is being improved upon, i.e. a demonstration that would support an improvement upon machine learning technology. Referring to MPEP § 2106.05(f), the training are 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 27, Claim 2.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system with a machine learning software module. 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.
Claim 7 is directed to extra solution activities, i.e. receiving data, and human activities, in this case, generating additional/new information based on the collection and comparison of information.
Claim 8 is directed to extra solution activities, i.e. receiving data.
Claim 9 is directed to extra solution activities, i.e. transmitting/providing data.
Claim 10 is directed to descriptive subject matter describing an intent.
Claim 21 is directed towards the reciting generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as extra-solution activities.
Claim 22 is directed towards extra-solution activities and human activities, in this case, generating and providing a bill for services.
Claim 23 is directed towards the collection of information and the extra-solution activity of transmitting information.
Claim 25 is directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea.
The remaining claims are similar to what has already been discussed.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for maintenance scheduling and management and/or asset inspection and management. 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 – 12, 14 – 18, 21 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnier (US PGPub 2021/0374296 A1) in view of Thorley et al. (US PGPub 20190272362 A1) in further view of Campion et al. (US PGPub 2008/0084291 A1).
In regards to claims 1, 11, Minnier discloses (Claim 1) a system for automated service status and impairment tracking, the system comprising; (Claim 11) a method for automated service status and impairment tracking, the method comprising:
In regards to:
a network;
a database in communication with the network;
a provider device in communication with the network; and
a user device in communication with the network, the user device being associated with a respective service personnel of one or more service personnel
(Fig. 1; 4; ¶ 44, 48 wherein a network, database, provider device, and service personnel device are disclosed);
[…]; and
[…];
wherein the database is configured by machine readable instructions to:
store information about one or more units of equipment (¶ 44, 45 wherein the database stores equipment information), the information about each of the one or more units of equipment comprising:
a Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinate of the unit of equipment (Fig. 9, 10; ¶ 38, 39, 48, 53 wherein the database stores location information of equipment to allow the system to utilize the location of the personnel via the GPS unit on their device and guide the personnel to the location of the equipment); and
an impairment status of the unit of equipment (¶ 29 wherein equipment is monitored to determine if they are in need of repair or maintenance);
store information about the one or service personnel (¶ 36, 39, 51), the information about each of the one or more service personnel comprising:
a GPS coordinate of the service personnel (¶ 39 wherein the database stores location information of equipment to allow the system to utilize the location of the personnel via the GPS unit on their device and guide the personnel to the location of the equipment);
a credentials of the service personnel, […] (¶ 44, 45, 50, 51 wherein the system provides access to a plurality of different user types, e.g., first responders, emergency personnel, and a plurality of different technicians, based on their login credentials and proximity to the building that contains the equipment that needs to be serviced by technicians, as well as to see notes provided by other technicians, and equipment that first responders and emergency personnel need to locate, e.g., shut off locations, disconnects, and the like, and wherein the system identifies a service personnel based on login information, which “provides security such that only authorized users are able to access specific assigned characteristics of a given property.” The Examiner asserts that the system must store some level of service personnel information as this is what allows the login process to take place and for the system to determine what service personnel have access to, as well as verifying that the service personnel has provided the necessary login credentials to access the system
The Examiner has provided Thorley to disclose an alternate interpretation of “credentials” wherein, in the instant interpretation, “login credentials” is equivalent to “credential” and, in the alternate interpretation, “credential” is expanded to include “qualifications” and the like);
transmit the stored information about one or more units of equipment and the stored information about one or more service personnel to at least one of the provider device and the user device (Fig. 1; ¶ 29, 36, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51 wherein the equipment information and service personnel information are transmitted to the provider device and personnel device so that the system can provide the personnel with access to the system, determine that the personnel is within proximity of the property, guide the personnel to the location of the equipment, and provide access to information pertaining to, at least, a map of the building, building floor plans (or the like), a display of equipment location, maintenance records, equipment identification, user notes, and so forth
The Examiner has provided Thorley to disclose an alternate interpretation of “credentials” wherein, in the instant interpretation, “login credentials” is equivalent to “credential” and, in the alternate interpretation, “credential” is expanded to include “qualifications” and the like);
wherein the provider device has one or more hardware processors configured by machine readable instructions to:
receive a request to initiate a service update on a unit of equipment of the one or more units of equipment (Fig. 3, 5; ¶ 29, 48, 49 wherein the provider device receives a request that service is needed for equipment because it is, for example, out of acceptable ranges or an error has been detected);
identify a service personnel from the one or more service personnel to conduct the service update based at least in part on the credentials of the service personnel and the GPS coordinate of the service personnel stored on the database (¶ 44, 45, 50, 51 wherein the system provides access to a plurality of different user types, e.g., first responders, emergency personnel, and a plurality of different technicians, based on their login credentials and proximity to the building that contains the equipment that needs to be serviced by technicians, as well as to see notes provided by other technicians, and equipment that first responders and emergency personnel need to locate, e.g., shut off locations, disconnects, and the like
The Examiner has provided Thorley to disclose an alternate interpretation of “credentials” wherein, in the instant interpretation, “login credentials” is equivalent to “credential” and, in the alternate interpretation, “credential” is expanded to include “qualifications” and the like);
In regards to:
determine an optimized service route of the service personnel based at least in part on the GPS coordinate of the unit of equipment and the GPS coordinate of the service personnel;
transmit the optimized service route to the user device
(Fig. 1; ¶ 29, 36, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51 wherein the equipment information and service personnel information are transmitted to the provider device and personnel device so that the system can provide the personnel with access to the system, determine that the personnel is within proximity of the property, guide the personnel to the location of the equipment, and provide access to information pertaining to, at least, a map of the building, building floor plans (or the like), a display of equipment location, maintenance records, equipment identification, user notes, and so forth); and
update an impairment status of service associated with the unit of equipment and store the update on the database (¶ 44, 47, 53, 55 wherein maintenance/servicing records for equipment are updated);
wherein the user device has one or more hardware processors configured by machine readable instructions to:
verify, via a credential confirmation software module, the credentials of the service personnel (¶ 36, 51 wherein login information is stored to determine if provided login credentials are correct (i.e. match), which, in turn, determines that the user is authorized to access the system
The Examiner has provided Thorley to disclose an alternate interpretation of “credentials” wherein, in the instant interpretation, “login credentials” is equivalent to “credential” and, in the alternate interpretation, “credential” is expanded to include “qualifications” and the like);
display the optimized service route on the user device to the service personnel (In light of the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) and ¶ 36, 41 of the applicant’s specification, see ¶ 39, 48 wherein the system provides the personnel is authorized access to, at least, map and location information of a property and equipment, utilizes the personnel’s GPS location, property map/blueprints/or the like, and equipment location to allow the personnel to identify and/or mark the location of equipment and have the system guide the personnel to the location of equipment relative to the personnel’s location);
identify the unit of equipment via an identifier provided by an input means, wherein the identifier is associated with the unit of equipment (¶ 46 wherein the personnel device includes a camera to scan a visual identifier associated with the equipment);
track the GPS coordinate of the service personnel, via one or more location-based service software modules (Fig. 1; ¶ 29, 36, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51 wherein the equipment information and service personnel information are transmitted to the provider device and personnel device so that the system can provide the personnel with access to the system, determine that the personnel is within proximity of the property, guide the personnel to the location of the equipment, and provide access to information pertaining to, at least, a map of the building, building floor plans (or the like), a display of equipment location, maintenance records, equipment identification, user notes, and so forth);
In regards to:
verify, via one or more location-based service software modules, the service personnel within a configurable vicinity and radius of the GPS coordinates of the identified unit of equipment during a specific time, the verification thereby providing inspection fraud control;
transmit service confirmation, the credentials of the service personnel, and the service personnel being verified in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment to the provider device;
wherein the update to the impairment status of the unit of equipment is based at least in part on the credentials of the service personnel and the service personnel being verified in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment
(¶ 39, 44, 47, 48, 56 wherein the system verifies that a particular personnel was at a particular location by determining that the personnel is in proximity of the property, utilizes the personnel’s location to guide them to the location of the equipment, and stores information of service dates, calibration records, pictures of equipment at the time of service, print updated service cards and/or visual identifiers, and any other updates (which can be performed in real-time), which are available for future personnel performing future servicing of the equipment, thereby providing the system with a confirmation that service was performed on the equipment and verifying the specific personnel who performed the servicing
With regards to “inspection fraud control”, the Examiner asserts that Minnier accomplishes this intended result because it performs the same verification process disclosed in the claimed invention. That is to say, the claimed invention has defined the fraud control procedure to be based on a verification that the “service personnel was physically present within a configurable geo-fenced area associated with the unit of equipment having a configurable vicinity and radius during the service event and prior to updating the impairment status”. As a result, because Minnier discloses verifying that the “service personnel was physically present within a configurable geo-fenced area associated with the unit of equipment having a configurable vicinity and radius during the service event and prior to updating the impairment status”, the Examiner asserts that Minnier discloses inspection fraud control.);
wherein, only after successful credential verification and successful verification that the service personnel was within the configurable vicinity and radius during the specific time, the provider device transmits a state-change command […] to transition [information conveying the state of the equipment from one state to another] (¶ 29, 35, 44, 47, 56 wherein the system provides a user with a computing device to inspect, evaluate, diagnose, or the like equipment and provide their findings, notes, pictures, and the like on the state of the equipment to inform the system and/or other users on whether the equipment is in need of repair or maintenance. This further allows for the system to be updated with updated information regarding the state of the equipment, i.e. providing information that transitions equipment state information from one state to another, e.g., transitioning the record to indicate that the equipment is now in need of repair or maintenance, notations regarding future work required to maintain the equipment, and etc.
¶ 44, 45, 50, 51 wherein the system provides access to a plurality of different user types, e.g., first responders, emergency personnel, and a plurality of different technicians, based on their login credentials and proximity to the building that contains the equipment that needs to be serviced by technicians, as well as to see notes provided by other technicians, and equipment that first responders and emergency personnel need to locate, e.g., shut off locations, disconnects, and the like, and wherein the system identifies a service personnel based on login information, which “provides security such that only authorized users are able to access specific assigned characteristics of a given property.” The Examiner asserts that the system must store and utilize some level of service personnel information as this is what allows the login process to take place and only after the system has verified the service personnel’s credentials will the system determine what service personnel have access to, as well as verifying that the service personnel has provided the necessary login credentials to access the system
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided an alternate interpretation in view of Thorley with regards to “credential verification”, as was discussed above.); and
wherein the provider device transmits the updated impairments status […] to [a] computing system, the […] computing system being configured to present visual and spatial tools for assessing the equipment status in the AHJ’s jurisdiction (Fig. 1; ¶ 29, 48, 49 wherein the system receives equipment status information and transmits the information to a plurality of entities who can view and interact with the information via a dashboard, e.g., BMS (property owner) and central system that is monitoring and managing technicians to ensure that equipment is operating within range).
Minnier discloses a system and method of servicing equipment by providing a system that monitors the state of equipment, provides notifications/alerts when servicing is required, prioritizes alarms, maintains and tracks the location of equipment and technicians, and provides technicians with the necessary information to service the equipment and update its maintenance records (as well as include a variety of other information, as was discussed above). Despite Minnier providing all of the necessary information to facilitate the servicing of equipment, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose whether to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel, and verify that the personnel is qualified.
To be more specific, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose:
a credentials of the service personnel, the credentials evidencing that the service personnel is licensed and in good standing to perform a specific type of service
transmit the stored information about one or more units of equipment and the stored information about one or more service personnel to at least one of the provider device and the user device (wherein the “stored information” in this interpretation includes credentials that are being interpreted as qualifications)
identify a service personnel from the one or more service personnel to conduct the service update based at least in part on the credentials of the service personnel and the GPS coordinate of the service personnel stored on the database
verify, via a credential confirmation software module, the credentials of the service personnel
wherein, only after successful credential verification and successful verification that the service personnel was within the configurable vicinity and radius during the specific time, the provider device transmits a state-change command to the display unit incorporated onto the unit of equipment to transition the display unit from a first one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states to a second one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the second one corresponding to the updated impairment status of the unit of equipment
wherein the provider device transmits the updated impairments status in real time to an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) computing system, the AHJ computing system being configured to present visual and spatial tools for assessing the equipment status in the AHJ’s jurisdiction
However, Thorley, which also discloses a system and method of managing assets and technicians at a location that includes the asset by tracking the location of an asset and technicians and having technicians take images of the asset, further teaches it would have been obvious to have the system verify, prior to performing servicing, whether the technician is qualified to perform the service.
Thorley teaches that the system manages a plurality of technicians and jobs and determines whether a particular technician is first qualified to perform the job prior to the technician actually performing the job, i.e. the system determines and verifies the credentials of the technician to determine that the technician is qualified to perform the job. Upon verifying that the technician is qualified to perform the job and is at the location of the job, the system will allow for the next steps to completing the job to take place, e.g., allowing for the servicing process to proceed.
Similar to Minnier, Thorley receives log-in information of a technician, but, unlike Minnier, performs the additional analysis of determining whether the technician is qualified to perform a particular service type. Thorley teaches that this, “…ensures that a certified technician works on the vehicle to comply with warranty requirements or safety regulations. If the technician is not authenticated/verified, then the vehicle service will not be allowed to proceed.” Thorley further teaches, “…should the service ecosystem 200 detect that the multi-point inspection will not be completed on time, it can assign another technician with the appropriate level of availability, certification and efficiency in order to load balance the service and to have it completed on time.”
(For support see: ¶ 14, 18, 29, 30, 37, 43)
Finally, the Examiner refers to MPEP § 2111.05 as who the receiving party is supposed to be, i.e. Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), is directed towards descriptive subject matter that fails to further limit or alter the steps or functions of the claimed invention and its end result. That is to say, whether the entity is an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), the steps, functions, and end result of the claimed invention would be unaffected, i.e. the steps/functions of transmitting information is unaffected and serves to only describe a destination. The data identifying the entity as an “Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)” is a label for the entity and adds little, if anything, to the claimed invention and, thus, does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., who the entity is supposed to be) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps/functions of the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, in terms of patentability.
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 technician and equipment service management system and method of Minnier to determine and verify that a service personnel possesses the necessary credentials to perform a job prior to allowing for the job to be performed, as taught by Thorley, because this “…ensures that a certified technician works on the vehicle to comply with warranty requirements or safety regulations. If the technician is not authenticated/verified, then the vehicle service will not be allowed to proceed.” Additionally, this facilitates jobs being completed in a timely manner by ensuring that qualified personnel are performing the job because they would have the necessary experience to complete the job.
The combination of Minnier and Thorley discloses a system and method for tracking and managing service personnel and the state of assets the personnel are servicing, inspecting, or the like. Although Minnier discloses:
“Likewise, the camera 28 may be used to scan a visual identifier 34 affixed to the equipment for rapid identification thereof. Exemplary visual identifiers include, but are not limited to, hash codes, 2D barcodes, Quick Response (QR) codes or matrix barcodes, color codes, alphanumeric or other symbols. Such visual identifiers 34 may be stored as additional information in the document database 20 for rapid access to the above-discussed information about the equipment of a critical system.”
and Thorley teaches:
“In one embodiment, the wireless communication interface may also detect the RFID badge affixed to the technician or other service personnel. In another embodiment, the wireless communication interface may include GPS or location determination software to allow the technician to be located in the dealership by the service ecosystem 200.”
the combination of Minnier and Thorley fails to explicitly disclose whether it was known or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the equipment to have an electronic tag affixed to it. Additionally, the combination of Minnier and Thorley fails to explicitly disclose a display unit incorporated onto the equipment to display its state/condition.
To be more specific, the combination of Minnier and Thorley fails to explicitly disclose:
an electronic tag physical affixed to a unit of equipment, the electronic tag comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WIFI tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag, the electronic tag being configured to provide a unique digital code associated with the unit of equipment to the user
a display unit incorporated onto the unit of equipment, the display unit being configured to display the impairment status of the unit of equipment is one of a plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the plurality of predefined color-coded states comprising at least Green for Certified and Active, Yellow for Minor impairment, Amber for Expired tag, Blue for Repaired, and Red for Major impairment
wherein, only after successful credential verification and successful verification that the service personnel was within the configurable vicinity and radius during the specific time, the provider device transmits a state-change command to the display unit incorporated onto the unit of equipment to transition the display unit from a first one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states to a second one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the second one corresponding to the updated impairment status of the unit of equipment
(emphasis added)
However, Pierson teaches:
“Determining the location of the mobile device 140 relative to the medical equipment 120 at the time the inspector enters inspection information via the software application may enable detection and/or prevention of falsified inspection information by an inspector. For example, if the medical equipment management software application determines that the distance between the mobile device 140 and the medical equipment 120 exceeds the predetermined inspection distance, then the software application may generate and/or store an indication of false inspection information. This indication may be available to a management account manager. In this way, the software application may enable a detection by an account manager of fraudulent use of the inspection system by an inspector. Further, the software application may limit and/or disable the input of inspection information to the medical equipment management software application for one or more items of medical equipment 120 if the distance between the medical equipment 120 and the mobile device 140 exceeds the predetermined inspection distance. For example, the software application may only enable entry of inspection information for medical equipment 120 for a geographic area around the mobile device 140 location having a dimension (e.g., radius, diameter, side length, etc.) that approximately corresponds to the predetermined inspection distance. As another example, the software application may reject entry of inspection information for a particular item of medical equipment 120 if the distance between the mobile device 140 and the registered location of the medical equipment 120 exceeds the predetermined inspection distance.”
(¶ 30)
“Alternatively, or additionally, the software application 225 may capture medical equipment information via the camera 1080, the asset tag reader 1090, and/or anther input device l030a of the computing device 140. For example, the medical equipment may include an asset tag (e.g., the barcode 235 and/or the radio frequency identification (RFID) tag 236) compatible with the asset tag reader 1090.”
(¶ 62)
“For example, the inspection of the medical equipment 120 may include a physical inspection. The physical inspection may include a determination, by the inspector, of at least a portion of the inspection information for the medical equipment 120 and an entry, by the inspector, of that inspection information to a medical equipment management software application installed on the computing device 140. … Since the inspector 110 and the computing device 140 may be co-located, this predetermined inspection distance may be a physical distance between the computing device 140 and the medical equipment 120. If the physical inspection requires the inspector to view, hear, and/or touch the medical equipment 120, then the predetermined inspection distance may be an inspection distance threshold beyond which the inspector would be unlikely to view, hear, and/or touch the medical equipment 120. As an example, referring again to FIG. 1, the medical equipment 120 may include an equipment status indicator 130 that indicates the operational status of the medical equipment 120. The status indicator 130 may provide a first status indicator that indicates that the medical equipment is in working order and a second status indicator that indicates that the medical equipment is in non-working order. The first and second status indicators may be one or more of a symbol, a color, a word, a picture, etc. In the example of FIG. 1, the first status indicator is a check mark graphic and the second status indicator is an“X” graphic. The status indicator 130 may be a visible indicator on a display (e.g., a graphic, a word, and/or a color), an audible sound from a speaker (e.g., a tone, a sequence of sounds, and/or spoken words), a tactile indicator (e.g., a raised set of bumps), etc. In order to accurately inspect the medical equipment 120, the requisite inspection distance between the inspector 110 and the medical equipment 120 may be a distance at which the inspector can, for example, see, feel, and/or hear the equipment status indicator 130. Thus, the predetermined inspection distance may be a threshold distance beyond which the inspection cannot be accurately performed. For example, if the inspector 110 is further from the medical equipment 120 than the predetermined inspection distance, then the inspector 110 may not be able to view the status indicator 130 with sufficient clarity to ascertain the operational status of the medical equipment 120. As another example, if an inspector is further from a fire extinguisher than the predetermined inspection distance for the fire extinguisher, then the inspector may not be able to manipulate a test button on the fire extinguisher. As a further example, an item of medical equipment may include a low battery alarm and predetermined inspection distance may be a distance within which the inspector can hear the alarm and identify the source of the alarm. In an implementation, the predetermined inspection distance may take into account location constraints for inspection (e.g., line of sight impediments or other viewing constraints).”
(¶ 64)
“At stage 840, the method 800 includes receiving the medical equipment information for the one or more items of medical equipment. The one or more selected items of medical equipment may be selected for inspection and for entry of inspection information and/or other medical equipment information to the software application 225 and/or the database 280. For example, the computing device 140 receives the medical equipment information from the medical equipment 120. In an implementation, the medical equipment information may include information provided as user-input to an inspection user interface provided at the computing device. Alternatively, or additionally, the medical equipment information may be information provided via signals transmitted from the medical equipment 120 to the computing device 140 and/or via information captured from the medical equipment (e.g., via a camera image, asset tag, RFID tag, etc.). The medical equipment information may also be obtained by the computing device 140 from the medical equipment 120 via a tap-to-connect or other near field communication technology and/or secure near field communication technology.”
(¶ 133)
One of ordinary skill in the art would looking upon the combination of Minnier and Thorley disclose a system and method where assets are affixed with identifier and that electronic tags, but would have realized that the sole difference between the combination of Minnier and Thorley and the claimed invention is whether it would have been obvious for the equipment to also be affixed with an electronic tag. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Pierson would have, indeed, that it would not only have been obvious to utilize an electronic tag, such as a radio frequency identification device (RFID) to identify the object that it is affixed to, but that it would have also been obvious for various tag types to be substituted for one another while still achieving the same predictable result, i.e. identifying an object. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further found it obvious to utilize an electronic tag that has a limited reading range because this would only further enhance the goals and objectives of the combination of Minnier and Thorley because having an electronic tag that can only be scanned when a user is within range would ensure that the user was, indeed, as the location where servicing is needed and being performed.
Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a display unit onto an asset so that the asset’s status can be visually provided because this provides the user with quick access to information regarding the status of the asset, as well as ensuring that the user is within the vicinity of the asset to be inspected, thereby preventing fraudulent activities from taking place.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an RFID affixed to an asset, as taught by Pierson, for any of the tags disclosed by the combination of Minnier and Thorley, especially since Minnier already discloses affixing tags to assets to identify the assets and Thorley teaches that RFID technology is a well-known type of technology for identifying an entity that it is affixed to.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Additionally, 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 location-based asset servicing and inspection system and method of the combination of Minnier and Thorley with ability to provide a display unit onto an asset to convey the status/condition of an asset, as taught by Pierson, because this would ensure that the service personnel was within the vicinity of the asset to properly determine its status/condition, which, in turn, would prevent falsification of servicing actions.
Finally, with regards to:
a display unit incorporated onto the unit of equipment, the display unit being configured to display the impairment status of the unit of equipment is one of a plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the plurality of predefined color-coded states comprising at least Green for Certified and Active, Yellow for Minor impairment, Amber for Expired tag, Blue for Repaired, and Red for Major impairment
wherein, only after successful credential verification and successful verification that the service personnel was within the configurable vicinity and radius during the specific time, the provider device transmits a state-change command to the display unit incorporated onto the unit of equipment to transition the display unit from a first one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states to a second one of the plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the second one corresponding to the updated impairment status of the unit of equipment
(emphasis added)
the Examiner refers to MPEP § 2111.04, 2111.05, and 2144.04 because how the impairment state is represented or conveyed as is directed towards descriptive subject matter describing how information should be represented/conveyed as. The Examiner asserts that the data identifying the state as “Green for Certified and Active, Yellow for Minor impairment, Amber for Expired tag, Blue for Repaired, and Red for Major impairment” and “ADA-compliant color-coded states” are labels for how the state information is represented/conveyed and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts, steps, and functions of the claimed invention and, thus, does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the manner in which the state information is represented or conveyed as), which does not explicitly alter or impact the acts, steps, and functions of the claimed invention, does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, in terms of patentability.
With that said, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses a system and method wherein service personnel provide information regarding their findings on the state of assets in a manner that describes the current state of the asset, the type of work that needs to be performed to change the state of the asset, and the state of the asset after the work has been performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the manner in which this information is conveyed or represented as is directed towards an aesthetic design choice of how a practitioner of the invention believes, in their opinion, is the best way to convey state information. One of ordinary skill in the art could provide the information using colors, pictographs, fault codes, short explanations, photographs, notes, checklist, or the like and substitute any of these methods for one another while still achieving the same predictable result, i.e. conveying the state of an asset.
(Minnier – ¶ 46, 47, 53; Thorley – ¶ 17, 21, 41; Pierson – ¶ 64 wherein the combination of Minnier, Thorley, Pierson disclose that state information can be conveyed/represented as pictures, fault codes, checklists, notes, color, sound, and etc.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of colors to convey the state of an asset, as discussed above, for any of the number of examples disclosed by the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In regards to claims 2, 12, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 1 (the method of claim 11), wherein said one or more hardware processors of the user device are further configured by machine readable instructions to:
verify (Claim 12: , via the user device,) a type of service to be performed on said unit of equipment;
verify (Claim 12: , via the user device,) one or more parts required to complete the type of service to be performed on said unit of equipment; and
verify (Claim 12: , via the user device,) that said one or more parts required to complete the type of service to be performed on said unit of equipment are in possession by the service personnel;
(Claim 12) removing, via the user device, the said one or more parts required to complete the type of service to be performed on said unit of equipment from an inventory of parts associated with said service personnel
(The combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses a system and method of servicing equipment by providing a system that monitors the state of equipment, provides notifications/alerts when servicing is required, prioritizes alarms, maintains and tracks the location of equipment and technicians, and provides technicians with the necessary information to service the equipment and update its maintenance records (as well as include a variety of other information, as was discussed above).
Thorley, which also discloses a system and method of managing assets and technicians at a location that includes the asset by tracking the location of an asset and technicians, further teaches that it would have been beneficial to track the type of service, the parts required to perform the service, and whether the technician is in possession of the parts. Thorley teaches that the system identifies the availability of parts and resources, thereby providing a system and method that is tracking parts inventory, which, in turn, results in parts being removed since they are being used. Thorley teaches that this provides the benefit of more efficient servicing of an asset as this allows the system to identify what parts the technician will need and whether the parts are available and in the technician’s possession, thereby facilitating completion of the service. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include and track such information as this would allow the technician to perform the job that they have been assigned, preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building, which coincides with the goals and objectives that Minnier sets out to resolve (Minnier – ¶ 3, 4, 5).
(For support, see: Thorley – ¶ 16, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46)
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 equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the ability to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building.
For these reasons, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson disclose the aforementioned limitations.).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 2, wherein said one or more hardware processors of the user device are further configured by machine readable instructions to: remove the said one or more parts required to complete the type of service to be performed on said unit of equipment from an inventory of parts associated with said service personnel (Thorley – ¶ 16, 26, 32, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46 wherein a part that needs to be serviced is identified, availability of the part is determined, and the part is replaced and recorded
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 equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the ability to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building.
For these reasons, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson disclose the aforementioned limitations.).
In regards to claims 4, 14, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 2 (the method of claim 12), wherein verifying that said one or more parts required to complete the service to be performed on said unit of equipment is completed via the one or more hardware processors analyzing data provided by the user device (Thorley – ¶ 45, 46 wherein the service, such as, but not limited to, part replacement, is determined to be completed and recorded
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 equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the ability to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building.
For these reasons, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson disclose the aforementioned limitations.).
In regards to claims 5, 15, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 4 (the method of claim 14), wherein the data provided by the user device is one or more images of said one or more parts required to complete the services to be performed on said unit of equipment (Thorley – ¶ 16, 40, 41, 43 wherein service personnel provide images of the parts required to be serviced
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 equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the ability to provide images related to the work that needs to be performed, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario of wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building.
For these reasons, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson disclose the aforementioned limitations.).
In regards to claims 6, 16, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 5 (the method of claim 15), wherein analysis of the images of said one or more parts required to complete the services to be performed on said unit of equipment is performed via image analysis and how to videos using a machine learning software module trained on image data of said one or more parts (Thorley – ¶ 16, 17, 21, 27, 40, 41, 43 wherein image recognition software is used to identify a component that needs to be serviced and wherein diagnostic software is used and continuously updated using, at least, machine learning
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 equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the ability to the use of image analysis using machine learning, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building.
For these reasons, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson disclose the aforementioned limitations.).
In regards to claims 7, 17, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 1 (the method of claim 11), wherein said one or more hardware processors of the user device are further configured by machine readable instructions to:
receive (Claim 17: , via the user device,) data associated with said impairment status of said unit of equipment (Minnier – ¶ 29 wherein equipment is monitored to determine if they are in need of repair or maintenance; ¶ 44, 47, 53, 55 wherein maintenance/servicing records for equipment are updated for use by future personnel); and
generate (Claim 17: , via the user device,) an additional service update on said unit of equipment, based at least in part on said data associated with said impairment status of said unit of equipment (Thorley, which also discloses a system and method of managing assets and technicians at a location that includes the asset by tracking the location of an asset and technicians, further teaches that it would have been beneficial to utilize the information provided for the service and during the servicing of the asset to determine if additional services are needed or should be performed. Thorley teaches that this provides the benefit of more efficient servicing of an asset as this allows the system to more effectively service the asset by identifying and performing any and all jobs needed for the asset, as well as providing a customer with the opportunity to decide whether to perform the service at that time or at a time that would not be a bother for the customer, i.e. the task may not be of high priority or critical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include and track such information as this would allow the technician to perform the job that they have been assigned, preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building, which coincides with the goals and objectives that Minnier sets out to resolve (Minnier – ¶ 3, 4, 5, 49).
(For support, see: Thorley – ¶ 16, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46)
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 equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the identify and provide information regarding an additional service associated for the asset, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building, as well as providing a customer with the opportunity to decide whether to perform the service at that time or at a time that would not be a bother for the customer, i.e. the task may not be of high priority or critical.
For these reasons, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson disclose the aforementioned limitations.).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors of the user device is further configured by machine readable instructions to:
receive status information from said unit of equipment; and
transmit the status information about said unit of equipment to the database for storage
(Minnier – Fig. 1, 2; ¶ 29, 49 wherein the system receives and stores equipment status information, which can then be accessed by a technician to assist in servicing the equipment).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more hardware processors of the provider device are further configured by machine readable instructions to:
retrieve the status information about said unit of equipment from the database; and
transmit the status information about said unit of equipment to an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner (Minnier – Fig. 1; ¶ 29, 48, 49 wherein the system receives equipment status information and transmits the information to a plurality of entities who can view and interact with the information via a dashboard, e.g., BMS (property owner) and central system that is monitoring and managing technicians to ensure that equipment are operating within range (AHJ)).
Additionally, the Examiner refers to MPEP § 2111.05 as who the receiving party is supposed to be, i.e. Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner, is directed towards descriptive subject matter that fails to further limit or alter the steps or functions of the claimed invention and its end result. That is to say, whether the entity is an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner, the steps, functions, and end result of the claimed invention would be unaffected, i.e. the steps/functions of transmitting information to two different locations is unaffected, and serves to only describe a destination. The data identifying the entity as an “Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner” is a label for the entity and adds little, if anything, to the claimed invention and, thus, does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., who the entity is supposed to be) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps/functions of the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, in terms of patentability.
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the status information from said unit of equipment is related to the impairment status of said unit of equipment (Minnier – ¶ 29 wherein equipment is monitored to determine if they are in need of repair or maintenance; ¶ 44, 47, 53, 55 wherein maintenance/servicing records for equipment are updated for use by future personnel).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
receiving, via the user device, status information from said unit of equipment;
transmitting, via the user device, the status information about said unit of equipment to the database for storage
(Minnier – Fig. 1, 2; ¶ 29, 49 wherein the system receives and stores equipment status information, which can then be accessed by a technician to assist in servicing the equipment);
retrieving, via the provider device, the status information about said unit of equipment from the database; and
transmitting, via the provider device, the status information about said unit of equipment to an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner (Minnier – Fig. 1; ¶ 29, 48, 49 wherein the system receives equipment status information and transmits the information to a plurality of entities who can view and interact with the information via a dashboard, e.g., BMS (property owner) and central system that is monitoring and managing technicians to ensure that equipment are operating within range (AHJ)).
Additionally, the Examiner refers to MPEP § 2111.05 as who the receiving party is supposed to be, i.e. Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner, is directed towards descriptive subject matter that fails to further limit or alter the steps or functions of the claimed invention and its end result. That is to say, whether the entity is an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner, the steps, functions, and end result of the claimed invention would be unaffected, i.e. the steps/functions of transmitting information to two different locations is unaffected, and serves to only describe a destination. The data identifying the entity as an “Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner” is a label for the entity and adds little, if anything, to the claimed invention and, thus, does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., who the entity is supposed to be) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps/functions of the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, in terms of patentability.
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses :
the system of claim 1, further comprising a third party device in communication with the network;
wherein the third part device receives updates to the impairment status of the unit of equipment in real time
(Minnier – as discussed above, Minnier discloses a system and method of servicing equipment by providing a system that monitors the state of equipment, provides notifications/alerts when servicing is required, prioritizes alarms, maintains and tracks the location of equipment and technicians, and provides technicians with the necessary information to service the equipment and update its maintenance records (as well as include a variety of other information, as was discussed above). Minnier further discloses that the system provides a dashboard that utilizes the information to generate tenant bills (¶ 49), sharing information with users (¶ 4, 48), and a plurality of different devices communicating over the network (Fig. 1)
Thorley, which also discloses a system and method of managing assets and technicians at a location that includes the asset by tracking the location of an asset and technicians, further teaches allowing a third-party device to be included in the system. Specifically, Thorley teaches that it would have been beneficial to include a customer device, which could include or be analogous to a building/equipment owner, manager, or the like. Thorley teaches that the advantage of allowing a customer to communicate with the network is that it allows a customer to not only manage a service request, but make sure that the customer is apprised of the service by allowing for communication to take place between the customer and the service provider. As a non-limiting example, by including a customer device and open communication between the customer and service provider, the system can more efficiently complete the service and allow the customer to make payments for the service, thereby more effectively and quickly completing the transaction.
(For support, see: ¶ 25, 26)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in the service management system and method of Minnier with the ability to include a third-party device, such as, but not limited to, a customer device, as taught by Thorley, as this would ensure that the customer is happy with the service and makes payment for the service.
For these reasons, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson disclose the aforementioned limitations.).
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the one or more hardware processors of the provider device are further configured by machine readable instructions to:
generate a bill based at least in part on the request to initiate the service update on the unit of equipment and the update to the impairment status of the unit of equipment; and
transmitting the generated bill to the third party device
(Thorley – ¶ 25, 26 wherein a bill is generated and transmitted to a customer device so that the customer can make a payment for the servicing of their asset
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in the service management system and method of Minnier with the ability to generate and transmit to a customer device a bill, as taught by Thorley, as this would ensure that the customer is happy with the service and makes payment for the service.
For these reasons, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson disclose the aforementioned limitations.).
In regards to claim 23, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors of the user device are further configured by machine readable instructions to:
track a time the service personnel was in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment;
transmit the time the service personnel was in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment;
wherein the update to the impairment status of the unit of equipment is further based on the time the service personnel was in the specified vicinity of the unit of equipment
(Minnier – ¶ 44, 45, 46, 48 wherein the system identifies when a technician was in proximity to the property, maintains a maintenance/service record of work performed by a technician, maintains a record identify the last technician to service the equipment, and maintains a record of the equipment’s service date, wherein the maintenance/service record and other information, e.g., technician notes, are provided by a technician via their device and transmitted to the system for later retrieval by future technicians.).
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more location-based service software modules of the user device perform verification that the service personnel was within the configurable vicinity and radius using at least one of GPS, cellular triangulation, network location detection by joining a WIFI network local to the unit of equipment, swipe card, biometric scanning, or image analysis using a machine learning system trained on data associated with the location of the unit of equipment (Minnier – ¶ 39, 44, 47, 48, 56 wherein the system verifies that a particular personnel was at a particular location by determining that the personnel is in proximity of the property, utilizes the personnel’s location to guide them to the location of the equipment, and stores information of service dates, calibration records, pictures of equipment at the time of service, print updated service cards and/or visual identifiers, and any other updates (which can be performed in real-time), which are available for future personnel performing future servicing of the equipment, thereby providing the system with a confirmation that service was performed on the equipment and verifying the specific personnel who performed the servicing, wherein the location determination can be accomplished using GPS).
______________________________________________________________________
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnier (US PGPub 2021/0374296 A1) in view of Thorley et al. (US PGPub 20190272362 A1) in view of Campion et al. (US PGPub 2008/0084291 A1) in further view of Monovich et al. (US PGPub 2020/0210938 A1).
In regards to claim 25, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses a system and method of managing assets and servicing those that require servicing. Although the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson discloses a wide range of devices that can be utilized to provide the status or condition of an asset, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson fails to explicitly disclose all types of devices that can be used.
To be more specific, the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson fails to explicitly disclose:
the method of claim 11, further comprising: receiving, via the provider device, status information from the unit of equipment via Internet of Things (IoT) sensors with the unit of equipment; and updating the impairment status of the unit of equipment based at least in part on the status information received via the IoT sensors.
However, Monovich discloses:
“Optional task identification module 4104 may receive the data identifying the determined window of opportunity from input module 4102 and detect a plurality of optional tasks for the specific field professional. Optional task identification module 4104 may access pending requests database 4110 to learn which tasks are available for scheduling. The tasks available for scheduling may include tasks associated with unassigned requests and tasks that were scheduled to deferred dates due to lack of field professionals' availability. Thereafter, optional task identification module 4104 may apply one or more criteria for determining a plurality of optional tasks relevant for the specific field professional. In one embodiment, the one or more criteria may include distance of a task's location to a current location of the specific field professional. … In another embodiment, the one or more criteria may include skills of the specific field professional. In another embodiment, the one or more criteria may include a scheduling weight indicating a desired ratio between the types of scheduled tasks. In another embodiment, the one or more criteria may include details associated with the tasks and/or details associated with the customer (e.g., only IoT device customers). In another embodiment, the one or more criteria may include a predicted task duration. The predicted task duration may be used by the system to determine if a task should be offered to a field professional. For example, the system may determine that a first field professional may be assigned to a certain task since the predicted duration for him would be 60 minutes while a second field professional may not be assigned to the certain task as the system estimates the predicted duration for him would be 75 minutes.”
(¶ 484)
“As used herein, terms like “connected device” or “IoT device” refer to any device (e.g., an appliance, a sensor, etc.) that has an addressable interface (e.g., an Internet protocol (IP) address, a Bluetooth identifier (ID), a near-field communication (NFC) ID, etc.) that can transmit information, for example, to a processing device (e.g., processing device 202) using a network such as a local ad-hoc network or the Internet. A connected device may have a passive communication interface, such as a quick response (QR) code, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, an NFC tag, or the like, or an active communication interface, such as a modem, a transceiver, a transmitter-receiver, or the like. The connected device may have a particular set of attributes (e.g., a device state or status, such as whether the connected device is on or off, open or closed, idle or active, available for task execution or busy, a cooling or heating function, an environmental monitoring or recording function, a light-emitting function, a sound-emitting function, etc.) that can be embedded in and/or controlled/monitored by a central processing unit (CPU), microprocessor, or the like. Consistent with the present disclosure, a connected device can encompass the range from the simplest IoT devices to the most robust legacy Internet accessible devices. For example, connected devices may include, but are not limited to, refrigerators, toasters, ovens, microwaves, freezers, dishwashers, dishes, hand tools, clothes washers, clothes dryers, furnaces, air conditioners, thermostats, televisions, light fixtures, vacuum cleaners, sprinklers, electricity meters, gas meters, thermometers, humidity sensors, soil sensors, security cameras, motion detection lights, traffic sensors, wearable devices, fitness bracelets, continuous glucose monitor devices, connected inhalers, an ingestible sensors, coagulation testing devices, asthma monitor devices, cell phones, desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), etc.”
(¶ 502)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson and Monovich that there are a wide range of device types that can be utilized to convey status or condition information of equipment and that regardless of which option is utilized the same predictable result would still be achieved, i.e. identifying, receiving, transmitting, storing, and utilizing status/condition information of an asset. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found that as technology advances it would have been obvious to implement or substitute those devices for older technology for any of the benefits that the new technology provides.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an IoT sensor to provide and update status/condition information of corresponding assets, as taught by Monovich, for any of the types of devices, techniques, or technologies disclosed by the combination of Minnier, Thorley, and Pierson.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specification Objection
The objection to the specification has been maintained as no arguments or amendments have been provided to resolve the issues that were previously identified. Additionally, the decision rendered by the PTAB did not reverse the objection.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(a)
The new rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been provided due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(b)
The new rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been provided due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
The Examiner asserts that the following limitation is insufficient to overcome the rejection:
“an electronic tag physical affixed to a unit of equipment, the electronic tag comprising at least one of a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, a Bluetooth-enabled tag, a WIFI tag, or another Internet of Things (IoT) tag, the electronic tag being configured to provide a unique digital code associated with the unit of equipment to the user”
“a display unit incorporated onto the unit of equipment, the display unit being configured to display the impairment status of the unit of equipment is one of a plurality of predefined ADA-compliant color-coded states, the plurality of predefined color-coded states comprising at least Green for Certified and Active, Yellow for Minor impairment, Amber for Expired tag, Blue for Repaired, and Red for Major impairment”
Specifically, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention and specification are not directed towards improving or resolving an issue that arose in the aforementioned electronic tags, nor is the disclosed invention concerned with transforming the electronic tags into a different state or thing. The Examiner asserts that the tags are noting more than generic electronic tags that are storing data and that the “transformation” is what the information is conveying to a user in as much the same way that a human, using pen and paper (or sticky label or the like), and write down the status of an equipment and placing the paper, sticky label, or the like onto an object. The Examiner asserts that the manner in which this information is conveyed as, i.e. color, is nothing more than an aesthetic design choice that a practitioner of the invention believes, in their mind and in their opinion, is the “best” way to inform an entity on the state of an asset.
Further still, although there are known deficiencies with stickers, the Examiner asserts that substituting any of the identified, generic electronic tags for a physical sticker is not an improvement to technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology. The Examiner asserts that the specification is not directed to or concerned with improving upon, resolving an issue, or deeply rooted in electronic tag technology, but is, in fact, relying on generic electronic tag technology and utilizing them for their intended use, i.e. storing and transmitting information. The claimed invention does not rise to the same level as Example 42, Claim 1 because it is not concerned with providing remote access over a network, conversion of non-standardized information to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all users. Specifically, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements of a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was inputted by a user. The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is similar to Example 42, Claim 2.
Further, the claimed invention is not directed to a particular machine, but simply reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying them to the abstract idea for the benefits that the technology provides, i.e. more efficient, faster, less prone to human error, and the like.
The claimed invention is not similar to Bascom because, as stated above, it is not directed towards improving technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology, but reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying them to the abstract idea for the benefits that the technology provides, i.e. more efficient, faster, less prone to human error, and the like, especially because the claimed invention is not directed to or concerned with improving filtering techniques to alleviate the computational load of a computing system.
Finally, Example 47, Claim 3 does not apply because claim 6 is directed towards the reciting generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea. The machine learning module has already been trained and recited in a generic manner.
Although the claim recites “using a machine learning module trained on image data,” the claims and specification fail to provide sufficient disclosure regarding an improvement to how a machine learning algorithm can be trained, but simply recites a high-level generic recitation that a machine learning algorithm is being trained. There is insufficient evidence from the specification to indicate that the use of the machine learning algorithm involves anything other than the generic application of a known technique in its normal, routine, and ordinary capacity or that the claimed invention purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or the machine learning algorithm. 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 machine learning model is simply 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 machine learning 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 machine learning 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 maintenance scheduling and management and/or asset inspection and management. 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 use of the machine learning module 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 machine learning model(s). 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, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Rejection under 35 USC 102/103
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the newly submitted amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
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.
Liese Henning et al. (EP 3967003 B1); Perez et al. (US Patent 12,661,853 B2); Durrant (US PGPub 2026/0220617 A1); Brutoco et al. (US Patent 12,710,137 B1); Williams et al. (NO 349761 B1); Jaggers et al. (US PGPub 2026/0195672 A1); Idan (US Patent 11,593,728 B2); Garber et al. (US PGPub 2020/0210965 A1); Gao et al. (CN 116228147 B); Jaggers et al. (US Patent 12,505,391 B2); Jaggers et al. (US PGPub 2024/0370792 A1)– which disclose systems and methods for managing the servicing of assets and service personnel, as well as maintaining and utilizing service personnel qualification information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 9/12/2026
