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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 20, 2024 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 9, 11, 12, 14 – 18 have been amended. (NOTE: Despite claims 14, 15, 17 having been amended, the claims have been identified as “Original”. To avoid any future non-compliant notifications, the Examiner requests proper identification of claims to be provided in any future correspondences. See also MPEP § 714)
Claims 13, 19, 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21 – 23 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 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 – 23 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:
Claim 1:
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
display the optimized service route on the user device to the service personnel
Claim 11:
determining an optimized service route, via the provider device, 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;
transmitting the optimized service route to the user device
displaying the optimized service route on the user device to the service personnel”
The Examiner asserts that the specification does not provide support that there is no support in the specification that the system is determining an optimized route and transmitting the optimized route to a user device so that it can be displayed on the user device. At best, ¶ 36, 41 of the applicant’s specification discloses:
“For instance, in certain embodiments, the system may be configured to use collected GPS coordinates of units to help entities get a quick visual display of all units and their serviceable status within a geographical area with the use of a spatial mapping service, and identify and deploy inspection personnel to units in need of service.”
“In certain embodiments, the system may be configured to use the collected GPS coordinates of units to help service personnel map an optimized route for the daily set service requirements.”
The Examiner asserts that there the specification lacks sufficient specificity that the system is determining a route, that the system is transmitting a route, and that the route is displayed, let alone the route being an optimized route. The specification, at best, only provides support that the system has access to a map and location information and simply displays the location of units on a map. However, neither the system, provider device, or user device are generating, determining, transmitting, or displaying a route or an optimized route. The specification only provides support that a map is displayed with the location of units so that the personnel can map a route, i.e. the personnel is reading the map so that they themselves can determine the route that they believe, in their mind, is the best route to a destination.
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 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
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;
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 in a specified vicinity of the GPS coordinates of the identified unit of equipment; 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
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, 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:
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;
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 in a specified vicinity of the GPS coordinates of the identified unit of equipment; 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
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor and modules. That is, other than reciting a generic processor and modules nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor and modules 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 and modules, 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 and modules 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 and modules in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and modules 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 and modules 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 and modules.
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 and modules to perform the steps of:
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;
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 in a specified vicinity of the GPS coordinates of the identified unit of equipment; 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
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.
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. 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.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Minnier (US PGPub 2021/0374296 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);
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 (¶ 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);
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);
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);
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);
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 was in a specified vicinity of the GPS coordinates of the identified unit of equipment; 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 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).
In regards to claim 8, Minnier 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, Minnier 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 (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, Minnier 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 (¶ 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, Minnier 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 (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 23, Minnier 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
(¶ 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.).
______________________________________________________________________
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 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 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 regards to claims 2, 12, 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, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel.
To be more specific, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose:
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.
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, 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.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Minnier and Thorley 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).
In regards to claims 4, 14, the combination of Minnier and Thorley 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).
In regards to claims 5, 15, the combination of Minnier and Thorley 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).
In regards to claims 6, 16, the combination of Minnier and Thorley 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).
In regards to claims 7, 17, Minnier 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 (¶ 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
[…].
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 the technician can be provided with additional servicing information that the equipment is in need of.
To be more specific, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose:
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.
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, 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.
In regards to claim 21, 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 disclosing 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) Minnier fails to explicitly disclose a third-party device, such as, but not limited to, a device associated with a bill, being part of the system .
To be more specific, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose:
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.
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, 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.
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Minnier and Thorley 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specification Objection
The new objection to the specification has been provided due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(a)
The new rejection under 35 USC 112(a) 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 “machine-to-machine communication of the claimed provider device, user device, and database” are directed towards extra-solution activities and insufficient to overcoming the rejection (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Finally, the Examiner asserts that the use of a map, determining an optimized service route (which is never recited as to how this is exactly performed to determine if an inventive way of determining an optimized service route is being claimed and, consequently, is directed towards the recitation of generic technology and applying it t the abstract idea, for example, generic GPS based navigation technology), and verifying the location of a service personnel is directed towards the collection and comparison of information, as well as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, as it is directed towards simply looking at a map, looking at where a service personnel is, compare the two pieces of information, and determine, based on the comparison, whether the service personnel is at an expected location. Alternatively, this can be performed by simply having one human observe another human’s location, two humans conversing with one another to determine a human’s location, or using generic technology, e.g., GPS, to collect a human’s location and comparing it against a map, address, or the like to determine if the human is where they are expected to be. This is further supported by ¶ 36, 41 of the applicant’s specification.
Rejection under 35 USC 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 13 – 15, filed 8/20/2024, with respect to the rejections of 1 – 12, 14 – 18, 21 – 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Minnier (US PGPub 2021/0374296 A1), as well as 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).
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.
Morgan (US Patent 11,460,981 B1); Owen et al. (US PGPub 2022/0058565 A1); Suranov (US PGPub 2021/0256455 A1); Ramer et al. (US PGPub 2020/0342421 A1); Braun et al. (US Patent 10,769,741 B2); Barbosa et al. (US Patent 7,593,751 B2); McKinney et al. (US PGPub 2007/0021971 A1) – which is directed towards providing a system with guiding and assisting a user, e.g., inspector, technician, or the like, with various tasks that need to be performed at specific locations, such as, but not limited to, using location information of the user and task to guide the user to the location where the task needs to be performed
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 on 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 10/9/2024
Prosecution Insights