DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-12 and 211-224 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant, on 12/18/2025, amended claims and added claim 224. Claims 1-12 and 211-224 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the providing a geographic representation of hierarchical inspection data recited an improvement to the pertinent technology. Applicant further asserts that the inclusion of amended claims represents the improvement
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited additional elements of graphical depiction and further display levels are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant further contends that selecting display levels according to importance/issues provides a user ability to quickly navigate levels.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the selection of display levels is a concept capable of being performed in the human mind further implemented by a general purpose computing device.
Applicant contends with respect to Core Wireless… that the claims improve efficiency of using electronic devices and teach analogous limitations regarding prior art interfaces required users to drill down…
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited example is not analogous to the currently cited claims as they require each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application, and wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state while the current limitations merely require determining display levels of a hierarchy and providing the graphical user interface.
Applicant further contends with respect to Dejardins that the claims are non-obvious under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims require an updated 103 Rejection which is addressed below in the full rejection.
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new line of 103 Rejections seen below relying on previously cited art and supplemented with new prior art to teach the entirety of the amended limitations.
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 and 211-224 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) 1-12 and 211-223 is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims 1 and 210 recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding Claims 1, (additional elements bolded)
A system, comprising: a facility visualization and planning platform comprising: a user interface component configured to implement a user interface, and to receive a visualization request value from user operations on the user interface; an inspection database comprising an aggregation of inspection data; and
a controller, comprising:
a facility planning circuit structured to interpret a user facility visualization value in response to the visualization request value;
a facility inspection data circuit structured to interpret the aggregation of inspection data in response to the user facility visualization value;
a geographic depiction circuit structured to: determine a geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation for at least one industrial facility positioned within the geographic display boundary in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data; and
wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation comprises a hierarchy determined from the inspection data and including a plurality of display levels selected by the geographic depiction circuit in order of at least one of importance or issues to be addressed,
wherein the user operations on the user interface include a user navigating through the plurality of display levels of the hierarchy by controlling a hierarchy selection value, and
wherein the user navigates through the plurality of display levels of the hierarchy in order of the at least one of importance or issues to be addressed;
determine a user geographic display value in response to the geographic display boundary and the hierarchical inspection presentation; and
wherein the user interface component is further structured to provide the user geographic display value to the user interface.
Regarding Claims 211,
A method, comprising: implementing a user interface for a facility visualization and planning platform, and receiving a visualization request value from user operations on the user interface;
interpreting a user facility visualization value in response to the visualization request value;
interpreting an aggregation of inspection data in response to the user facility visualization value;
determining a geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation for at least one industrial facility positioned within the geographic display boundary in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data;
wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation comprises a hierarchy determined from the inspection data and including a plurality of display levels selected by the facility visualization and planning platform in order of at least one of importance or issues to be addressed,
wherein the user operations on the user interface include a user navigating through the plurality of display levels of the hierarchy by controlling a hierarchy selection value, and
wherein the user navigates through the plurality of display levels of the hierarchy in order of the at least one of importance or issues to be addressed;
determining a user geographic display value in response to the geographic display boundary and the hierarchical inspection presentation; and
providing the user geographic display value to the user interface.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards an aggregation of inspection data, determine a geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation for at least one industrial facility positioned within the geographic display boundary in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data; and determine a user geographic display value in response to the geographic display boundary and the hierarchical inspection presentation all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards “as a part of ongoing facility maintenance, to ensure proper operation, to avoid downtime due to failures, to determine whether maintenance or repair is indicated, and/or to comply with regulatory requirements. Aspects of the present disclosure provide for systems, methods, and apparatuses to provide integrated inspection information with the facility purpose, for example ongoing business operations of the business, which provide additional value for the inspection operations and data to support improved business outcomes, such as reduced maintenance costs, reduced repair costs, reduced downtime, improved operational outcomes, improved return on capital investment, and improved ancillary operations related to the facilities (e.g., supporting operations, future capacity planning, and/or coordination between facilities)” (See Specification, [84]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least an facility visualization and planning platform comprising: a user interface component configured to implement a user interface, and to receive a visualization request value from user operations on the user interface; an inspection database; a controller; a facility planning circuit; a facility inspection data circuit; a geographic depiction circuit; user interface component is further structured to provide the user geographic display value to the user interface; a user interface for a facility visualization and planning platform; and providing the user geographic display value to the user interface. The additional elements are o omit display on the user interface of certain types of facilities or equipment and/or limit the display on the user interface to facilities or equipment having an issue.
Step 2B - The claim does 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 elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-12 and 212-223, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims. (i.e. receiving… from/on a user interface, providing…. display value to the user interface; etc.).
Regarding Claim(s) 224, the claim recites the additional element of omit display on the user interface of certain types of facilities or equipment and/or limit the display on the user interface to facilities or equipment having an issue. This elements is: omit display on the user interface of certain types of facilities or equipment and/or limit the display on the user interface to facilities or equipment having an issue.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12, 211-214, and 216-223 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryner et al. (US 20210060782 A1) in view of Riley (US 20120271673 A1), and Culley et al. (US 11868937 B1) .
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Bryner teaches: A system, comprising: (Bryner, [10]; systems and methods of inspecting an inspecting an inspection surface with an improved inspection robot and Bryner, [abstract]; apparatus for providing an interactive inspection map of an inspection surface may include an inspection visualization circuit to provide an inspection map to a user device in response to inspection data provided by a plurality of sensors operationally coupled to an inspection robot traversing the inspection surface).
a facility visualization and planning platform comprising: a user interface component configured to implement a user interface, and to receive a visualization request value from user operations on the user interface; (Bryner, [296]; the inspection map 818 provides for a convenient and powerful reference tool for a user to determine the results of the inspection operation and plan for future maintenance, repair, or inspections, as well as planning logistics in response to the number of aspects of the system requiring further work or analysis and the location of the aspects requiring further work or analysis and Bryner, [710]; A computer, computing device, processor, circuit, and/or server may be part of a server, client, network infrastructure, mobile computing platform, stationary computing platform, or other computing platform. A processor may be any kind of computational or processing device capable of executing program instructions, codes, binary instructions and the like and Bryner, [295]; the inspection visualization circuit 810 is further responsive to a user focus value 822 to update the inspection map 818 and/or to provide further information (e.g., focus data 824) to a user, such as a user of the client computing device 826. For example, a user focus value 822 (e.g., a user mouse position, menu selection, touch screen indication, keystroke, or other user input value indicating that a portion of the inspection map 818 has received the user focus) indicates that a location 702 of the inspection map 818 has the user focus and Bryner, [945]; the robot configuration controller 20302 interprets a user inspection request value, for example from the user interface 20316, and determines the inspection description value in response to the user inspection request value and Bryner, [1017]; The example system 2180 further includes a user device 21806 that is communicatively coupled to the controller 21804. The user device 21806 is configured to provide a user interface for interacting operations of the controller 21804 with the user 21810, including providing information, alerts, and/or notifications to the user 21810, receiving user requests or inputs).
a controller, comprising: (Bryner, [291]; apparatus 800 includes a controller 802 having a number of circuits structured to functionally execute operations of the controller 802. The controller 802 may be a single device (e.g., a computing device present on the robot 100, a computing device in communication with the robot 100 during operations and/or post-processing information communicated after inspection operations, etc.)
a facility planning circuit structured to interpret a user facility visualization value in response to the visualization request value; (Bryner, [506]; An example apparatus (i.e. facility planning circuit) may further include wherein the inspection visualization circuit is further responsive structured to interpret a user focus value, and to update the inspection map in response to the user focus value and Bryner, [986]; controller 802 includes a user interaction circuit 16708 structured to interpret an inspection visualization request 16714 for an inspection map).
a facility inspection data circuit structured to interpret the aggregation of inspection data in response to the user facility visualization value; (Bryner, [991]; a method for performing an inspection on an inspection surface with an inspection robot (i.e. facility inspection circuit) may include interpreting 16902 inspection data of the inspection surface; interpreting 16904 position data of the inspection robot during the inspecting, and linking 16908 the inspection data with the position data to determine position based inspection data; interpreting 16906 an inspection visualization request for an inspection map and, in response to the inspection visualization request, determining 16910 the inspection map based on the position-based inspection data; and providing the inspection map 16912 to a user device. In an embodiment, the inspection map 16720 may include a layout of the inspection surface, wherein the layout is in real space or virtual space. Determining 16910 the inspection map based on the position-based inspection data may include labeling 16914 each inspection dimension of the inspection data. In an embodiment, each inspection dimension may be labeled with a selected visualization property. In the method, the inspection map may be updated 16916, such as in response to a user focus value, wherein updating may include updating an inspection plan, selecting an inspection dimension to be displayed, or selecting a visualization property for an inspection dimension). Examiner notes that Riley below is relied upon to explicitly teach the inspection database.
Regarding the limitation: “wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation comprises a hierarchy determined from the inspection data and including a plurality of display levels selected by the geographic depiction circuit in order of at least one of importance or issues to be addressed,” Bryner does teach a plurality of display levels selected by the geographic depiction circuit… (Bryner, [1010]; the inspection map may include one or more display layers 10768 which, in embodiment, may be collections of features and/or visualization properties that can have their visibility in the inspection map 17004 collectively toggled by setting an activation state value via the visualization circuit 17002 and Bryner, [1013]; updating 17208 the inspection map 17004 may include setting 17218 an activation state value of at least one or more display layers 17102, 17104, 17106, 17108. In embodiments, the one or more display layers 17102, 17104, 17106, 17108 may include: an inspection dimension layer 17040; a coating layer 17072; a part overlay layer 17074; a scheduled maintenance layer 17078; and/or a planned downtime layer 17080). Examiner notes that Riley/Culley below teaches the remaining portions of the limitation.
While Bryner teaches inspection data (Bryner, [at least 11, 50-52]), Bryner does not appear to explicitly teach an inspection database. However, Bryner in view of the analogous art of Riley (i.e. facility management) does teach: an inspection database comprising an aggregation of inspection data; and (Riley, [18-19]; providing a facility requiring maintenance; providing a database comprising a report relating to maintenance requirements of the facility; retrieving the report on a first electronic computing device from the database via a control application module interconnected with the database… the report relates to the maintenance requirements of the facility and is generated by the step of providing access to the facility to an inspector, wherein the inspector creates the report on a third electronic computing device relating to the maintenance requirements of the facility and wherein the inspector saves the report to the database and Riley, [79]; If the inspector selects "Complete Inspection", a dispatch code may be generated, and a notation that a dispatcher of the system has been contacted for uploading the report the inspector has generated and completed.
While Bryner teaches displaying inspection maps on user interfaces (Bryner, [11, 504]) Bryner in view of Riley is used to explicitly teach: a geographic depiction circuit structured to: determine a geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation for at least one industrial facility positioned within the geographic display boundary in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data; and (Riley, [25]; providing a graphic interface on the first computing device, wherein the control application (i.e. geographic depiction circuit) provides a map on the graphic interface on the first computing device, wherein the map shows the facility and Riley, [64-65, 68]; the facility may be divided into sections that may be individually tracked in a "Sections" area viewable by the user. The Sections area may contain information concerning the sections of the facility, such as names for the sections, area of the sections, the types of the sections, as well as individual ratings ("grades") for each of the sections. The ratings of each of the sections may be generated by individuals that may have conducted inspections thereof… If a section of the facility is selected, "Section Information" may be shown to the user, which may show pertinent information relating to the particular section of the facility that is selected. For example, information concerning Summary information about the section, as well as information concerning the section's Composition, Observations about the section, a Condition Summary of the section, a Recommendation for the section, as well as a Print option may be provided. A photograph of a pertinent element or feature within the section may be shown, and information concerning that particular element or feature may be displayed, such as if Observations is selected by the user. Additional photographs may be provided for the section to the user at this time… The Recommendation information may present information to the facility manager to aid the facility manager in making decisions about repairing and/or maintaining the section of the facility).
wherein the user operations on the user interface include a user navigating through the plurality of display levels of the hierarchy by controlling a hierarchy selection value, and (Riley, [68]; If a section of the facility is selected, "Section Information" may be shown to the user, which may show pertinent information relating to the particular section of the facility that is selected. For example, information concerning Summary information about the section, as well as information concerning the section's Composition, Observations about the section, a Condition Summary of the section, a Recommendation for the section, as well as a Print option may be provided). Examiner notes that the user selects the hierarchical value of that specific facility.
While Bryner teaches displaying inspection maps on user interfaces (Bryner, [11, 504]) Bryner in view of Riley is used to explicitly teach: determine a user geographic display value in response to the geographic display boundary and the hierarchical inspection presentation; and (Riley, [53]; the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities. The facilities may be selected via cursor by clicking on any of the flags shown on the geo map and Riley, [86]; A graphical representation of the facility being serviced by the vendor and a map showing the various sections of the facility may be presented to the vendor on his or her portable electronic device. Thus, the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair).
wherein the user interface component is further structured to provide the user geographic display value to the user interface. (Riley, [63-64]; the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities. The facilities may be selected via cursor by clicking on any of the flags shown on the geo map… Once a facility is selected by a user of the Control Application Modules 12, a photograph of a particular facility, as well as information that may be related to the particular facility, may be displayed. The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to help users locate issues in a more efficient manner. (Riley, [86]; the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair. The electronic service ticket may be updated to show that the vendor is conducting the repair and that the repair is "in progress”).
While Bryner/Riley teach a hierarchical display of facilities and issues (see above) and a plurality of display levels selected by a geographic depiction circuit (see above), neither appear to teach the issues displayed by importance or issues. However, Bryner/Riley in view of the analogous art of (i.e. ) does teach: wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation comprises a hierarchy determined from the inspection data and including a plurality of display levels selected by the geographic depiction circuit in order of at least one of importance or issues to be addressed, (Culley, [c. 4, l. 54-60]; the graphical user interface manages context-dependent information within advisories corresponding to a given level of a hierarchy of the infrastructure (infrastructure hierarchy). The graphical user interface can prioritize presentation of data at different levels of the infrastructure hierarchy based on the nature of the issues and allow users to navigate among the different levels).
wherein the user navigates through the plurality of display levels of the hierarchy in order of the at least one of importance or issues to be addressed; (Culley, [c. 4, l. 54-60]; the graphical user interface manages context-dependent information within advisories corresponding to a given level of a hierarchy of the infrastructure (infrastructure hierarchy). The graphical user interface can prioritize presentation of data at different levels of the infrastructure hierarchy based on the nature of the issues and allow users to navigate among the different levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner/Riley including a hierarchical display of facilities and issues (see above) and a plurality of display levels selected by a geographic depiction circuit with the teachings of Culley including navigation by importance levels in order to allow a user to focus on the most important issues (Culley, [c. 13, l. 60-66]; the sub-panels presented in this view can focus on important information. For example, an “Events” sub-panel can show only the most important events associated with a given issue category. Selecting an “Events” tab will present the full events log information. In another embodiment, the user can navigate to the full events log information by selecting the “Events” sub-panel itself, thus presenting alternative interactions that lead to the same information.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the user operations on the user interface to provide the visualization request value comprise at least one operation selected from: defining a geographic boundary; selecting a geographic region; selecting a facility of interest; selecting a facility type of interest; selecting an entity of interest; selecting an equipment type of interest; or selecting a predetermined facility group; selecting a predetermined equipment group; providing a facility relationship value; providing an equipment relationship value; adjusting a current user geographic display value; or a hierarchy selection value. (Riley, [61]; The facilities may be listed in a predetermined order such that a user may have easy accessibility to the list of facilities, and may be able to select each individually by scrolling and/or clicking thereon using a cursor, touchpad, touch-sensitive screen, mouse or other input device. The list of facilities may have basic information shown about each facility, such as location, square footage, grade, and division, for example. The information about each of the facilities may offer a quick overview of where the facility may be located, the size of the facilities, and a rating grade based on any inspections that may have been performed on each of the facilities, as will be described in more detail below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to help users locate issues in a more efficient manner. (Riley, [86]; the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair. The electronic service ticket may be updated to show that the vendor is conducting the repair and that the repair is "in progress”).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the facility planning circuit structured is further configured to interpret the user facility visualization value in response to the visualization request value by determining at least one relevant facility for user display. (Riley, [64]; Once a facility is selected by a user of the Control Application Modules 12, a photograph of a particular facility, as well as information that may be related to the particular facility, may be displayed. The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility. Oftentimes, a facility manager may generally know the facilities under his or her purview, and the photograph of the particular facility may allow the facility manager to better understand which facility he or she has selected for review.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to provide the user with a bird’s eye view and a better understanding of size and shape of facility. (Riley, [64]; The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility. Oftentimes, a facility manager may generally know the facilities under his or her purview, and the photograph of the particular facility may allow the facility manager to better understand which facility he or she has selected for review. Moreover, the facility may be divided into sections that may be individually tracked in a "Sections" area viewable by the user).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The system of claim 3, wherein the geographic display boundary comprises a geographic region for depiction determined in response to the at least one relevant facility. (Riley, [57]; Control Application Modules 12 may include information about the one or more facilities, contained within one or more easily accessible databases, and provided in a manner that is easy to read and understand by a facility manager. Moreover, the Control Application Modules 12 may track notes and history relating to the one or more facilities, as well as provide geographical mapping ("geo mapping") of the one or more facilities and Riley, [63]; Geo mapping may be performed of one or more of a plurality of facilities around a common geographic region. Specifically, when the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to provide the user with a bird’s eye view and a better understanding of size and shape of facility. (Riley, [64]; The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility. Oftentimes, a facility manager may generally know the facilities under his or her purview, and the photograph of the particular facility may allow the facility manager to better understand which facility he or she has selected for review. Moreover, the facility may be divided into sections that may be individually tracked in a "Sections" area viewable by the user).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The system of claim 4, wherein the geographic region for depiction comprises a geometric region encompassing the at least one relevant facility. (Riley, [63]; Geo mapping may be performed of one or more of a plurality of facilities around a common geographic region. Specifically, when the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to provide the user with a birds eye view and a better understanding of size and shape of facility. (Riley, [64]; The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility. Oftentimes, a facility manager may generally know the facilities under his or her purview, and the photograph of the particular facility may allow the facility manager to better understand which facility he or she has selected for review. Moreover, the facility may be divided into sections that may be individually tracked in a "Sections" area viewable by the user).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The system of claim 4, wherein the geographic region for depiction comprises a bounded region at least partially defined by a geographic boundary encompassing the at least one relevant facility. (Riley, [63]; Geo mapping may be performed of one or more of a plurality of facilities around a common geographic region. Specifically, when the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to provide the user with a birds eye view and a better understanding of size and shape of facility. (Riley, [64]; The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility. Oftentimes, a facility manager may generally know the facilities under his or her purview, and the photograph of the particular facility may allow the facility manager to better understand which facility he or she has selected for review. Moreover, the facility may be divided into sections that may be individually tracked in a "Sections" area viewable by the user).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation comprises a hierarchy organized based upon at least one of: a facility hierarchy; an entity hierarchy; a geographic hierarchy; or an equipment hierarchy (Riley, [64-65]; the facility may be divided into sections that may be individually tracked in a "Sections" area viewable by the user. The Sections area may contain information concerning the sections of the facility, such as names for the sections, area of the sections, the types of the sections, as well as individual ratings ("grades") for each of the sections. The ratings of each of the sections may be generated by individuals that may have conducted inspections thereof…If a section of the facility is selected, "Section Information" may be shown to the user, which may show pertinent information relating to the particular section of the facility that is selected. For example, information concerning Summary information about the section, as well as information concerning the section's Composition, Observations about the section, a Condition Summary of the section, a Recommendation for the section, as well as a Print option may be provided). Examiner interprets the sections of the facility as hierarchical tier below the facility itself.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to help users locate issues in a more efficient manner. (Riley, [86]; the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair. The electronic service ticket may be updated to show that the vendor is conducting the repair and that the repair is "in progress”).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches:. The system of claim 1, wherein the user geographic display value comprises a geographic region for depiction, at least one relevant facility for depiction, and a display paradigm for the at least one relevant facility for depiction. (Riley, [63-64]; Geo mapping may be performed of one or more of a plurality of facilities around a common geographic region. Specifically, when the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities… Once a facility is selected by a user of the Control Application Modules 12, a photograph of a particular facility, as well as information that may be related to the particular facility, may be displayed. The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to provide the user with a birds eye view and a better understanding of size and shape of facility. (Riley, [64]; The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility. Oftentimes, a facility manager may generally know the facilities under his or her purview, and the photograph of the particular facility may allow the facility manager to better understand which facility he or she has selected for review. Moreover, the facility may be divided into sections that may be individually tracked in a "Sections" area viewable by the user).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The system of claim 8, wherein the display paradigm includes a facility depiction scheme. (Riley, [63-64]; Geo mapping may be performed of one or more of a plurality of facilities around a common geographic region. Specifically, when the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities… Once a facility is selected by a user of the Control Application Modules 12, a photograph of a particular facility, as well as information that may be related to the particular facility, may be displayed. The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to help users locate issues in a more efficient manner. (Riley, [86]; the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair. The electronic service ticket may be updated to show that the vendor is conducting the repair and that the repair is "in progress”).
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The system of claim 8, wherein the display paradigm includes a facility data scheme. (Riley, [63-64]; Geo mapping may be performed of one or more of a plurality of facilities around a common geographic region. Specifically, when the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities… Once a facility is selected by a user of the Control Application Modules 12, a photograph of a particular facility, as well as information that may be related to the particular facility, may be displayed. The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to help users locate issues in a more efficient manner. (Riley, [86]; the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair. The electronic service ticket may be updated to show that the vendor is conducting the repair and that the repair is "in progress”).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein the facility data scheme further comprises a facility inspection data scheme. (Riley, [64]; a facility is selected by a user of the Control Application Modules 12, a photograph of a particular facility, as well as information that may be related to the particular facility, may be displayed. The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility. Oftentimes, a facility manager may generally know the facilities under his or her purview, and the photograph of the particular facility may allow the facility manager to better understand which facility he or she has selected for review. Moreover, the facility may be divided into sections that may be individually tracked in a "Sections" area viewable by the user. The Sections area may contain information concerning the sections of the facility, such as names for the sections, area of the sections, the types of the sections, as well as individual ratings ("grades") for each of the sections. The ratings of each of the sections may be generated by individuals that may have conducted inspections thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to help users locate issues in a more efficient manner. (Riley, [86]; the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair. The electronic service ticket may be updated to show that the vendor is conducting the repair and that the repair is "in progress”).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the user geographic display value comprises a geographic region for depiction, at least one relevant equipment for depiction, and a display paradigm for the at least one relevant equipment. (Bryner, [953]; the user display device 15441 may be further structured to display the relative position-based inspection data 15428. The relative position-based inspection data 15428 may be displayed as an overlay of a map 15444 of the inspection surface. The inspection position circuit 15436 may be further structured to determine the relative position 15432 of the inspection robot in response to a reference position 15434. In embodiments, the reference position 15434 may be selected from a list of positions consisting of: a global positioning system location, a specified latitude and longitude, a plant location reference, an inspection surface location reference, and an equipment location reference. The inspection position circuit 15436 may be further structured to determine the relative position 15432 of the inspection chassis 15404 in response to a first circumference value 15412 of the first passive encoder wheel 15414). Examiner notes that Riley is relied upon to explicitly teach the bracketed portion of the claim regarding geographic region while Bryner explicitly teaches equipment depiction.
Regarding Claim(s) 211, Bryner teaches: A method, comprising: (Bryner, [10]; systems and methods of inspecting an inspecting an inspection surface with an improved inspection robot and Bryner, [abstract]; seen above).
implementing a user interface for a facility visualization and planning platform, and receiving a visualization request value from user operations on the user interface; (Bryner, [296] and Bryner, [710] Bryner, [295] and Bryner, [945] and Bryner, [1017]; seen above).
interpreting a user facility visualization value in response to the visualization request value; (Bryner, [506] and Bryner, [986] seen above).
interpreting an aggregation of inspection data in response to the user facility visualization value; (Bryner, [991]; seen above).
Regarding the limitation: “wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation comprises a hierarchy determined from the inspection data and including a plurality of display levels selected by the geographic depiction circuit in order of at least one of importance or issues to be addressed,” Bryner does teach a plurality of display levels selected by the geographic depiction circuit… (Bryner, [1010] and Bryner, [1013]; seen above). Examiner notes that Riley/Culley below teaches the remaining portions of the limitation.
While Bryner teaches displaying inspection maps on user interfaces (Bryner, [11, 504]) Bryner in view of Riley is used to explicitly teach: determining a geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation for at least one industrial facility positioned within the geographic display boundary in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data; (Riley, [25] and Riley, [64-65] seen above).
determining a user geographic display value in response to the geographic display boundary and the hierarchical inspection presentation; and (Riley, [53] and Riley, [86] seen above).
wherein the user operations on the user interface include a user navigating through the plurality of display levels of the hierarchy by controlling a hierarchy selection value, and (Riley, [68]; seen above).
providing the user geographic display value to the user interface. (Riley, [63-64]; seen above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to help users locate issues in a more efficient manner. (Riley, [86]; the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair. The electronic service ticket may be updated to show that the vendor is conducting the repair and that the repair is "in progress”).
While Bryner/Riley teach a hierarchical display of facilities and issues (see above) and a plurality of display levels selected by a geographic depiction circuit (see above), neither appear to teach the issues displayed by importance or issues. However, Bryner/Riley in view of the analogous art of (i.e. ) does teach: wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation comprises a hierarchy determined from the inspection data and including a plurality of display levels selected by the geographic depiction circuit in order of at least one of importance or issues to be addressed, (Culley, [c. 4, l. 54-60]; seen above).
wherein the user navigates through the plurality of display levels of the hierarchy in order of the at least one of importance or issues to be addressed; (Culley, [c. 4, l. 54-60]; seen above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner/Riley including a hierarchical display of facilities and issues (see above) and a plurality of display levels selected by a geographic depiction circuit with the teachings of Culley including navigation by importance levels in order to allow a user to focus on the most important issues (Culley, [c. 13, l. 60-66]; the sub-panels presented in this view can focus on important information. For example, an “Events” sub-panel can show only the most important events associated with a given issue category. Selecting an “Events” tab will present the full events log information. In another embodiment, the user can navigate to the full events log information by selecting the “Events” sub-panel itself, thus presenting alternative interactions that lead to the same information.
Regarding Claim(s) 212, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising interpreting the user facility visualization value in response to the visualization request value by determining at least one relevant facility for user display. (Riley, [63-64]; Geo mapping may be performed of one or more of a plurality of facilities around a common geographic region. Specifically, when the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities… Once a facility is selected by a user of the Control Application Modules 12, a photograph of a particular facility, as well as information that may be related to the particular facility, may be displayed. The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to provide the user with a birds eye view and a better understanding of size and shape of facility. (Riley, [64]; The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility. Oftentimes, a facility manager may generally know the facilities under his or her purview, and the photograph of the particular facility may allow the facility manager to better understand which facility he or she has selected for review. Moreover, the facility may be divided into sections that may be individually tracked in a "Sections" area viewable by the user).
Regarding Claim(s) 213, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: interpreting a view based user facility visualization value in response to visualization request value; (Riley, [64]; Once a facility is selected by a user of the Control Application Modules 12, a photograph of a particular facility, as well as information that may be related to the particular facility, may be displayed. The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility. Oftentimes, a facility manager may generally know the facilities under his or her purview, and the photograph of the particular facility may allow the facility manager to better understand which facility he or she has selected for review.
determining a view based geographic display boundary and a view based hierarchical inspection presentation for the at least one industrial facility in response to the view based user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data; (Riley, [53]; the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities. The facilities may be selected via cursor by clicking on any of the flags shown on the geo map and Riley, [86]; A graphical representation of the facility being serviced by the vendor and a map showing the various sections of the facility may be presented to the vendor on his or her portable electronic device. Thus, the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair).
determining a view based user geographic display value in response to the view based geographic display boundary and the view based hierarchical inspection presentation; and (Riley, [53]; the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities. The facilities may be selected via cursor by clicking on any of the flags shown on the geo map and Riley, [86]; A graphical representation of the facility being serviced by the vendor and a map showing the various sections of the facility may be presented to the vendor on his or her portable electronic device. Thus, the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair).
providing the view based user geographic display value to the user interface. (Riley, [63-64]; the mapping feature may be selected by a facilities manager or other user, the facilities may be shown on a map with flags representing the locations of the particular facilities. The facilities may be selected via cursor by clicking on any of the flags shown on the geo map… Once a facility is selected by a user of the Control Application Modules 12, a photograph of a particular facility, as well as information that may be related to the particular facility, may be displayed. The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner including inspection data and displaying inspection maps on user interfaces with the teachings of Riley including inspection databases, geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation in order to help users locate issues in a more efficient manner. (Riley, [86]; the vendor may gain important information about the facility to aid the vendor in determining the layout of the facility. The information provided to the vendor by the dispatch may allow a vendor to hone in on where the possible issue may be in the facility. A vendor may then conduct an inspection of the facility and/or pertinent section thereof to determine the causes and/or likely causes of the issue needing repair. The electronic service ticket may be updated to show that the vendor is conducting the repair and that the repair is "in progress”).
Regarding Claim(s) 214, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: receiving a user facility request value from the user interface; (Bryner, [295]; the inspection visualization circuit 810 is further responsive to a user focus value 822 to update the inspection map 818 and/or to provide further information (e.g., focus data 824) to a user, such as a user of the client computing device 826. For example, a user focus value 822 (e.g., a user mouse position, menu selection, touch screen indication, keystroke, or other user input value indicating that a portion of the inspection map 818 has received the user focus) indicates that a location 702 of the inspection map 818 has the user focus and Bryner, [945]; the robot configuration controller 20302 interprets a user inspection request value, for example from the user interface 20316, and determines the inspection description value in response to the user inspection request value and Bryner, [1017]; The example system 2180 further includes a user device 21806 that is communicatively coupled to the controller 21804. The user device 21806 is configured to provide a user interface for interacting operations of the controller 21804 with the user 21810, including providing information, alerts, and/or notifications to the user 21810, receiving user requests or inputs).
interpreting facility relevant data in response to the aggregation of inspection data and the user facility request value; (Bryner, [991]; a method for performing an inspection on an inspection surface with an inspection robot may include interpreting 16902 inspection data of the inspection surface; interpreting 16904 position data of the inspection robot during the inspecting, and linking 16908 the inspection data with the position data to determine position based inspection data; interpreting 16906 an inspection visualization request for an inspection map and, in response to the inspection visualization request, determining 16910 the inspection map based on the position-based inspection data; and providing the inspection map 16912 to a user device. In an embodiment, the inspection map 16720 may include a layout of the inspection surface, wherein the layout is in real space or virtual space. Determining 16910 the inspection map based on the position-based inspection data may include labeling 16914 each inspection dimension of the inspection data. In an embodiment, each inspection dimension may be labeled with a selected visualization property. In the method, the inspection map may be updated 16916, such as in response to a user focus value, wherein updating may include updating an inspection plan, selecting an inspection dimension to be displayed, or selecting a visualization property for an inspection dimension). Examiner notes that Riley below is relied upon to explicitly teach the inspection database.
determining a maintenance schedule for the at least one industrial facility in response to the facility relevant data; (Bryner, [288]; In certain embodiments, periodic inspection of the pipes is utilized to ensure that pipe degradation is within limits, to ensure proper operation of the system, to determine maintenance and repair schedules, and/or to comply with policies or regulations. In the example of FIG. 5, an inspection surface 500 includes the inner portion of the tower, whereby an inspection robot 100 traverses the pipes 502… An example inspection robot 100 includes configurable payloads 2, and may include ultra-sonic sensors…, magnetic sensors (e.g., to determine the presence and/or thickness of a coating on a pipe), cameras).
determining a maintenance schedule display value in response to the maintenance schedule and the facility relevant data; and (Bryner, [299]; an apparatus 4100 for determining a facility wear value 4106 is depicted. The example apparatus 4100 includes a facility wear circuit 4102 that determines a facility wear model 4104 corresponding to the inspection surface 500 and/or an industrial facility, industrial system, and/or plant including the inspection surface 500. An example facility wear circuit 4102 accesses a facility wear model 4104, and utilizes the inspection data 812 to determine which portions of the inspection surface 500 will require repair, when they will require repair, what type of repair will be required, and a facility wear value 4106 including a description of how long the inspection surface 500 will last without repair, and/or with selected repairs. In certain embodiments, the facility wear model 4104 includes historical data for the particular facility, system, or plant having the inspection surface 500—for example through empirical observation of previous inspection data 812, when repairs were performed, what types of repairs were performed, and/or how long repaired sections lasted after repairs and Bryner, [1011]; The layers 17068 may have an ordering on a z-axis of the inspection map 17068. For example, layer 17118 may be depicted on top of layer 17120, which is depicted on top of layer 17122, which is depicted on top of layer 17124. Each of the layers 17068 may correspond to: an inspection dimension 17040, to include coatings 17044, part overlays 17074, remaining life 17076, scheduled maintenance 17078 and/or planned downtime 17080… As shown in FIG. 179, a layer 17120 may depict one or more downtime/maintenance values, e.g., spatial depictions such as zones, scheduled for maintenance 17126 and/or downtime 17128. The downtime/maintenance values 17126 and/or 1728 may include information specifying time periods and/or other information regarding the nature and/or cause for the scheduled maintenance and/or downtime). Examiner interprets the facility wear value as a maintenance schedule display value and further points to the scheduled maintenance layer of the inspection map as a secondary maintenance schedule display value.
providing the maintenance schedule display value to the user interface. (Bryner, [301]; the facility wear value 4106, and/or facility wear value 4106 displayed on an inspection map 818, allows for strategic planning of repair operations, and/or coordinating the life cycle of the facility including the inspection surface 500—for example performing a short-term repair at a given time, which might not be intuitively the “best” repair operation, but in view of a larger repair cycle that is upcoming for the facility).
Regarding Claim(s) 216, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: receiving a user facility request value from the user interface; (Bryner, [295, 945, 1017]; recitations shown in above claim rejections)
interpreting facility relevant data in response to the aggregation of inspection data and the user facility request value; (Bryner, [991]; recitations shown in above claim rejections)
determining an inspection schedule for the at least one industrial facility in response to the facility relevant data; (Riley, [71-72]; systems described herein may keep a schedule whereby an inspector may be able to view when the inspection has been scheduled. Each inspection may be contained on the schedule, and the inspector may be given an option to select the project from the schedule, which may start the inspection process, as described herein… A photograph or other graphical representation of the facility that is set for inspection may be provided to an inspector and selected by the inspector from the schedule. The photograph or graphical representation may provide the inspector the ability to confirm that the facility that is scheduled to be inspected is the same as the facility that the inspector is inspecting or is going to inspect).
determining an inspection schedule display value in response to the inspection schedule and the facility relevant data; and (Riley, [71-72]; systems described herein may keep a schedule whereby an inspector may be able to view when the inspection has been scheduled. Each inspection may be contained on the schedule, and the inspector may be given an option to select the project from the schedule, which may start the inspection process, as described herein… A photograph or other graphical representation of the facility that is set for inspection may be provided to an inspector and selected by the inspector from the schedule. The photograph or graphical representation may provide the inspector the ability to confirm that the facility that is scheduled to be inspected is the same as the facility that the inspector is inspecting or is going to inspect. Once the facility is confirmed for inspection, the inspector may select a portion of the facility to begin the inspection process. It is preferred that a facility, such as a large facility, be divided into smaller portions to provide for easier inspection and reporting of issues that may be contained within the facility requiring maintenance or further work. Thus, the inspector may select a particular portion of the facility for inspection. For example, the roof of a facility may be inspected; however, any feature contained within the facility or portion thereof may be inspected pursuant to the systems and methods contained herein, such as structural elements, including walls, windows, etc. or environmental elements, such as HVAC, plumbing or other like elements, and the invention should not be limited as described herein with respect to the particular examples).
While Bryner explicitly teaches scheduling maintenance, Bryner does not appear to explicitly teach inspection schedules. However, Bryner/Riley does teach: providing the inspection schedule display value to the user interface. (Riley, [72]; A photograph or other graphical representation of the facility that is set for inspection may be provided to an inspector and selected by the inspector from the schedule. The photograph or graphical representation may provide the inspector the ability to confirm that the facility that is scheduled to be inspected is the same as the facility that the inspector is inspecting or is going to inspect. Once the facility is confirmed for inspection, the inspector may select a portion of the facility to begin the inspection process. It is preferred that a facility, such as a large facility, be divided into smaller portions to provide for easier inspection and reporting of issues that may be contained within the facility requiring maintenance or further work. Thus, the inspector may select a particular portion of the facility for inspection. For example, the roof of a facility may be inspected; however, any feature contained within the facility or portion thereof may be inspected pursuant to the systems and methods contained herein, such as structural elements, including walls, windows, etc. or environmental elements, such as HVAC, plumbing or other like elements, and the invention should not be limited as described herein with respect to the particular examples).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner explicitly teaches scheduling maintenance with the teachings of Riley including inspection schedules in order to ensure the facility is properly inspected to determine maintenance needed and determine how to best manage facility (Riley, [71]; a facility manager may have an inspection performed by a vendor, such as a contractor or other individual skilled in performing inspections of facilities to rate the condition of the facility and/or elements thereof and provide recommendations on how best to manage the facility, such as whether maintenance may be required immediately or at some point in the future. Alternatively, the vendor itself may be the facility manager, and may schedule and conduct inspections as necessary, pursuant to the present invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 217, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: receiving a user facility request value from the user interface; (Bryner, [295, 945, 1017]; recitations shown in above claim rejections)
interpreting facility relevant data and offset facility data in response to the aggregation of inspection data; (Bryner, [991]; recitations shown in above claim rejections and Bryner, [300]; the facility wear model 4104 includes data from offset facilities, systems, or plants (e.g., a similar system that operates a similar duty cycle of relevant temperatures, materials, process flow streams, vibration environment, etc. for the inspection surface 500; and which may include inspection data, repair data, and/or operational data from the offset system), canonical data (e.g., pre-entered data based on estimates, modeling, industry standards, or other indirect sources), data from other facilities from the same data client)
determining an inspection schedule for the at least one industrial facility in response to the facility relevant data and the offset facility data; (Riley, [71-72]; systems described herein may keep a schedule whereby an inspector may be able to view when the inspection has been scheduled. Each inspection may be contained on the schedule, and the inspector may be given an option to select the project from the schedule, which may start the inspection process, as described herein… A photograph or other graphical representation of the facility that is set for inspection may be provided to an inspector and selected by the inspector from the schedule. The photograph or graphical representation may provide the inspector the ability to confirm that the facility that is scheduled to be inspected is the same as the facility that the inspector is inspecting or is going to inspect).
While Bryner teaches scheduling while considering offset data, Bryner does not teach inspection scheduling. Bryner/Riley teaches: determining an inspection schedule display value in response to the inspection schedule and the facility relevant data; and (Riley, [71-72]; systems described herein may keep a schedule whereby an inspector may be able to view when the inspection has been scheduled. Each inspection may be contained on the schedule, and the inspector may be given an option to select the project from the schedule, which may start the inspection process, as described herein… A photograph or other graphical representation of the facility that is set for inspection may be provided to an inspector and selected by the inspector from the schedule. The photograph or graphical representation may provide the inspector the ability to confirm that the facility that is scheduled to be inspected is the same as the facility that the inspector is inspecting or is going to inspect. Once the facility is confirmed for inspection, the inspector may select a portion of the facility to begin the inspection process. It is preferred that a facility, such as a large facility, be divided into smaller portions to provide for easier inspection and reporting of issues that may be contained within the facility requiring maintenance or further work. Thus, the inspector may select a particular portion of the facility for inspection. For example, the roof of a facility may be inspected; however, any feature contained within the facility or portion thereof may be inspected pursuant to the systems and methods contained herein, such as structural elements, including walls, windows, etc. or environmental elements, such as HVAC, plumbing or other like elements, and the invention should not be limited as described herein with respect to the particular examples).
providing the inspection schedule display value to the user interface. (Riley, [72]; A photograph or other graphical representation of the facility that is set for inspection may be provided to an inspector and selected by the inspector from the schedule. The photograph or graphical representation may provide the inspector the ability to confirm that the facility that is scheduled to be inspected is the same as the facility that the inspector is inspecting or is going to inspect. Once the facility is confirmed for inspection, the inspector may select a portion of the facility to begin the inspection process. It is preferred that a facility, such as a large facility, be divided into smaller portions to provide for easier inspection and reporting of issues that may be contained within the facility requiring maintenance or further work. Thus, the inspector may select a particular portion of the facility for inspection. For example, the roof of a facility may be inspected; however, any feature contained within the facility or portion thereof may be inspected pursuant to the systems and methods contained herein, such as structural elements, including walls, windows, etc. or environmental elements, such as HVAC, plumbing or other like elements, and the invention should not be limited as described herein with respect to the particular examples).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner explicitly teaches scheduling maintenance with the teachings of Riley including inspection schedules in order to ensure the facility is properly inspected to determine maintenance needed and determine how to best manage facility (Riley, [71]; a facility manager may have an inspection performed by a vendor, such as a contractor or other individual skilled in performing inspections of facilities to rate the condition of the facility and/or elements thereof and provide recommendations on how best to manage the facility, such as whether maintenance may be required immediately or at some point in the future. Alternatively, the vendor itself may be the facility manager, and may schedule and conduct inspections as necessary, pursuant to the present invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 218, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: determine a facility inspection presentation for the at least one industrial facility positioned within the geographic display boundary in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data; and (Bryner, [570]; determining an inspection map in response to the inspection data and the position data, and providing at least a portion of the inspection map for display to a user and Bryner, [986]; a processed data circuit 16710 structured to link the inspection data 16704 with the position data 16712 to determine position-based inspection data 16716; an inspection visualization circuit 16718 structured to determine the inspection map 16720 in response to the inspection visualization request 16714 based on the position-based inspection data 16716 and Bryner, [991-993]; reading a data value from a memory location in communication with the receiving device; utilizing a default value as a received data value; estimating, calculating, or deriving a data value based on other information available to the receiving device; interpreting the commanded operation in response to the first response map (step 9826) and operating the second component may include interpreting the commanded operation in response to the second response map (step 9828).
determining the user geographic display value further in response to the facility inspection presentation. (Bryner, [570]; determining an inspection map in response to the inspection data and the position data, and providing at least a portion of the inspection map for display to a user).
Regarding Claim(s) 219, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: determining a facility inspection presentation for the at least one industrial facility in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data; (Bryner, [570]; determining an inspection map in response to the inspection data and the position data, and providing at least a portion of the inspection map for display to a user and Bryner, [986]; a processed data circuit 16710 structured to link the inspection data 16704 with the position data 16712 to determine position-based inspection data 16716; an inspection visualization circuit 16718 structured to determine the inspection map 16720 in response to the inspection visualization request 16714 based on the position-based inspection data 16716 and Bryner, [991-993]; reading a data value from a memory location in communication with the receiving device; utilizing a default value as a received data value; estimating, calculating, or deriving a data value based on other information available to the receiving device; interpreting the commanded operation in response to the first response map (step 9826) and operating the second component may include interpreting the commanded operation in response to the second response map (step 9828).
determining an inspection surface display value for at least one component of the at least one industrial facility in response to the facility inspection presentation; and (Bryner, [294]; data that may be of interest in characterizing the inspection, that may be requested by a client, that may be required by a policy and/or regulation, and/or that may be utilized for improvement to subsequent inspections on the same inspection surface 500 or another inspection surface and Bryner, [782]; a method of inspecting an inspection surface with an inspection robot may include determining one or more surface characteristics of the inspection surface 18702; determining at least two inspection sensors 18704 for inspecting the inspection surface in response to the determined surface characteristics).
providing the inspection surface display value to the user interface. (Bryner, [298]; an inspection map 818 (or display) provides an indication of how long a section of the inspection surface 500 is expected to continue under nominal operations, how much material should be added to a section of the inspection surface 500 (e.g., a repair coating or other material), and/or the type of repair that is needed (e.g., wall thickness correction, replacement of a coating, fixing a hole, breach, rupture, etc. and Bryner, [504]; an inspection data circuit structured to interpret inspection data from an inspection robot on an inspection surface; a robot positioning circuit structured to interpret position data for the inspection robot; and an inspection visualization circuit structured to determine an inspection map in response to the inspection data and the position data, and to provide at least a portion of the inspection map for display to a user).
Regarding Claim(s) 220, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: determining a facility event value for the at least one industrial facility in response to the visualization request value and the aggregation of inspection data; (Bryner, [1006]; the one or more time values 17056 may include: a specified time value 17058, a specified time range 17058; a specified inspection event identifier 17062; a trajectory of an inspection dimension over time 17064; a specified inspection identifier 17066. A specified time value 17058 may include: a specific time and/or date, e.g., Saturday May 15, 2021 at 14:00 h (ET); and/or an amount of time referenced in relation to a known time, e.g., two (2) hours from the start of an inspection run. A specified time range 17060 may include a start and end time/date, and/or a specified amount of time from a known point, e.g., the last three (3) hours. A specified inspection event identifier 17062 may include information that identifies a particular event that may have occurred, e.g., the second time an obstacle was encountered. A specified inspection identifier 17066 may include information that identifies a particular inspection, e.g., the second inspection of site “A” and Bryner, [1091]; the user focus value 18112 may include event type data 18204 corresponding to one or more user interactive events within the interactive graphical user interface presented on the user device. Such events may include, but are not limited to: mouse position 18206, menu-selections 18208, touch screen indications 18210, keys strokes 18212 and/or virtual gestures 18214. The user focus value 18112 may be generated by the user device in response to a user interactive event corresponding to a display of the inspection map 18108 within the graphical user interface on the user device).).
determining an event display value for at least one component of the at least one industrial facility in response to the facility event value; and (Bryner, [1006]; the one or more time values 17056 may include: a specified time value 17058, a specified time range 17058; a specified inspection event identifier 17062; a trajectory of an inspection dimension over time 17064; a specified inspection identifier 17066. A specified time value 17058 may include: a specific time and/or date, e.g., Saturday May 15, 2021 at 14:00 h (ET); and/or an amount of time referenced in relation to a known time, e.g., two (2) hours from the start of an inspection run. A specified time range 17060 may include a start and end time/date, and/or a specified amount of time from a known point, e.g., the last three (3) hours. A specified inspection event identifier 17062 may include information that identifies a particular event that may have occurred, e.g., the second time an obstacle was encountered. A specified inspection identifier 17066 may include information that identifies a particular inspection, e.g., the second inspection of site “A”.).
providing the event display value to the user interface. (Bryner, [1080]; the present disclosure, such as thresholds to enable additional or alternative inspection operations or sensors, thresholds to display information on an inspection display, thresholds to perform operations such as repair, marking, and/or cleaning and an operation, and/or thresholds to respond to off-nominal conditions such as couplant loss events, obstacle detection events, sensor evaluation, processing, or scoring values such as primary mode scores and/or secondary mode scores) and Bryner, [1091]; the user focus value 18112 may include event type data 18204 corresponding to one or more user interactive events within the interactive graphical user interface presented on the user device. Such events may include, but are not limited to: mouse position 18206, menu-selections 18208, touch screen indications 18210, keys strokes 18212 and/or virtual gestures 18214. The user focus value 18112 may be generated by the user device in response to a user interactive event corresponding to a display of the inspection map 18108 within the graphical user interface on the user device).
Regarding Claim(s) 221, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: wherein the aggregation of inspection data comprises inspection data associated with a first inspection entity and additional facility data; (Riley, [18-19]; providing a facility requiring maintenance; providing a database comprising a report relating to maintenance requirements of the facility; retrieving the report on a first electronic computing device from the database via a control application module interconnected with the database; creating an electronic service ticket relating to the maintenance requirements of the facility… the report relates to the maintenance requirements of the facility and is generated by the step of providing access to the facility to an inspector, wherein the inspector creates the report on a third electronic computing device relating to the maintenance requirements of the facility and wherein the inspector saves the report to the database and Riley, [27]; the database comprises information relating to a plurality of facilities requiring maintenance, wherein the facility selected for service is one of the plurality of facilities).
determining a facility display value in response to the inspection data associated with the first inspection entity and the additional facility data; and (Riley, [71-72]; systems described herein may keep a schedule whereby an inspector may be able to view when the inspection has been scheduled. Each inspection may be contained on the schedule, and the inspector may be given an option to select the project from the schedule, which may start the inspection process, as described herein… A photograph or other graphical representation of the facility that is set for inspection may be provided to an inspector and selected by the inspector from the schedule. The photograph or graphical representation may provide the inspector the ability to confirm that the facility that is scheduled to be inspected is the same as the facility that the inspector is inspecting or is going to inspect. Once the facility is confirmed for inspection, the inspector may select a portion of the facility to begin the inspection process. It is preferred that a facility, such as a large facility, be divided into smaller portions to provide for easier inspection and reporting of issues that may be contained within the facility requiring maintenance or further work. Thus, the inspector may select a particular portion of the facility for inspection. For example, the roof of a facility may be inspected; however, any feature contained within the facility or portion thereof may be inspected pursuant to the systems and methods contained herein, such as structural elements, including walls, windows, etc. or environmental elements, such as HVAC, plumbing or other like elements, and the invention should not be limited as described herein with respect to the particular examples).
providing the facility display value to the user interface. (Riley, [72]; A photograph or other graphical representation of the facility that is set for inspection may be provided to an inspector and selected by the inspector from the schedule. The photograph or graphical representation may provide the inspector the ability to confirm that the facility that is scheduled to be inspected is the same as the facility that the inspector is inspecting or is going to inspect. Once the facility is confirmed for inspection, the inspector may select a portion of the facility to begin the inspection process. It is preferred that a facility, such as a large facility, be divided into smaller portions to provide for easier inspection and reporting of issues that may be contained within the facility requiring maintenance or further work. Thus, the inspector may select a particular portion of the facility for inspection. For example, the roof of a facility may be inspected; however, any feature contained within the facility or portion thereof may be inspected pursuant to the systems and methods contained herein, such as structural elements, including walls, windows, etc. or environmental elements, such as HVAC, plumbing or other like elements, and the invention should not be limited as described herein with respect to the particular examples).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner explicitly teaches scheduling maintenance with the teachings of Riley including inspection schedules in order to ensure the facility is properly inspected to determine maintenance needed and determine how to best manage facility (Riley, [71]; a facility manager may have an inspection performed by a vendor, such as a contractor or other individual skilled in performing inspections of facilities to rate the condition of the facility and/or elements thereof and provide recommendations on how best to manage the facility, such as whether maintenance may be required immediately or at some point in the future. Alternatively, the vendor itself may be the facility manager, and may schedule and conduct inspections as necessary, pursuant to the present invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 222, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: receiving facility annotation values from user operations on the user interface; (Bryner, [945]; an inspected condition value (e.g., pass/fail criteria, categories of information to be labeled for the inspection surface, etc.) and Bryner, [0295] the inspection visualization circuit 810 is further responsive to a user focus value 822 to update the inspection map 818 and/or to provide further information (e.g., focus data 824) to a user, such as a user of the client computing device 826… user input value indicating that a portion of the inspection map 818 has received the user focus) indicates that a location 702 of the inspection map 818 has the user focus and Bryner, [939]; user 20320 is depicted interacting with the user interface 20316. The user interface 20316 may provide display outputs to the user 20320, such as inspection data, visualizations of inspection data and Bryner, [993]; the user focus value may include at least one of an inspection data range value; an inspection data time value; a threshold value corresponding to at least one parameter of the linked inspection data; and a virtual mark request corresponding to at least one position of the inspection map)
interpreting an equipment visualization value for equipment positioned at the at least one industrial facility in response to the visualization request value; (Bryner, [0235], [0294], [0782], [0942], [0945], [0989] - Industrial surfaces, as described herein, include any tank, pipe, housing, or other surface utilized in an industrial environment, including at least heating and cooling pipes, conveyance pipes or conduits, and tanks, reactors, mixers, or containers; data that may be of interest in characterizing the inspection, that may be requested by a client, that may be required by a policy and/or regulation, and/or that may be utilized for improvement to subsequent inspections on the same inspection surface 500 or another inspection surface; determining one or more surface characteristics of the inspection surface 18702; the inspection controller 2031 O may request a data parameter (e.g., a wall thickness of the inspection surface), and the hardware controller interprets the hardware component 20304, 20308 sensed values that are responsive to the requested data parameter; provide inspection request values, such as an inspection type value (e.g., type of data to be taken, result types to be detected such as wall thickness, coaling conformity, damage types, etc.), an inspection resolution value (e.g., a distance between inspection positions on the inspection surface; the inspection data 16704 may include an inspection dimension such as, without limitation: a temperature of the inspection surface; a coaling type of the inspection surface; a color of the inspection surface; a smoothness of the inspection surface);
determining annotation markings in response to the facility annotation values; (Bryner, [1067]; a difference between the user request value and the adjusted interpreted inspection base data and/or interrogation scheme may be determined, and/or may be communicated to the user, an operator, an administrator, another entity, and/or recorded in association with the data (e.g., as a data field, metadata, label for the data, etc. and Bryner, [1075]; An example inspection command value 21112 includes a display threshold adjustment value, such as a threshold utilized to label, categorize, colorize, or otherwise depict aspects of the inspection data on a visual representation of at least a portion of the inspection surface. In certain embodiments, the display threshold adjustment value may be determined in response to the inspection data (e.g., to show anomalous regions based on the inspection data values, based on averages, quartiles, or other statistical determinations, etc.), in response to user request values 21124 received from a user interface provided to a user device).
determining a facility display value in response to the equipment visualization value; and (Bryner, [0294]; data that may be of interest in characterizing the inspection, that may be requested by a client, that may be required by a policy and/or regulation, and/or that may be utilized for improvement to subsequent inspections on the same inspection surface 500 or another inspection surface and Bryner, [782]; determining one or more surface characteristics of the inspection surface 18702 and Bryner, [942]; the inspection controller 2031 O may request a data parameter (e.g., a wall thickness of the inspection surface), and the hardware controller interprets the hardware component 20304, 20308 sensed values that are responsive to the requested data parameter and Bryner, [945]; provide inspection request values, such as an inspection type value (e.g., type of data to be taken, result types to be detected such as wall thickness, coaling conformity, damage types, etc.), an inspection resolution value (e.g., a distance between inspection positions on the inspection surface and Bryner, [989]; the inspection data 16704 may include an inspection dimension such as, without limitation: a temperature of the inspection surface; a coating type of the inspection surface; a color of the inspection surface; a smoothness of the inspection surface).
providing the facility display value to the user interface. (Bryner, [0294]; the processed data circuit 808 combines the system data 816 with the processed data for the inspection data 812 and/or the position data 814, and/or the inspection visualization circuit incorporates the system data 816 or portions thereof into the inspection map 818 and Bryner, [987]; the inspection map 16720 may include a layout of the inspection surface based on the position-based inspection data 16716, where the layout may be in real space (e.g., GPS position, facility position, or other description of the inspection surface coordinates relative to a real space), or virtual space (e.g., abstracted coordinates, user defined coordinates, etc.) and Bryner, [988]; the inspection map 16720 may include at least two features of the inspection surface).
Regarding Claim(s) 223, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: receiving analytical review communications from user operations on the user interface; (Riley, [78]; Comments regarding any of the particular selection may be input by the inspector of any of the remedial repairs. Once the inspection is completed, an option may be provided to the inspector to "Add Additional Sections" to the inspection report, or to "Complete Inspection").
interpreting facility relevant data in response to the aggregation of inspection data and the analytical review communications; (Riley, [60-62], application modules 12, 14, 16 described herein may be accessed by and viewed on any computing device… allow one or more facility managers access to a plurality of facilities that they may be tasked with managing. Thus, a facility manager may access the Control Application Modules 12 and may be presented with a list of one or more facilities managed… select each individually by scrolling and/or clicking thereon using a cursor, touchpad, touch-sensitive screen, mouse or other input device… information about each of the facilities may offer a quick overview of where the facility may be located, the size of the facilities… and a rating grade based on any inspections that may have been performed on each of the facilities and Riley, [81]; facility manager may have access to the system as described herein for review of inspections, repair requests, reports, and/or any other information necessary for managing the one or more facilities).
determining a facility display value in response to the facility relevant data and the analytical review communications; and (Riley, [64]; Once a facility is selected by a user of the Control Application Modules 12, a photograph of a particular facility, as well as information that may be related to the particular facility, may be displayed. The facility, as noted, may be shown in a photograph, such as a birds-eye view of the facility to give the user an understanding of the relative size and shape of the facility. Oftentimes, a facility manager may generally know the facilities under his or her purview, and the photograph of the particular facility may allow the facility manager to better understand which facility he or she has selected for review.
providing the facility display value to the user interface. (Riley, [65]; If a section of the facility is selected, "Section Information" may be shown to the user, which may show pertinent information relating to the particular section of the facility that is selected. For example, information concerning Summary information about the section, as well as information concerning the section's Composition, Observations about the section, a Condition Summary of the section, a Recommendation for the section, as well as a Print option may be provided. A photograph of a pertinent element or feature within the section may be shown, and information concerning that particular element or feature may be displayed, such as if Observations is selected by the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner explicitly teaches scheduling maintenance with the teachings of Riley including analytical review communications in order to ensure the facility is properly inspected to determine maintenance needed and determine how to best manage facility (Riley, [71]; a facility manager may have an inspection performed by a vendor, such as a contractor or other individual skilled in performing inspections of facilities to rate the condition of the facility and/or elements thereof and provide recommendations on how best to manage the facility, such as whether maintenance may be required immediately or at some point in the future. Alternatively, the vendor itself may be the facility manager, and may schedule and conduct inspections as necessary, pursuant to the present invention.
Claim(s) 215 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryner et al. (US 20210060782 A1) in view of Riley (US 20120271673 A1), Culley et al. (US 11868937 B1) and Brick et al. (US 11364943 B1).
Regarding Claim(s) 215, Bryner/Riley/Culley teaches: The method of claim 211, further comprising: receiving a user facility request value from the user interface; (Bryner, [295, 945, 1017]; recitations shown in above claim rejections)
interpreting facility relevant data in response to the aggregation of inspection data and the user facility request value; (Bryner, [991]; recitations shown in above claim rejections)
While Bryner/Riley teach determining maintenance requirements and expenses for an industrial facility, neither appear to explicitly teach: determining a capital expenditure plan for the at least one industrial facility in response to the facility relevant data; However, Bryner/Riley in view of the analogous art of Brick (i.e. maintenance and inspections) does teach the entirety of the limitation: (Brick, [co. 1, lines 45-67]; The present disclosure achieves technical advantages as a system and method for strategic track and maintenance planning (STAMP) that can provide an organizational and adaptive infrastructure configured to facilitate railroad asset management and capital planning. The system enables the logging of an adaptive inspection for the asset that is being inspected (e.g., Rails, Ties, Ballasts, Turnouts, Crossings, etc.). The system can step-wise guide a user to conduct a detailed inspection of a wide variety of railroad assets to capture a list of data points characterizing an asset, as well as analyze the data points to evaluate whether the asset should be replaced and accounted for in a capital plan. The system can utilize GPS coordinates from clients/devices in the field to retrieve asset information from a GIS database, part database, price database, or other suitable database. The system also provides for the acquisition and upload of asset pictures for a particular inspection. The inspection can be used to directly generate capital plans, and provide a customizable user interface to identify, characterize, and process information related to virtually any railroad asset.
determining a capital expenditure display value in response to the capital expenditure plan and the facility relevant data; and (Brick, [col. 1, lines 62-67]; The system can utilize GPS coordinates from clients/devices in the field to retrieve asset information from a GIS database, part database, price database, or other suitable database. The system also provides for the acquisition and upload of asset pictures for a particular inspection. The inspection can be used to directly generate capital plans, and provide a customizable user interface to identify, characterize, and process information related to virtually any railroad asset and Brick, [col. 2, line 21-28]; The present disclosure improves the performance and functionality of the system itself by acquiring inspection data for one or more railroad assets, providing step-wise inspection prompts for requesting only relevant inspection data, applying a data optimization algorithm to prevent the unnecessary storage of irrelevant data, analyzing railroad asset-related data (including historical data), and generating an optimized capital plan and schedule for railroad asset repair, maintenance, and replacement and Brick, [col. 12, lines 20-27]; In another exemplary embodiment, certain information based on all the data entered can be retrieved by the plan initialization module 116 and populated into the capital plan. For example, all the logic can be processed in the background to generate a baseline for the related capital plan. The user can then review a capital plan, fill in any missing data, and review the data to ensure accuracy and verify that the plan is for the correct).
providing the capital expenditure display value to the user interface. (Brick, [col. 1, lines 62-67]; The system can utilize GPS coordinates from clients/devices in the field to retrieve asset information from a GIS database, part database, price database, or other suitable database. The system also provides for the acquisition and upload of asset pictures for a particular inspection. The inspection can be used to directly generate capital plans, and provide a customizable user interface to identify, characterize, and process information related to virtually any railroad asset and Brick, [col. 8, lines 2-8]; The STAMP dashboard system 204 can be configured to send and receive messages related to an inspection, capital plan, or other suitable activity, to and from the client or server. In another exemplary embodiment, the STAMP dashboard system 204 can generate one or more elements for display on the user device. The elements can provide additional information to the user related to an inspection or capital plan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner/Riley including determining maintenance requirements and expenses for an industrial facility with the teachings of Brick including capital expenditure plans and displays in order to improve organization and accessibility of asset inspections and provide a unified platform for improved decision making (Brick, [col. 40-41, lines 58-2]; The present disclosure achieves at least the following advantages: 1. improves organization and accessibility of asset inspections and maintenance, among other technological improvements; 2. increases the efficiency of asset inspections and inspectors via improved systems that can add and modify prompts based on responses; 3. provides a unified platform for facilitating railroad asset inspections; and 4. provides centralized and accessible data models and criteria for assets throughout the railroad infrastructure, enabling faster and more-informed decision making).
Claim(s) 224 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryner et al. (US 20210060782 A1) in view of Riley (US 20120271673 A1), Culley et al. (US 11868937 B1), Brick et al. (US 11364943 B1), and Folken et al. (US 20160117059 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 215, While Bryner/Riley/Culley a geographic display of facilities, they do not appear to teach filtering on equipment types. However, Bryner/Riley/Culley in view of the analogous art of Folken (i.e. mapping software) does teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the user geographic display value permits the user to omit display on the user interface of certain types of facilities or equipment and/or limit the display on the user interface to facilities or equipment having an issue. (Folken, [95]; the filter selection page 2400 may include one or more filter categories, which may include one or more of saved groups 2411, manufacture 2412, product family 2413, model 2414, account and/or customer 2415, device type 2416, fault code 2417, and geo boundary 2418. In one aspect, the filter categories may include one or more check boxes 2420 to select or deselect elements to filter. In one aspect, the filter selection page 2400 may include an apply filters button 2430, which may be used to execute a filtering process and to update a list of equipment to be displayed on the alternative equipment summary page 2300. In one aspect, the alternative equipment summary page 2300 and the filter selection page 2400 are not displayed simultaneously to reduce clutter and to enhance responsiveness of the electronic device). Examiner notes that the system of Folken allows omission by only displaying selected equipment types.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Bryner/Riley/Culley a geographic display of facilities. with the teachings of BB including filtering equipment types in order to provide a user with only relevant equipment (Folken, [120]; In one aspect, the first selection sub-panel 4210 is dynamically updated and populated with relevant equipment once one or more filters in the filter sub-panel 4270 have been selected).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624