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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on12/11/2025 and 10/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is acknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 09/24/2025, Applicant on 01/23/2026, amended Claim 1, cancelled Claims 2-20 and added Claims 21-39. Claims 1, 21-39 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. The rejections have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Applicant’s amendments render moot the previous 35 USC 103 set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been updated to address the amendments and are maintained below.
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.
Examiner notes the amendments to the hardware specification of “digital tags”, but disagrees that the totality of the claims are sufficient to integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application. Note that per MPEP 2106.05(a), "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." The additional specification of hardware details of “digital tags” amount to a general link of the use of recited abstract ideas to the environment of electronic shelf labelling. That there are some general guidelines for the hardware used in the tag system does not constitute a practical application of the ideas of diagnosing and providing guidance on how to repair certain errors. This may certainly represent an improvement to the management of problem alerts, but at its core this invention is about monitoring data and performing judgments to guide human operators, with the details of the tags merely being a generic environment.
If the tags were to autonomously perform some function, for instance, that would be a specific improvement to the environment described. However, as the claims are currently presented, this amounts to a combination of mental processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Accordingly, the rejections have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejections necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Examiner respectfully notes the updated rejections below.
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, 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity, and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:transmitting, via communication components of digital tags in a retail facility, error signals indicating that the digital tags have unresolved errors, the digital tags including displays that present pricing information for different items in a retail facility, the digital tags including a subset of digital tags powered by a common digital rail and standalone digital tags powered by batteries or electrical outlets of the retail facility, wherein the digital tags transmit the error signals in response to detecting disconnection errors that impact functionality of the digital tags; receiving, by a computing device, the error signals prioritizing, by an error manager implemented on the computing device the digital tags for error resolution to obtain a prioritized order of digital tags by assigning a higher priority to the subset of digital tags attached to the common digital rail than to the standalone digital tags and assigning priorities to the standalone digital tags based on relative proximities of the standalone digital tags to the common digital rail , by the error manager, instructions for implementing the first, by the user device, the instructions for implementing the first corrective action: and displaying, via a user interface (UI) of the user device, the instructions for implementing the first corrective action and a first selectable prompt that, when selected by a user, confirms that a corresponding one of the unresolved errors associated with the common digital rail has been resolved.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process.
“prioritizing…”, “assigning…”, “generating…”, “sending…instructions for implementing…”, “receiving…the instructions”, “confirms that a corresponding one of the unresolved errors” recite abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract. Further, “generating…”, “sending…instructions” constitutes a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, as what it claimed is the generation of instructions on how to guide a human operator on how to perform a task.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent Claims 27, 34 recite abstract ideas by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations.
Dependent Claims 21-26, 28-33, 35-39 recite abstract ideas by virtue of their dependency from independent Claims 1, 27, 34 respectively.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method comprising:transmitting, via communication components of digital tags in a retail facility, error signals indicating that the digital tags have unresolved errors, the digital tags including displays that present pricing information for different items in a retail facility, the digital tags including a subset of digital tags powered by a common digital rail and standalone digital tags powered by batteries or electrical outlets of the retail facility, wherein the digital tags transmit the error signals in response to detecting disconnection errors that impact functionality of the digital tags; receiving, by a computing device, the error signals prioritizing, by an error manager implemented on the computing device the digital tags for error resolution to obtain a prioritized order of digital tags by assigning a higher priority to the subset of digital tags attached to the common digital rail than to the standalone digital tags and assigning priorities to the standalone digital tags based on relative proximities of the standalone digital tags to the common digital rail ;generating, by the error manager based on the prioritized order of digital tags, a first corrective action associated with the common digital rail; and sending , by the error manager, instructions for implementing the first corrective action to a user device; receiving, by the user device, the instructions for implementing the first corrective action: and displaying, via a user interface (UI) of the user device, the instructions for implementing the first corrective action and a first selectable prompt that, when selected by a user, confirms that a corresponding one of the unresolved errors associated with the common digital rail has been resolved.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include transmitting, via communication components of digital tags in a retail facility, error signals indicating that the digital tags have unresolved errors, the digital tags including displays that present pricing information for different items in a retail facility, the digital tags including a subset of digital tags powered by a common digital rail and standalone digital tags powered by batteries or electrical outlets of the retail facility, wherein the digital tags transmit the error signals in response to detecting disconnection errors that impact functionality of the digital tags”, “computing device”, “error manager”, “user device”, “displaying, via a user interface…”, “a first selectable prompt”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Claim 27 additionally recites “A system comprising:a processor; anda memory storing programming instructions for execution by the processor, the programming instructions, upon execution by the processor, causing the system to perform the following operation”.
Claim 34 additionally recites “A computer program product storing programming instructions for execution by a processor of a system, the programming instructions, upon execution by the processor, causing the system to perform the following operations”.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 23, 30, 37 additionally recite, “sending, by the user device, an indication that the first corrective action has been completed at the computing device…sending…instructions…to the user device”.
Claims 24, 31, 38 additionally recite “receiving, by the user device, the instructions for implementing the second corrective action; and displaying, via the UI of the user device…a second selectable prompt”.
Claims 25, 32, 39 additionally recite “sending, by the user device”, “sending…to the user device”.
Claims 26, 33 additionally recite “receiving, by the user device…displaying, via the UI of the user device…”.
These do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning as above.
Dependent Claims 21-22, 28-29, 35-36 do not recite any additional limitations beyond those present in Claims from which they depend and therefore do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Claim 27 additionally recites “A system comprising:a processor; anda memory storing programming instructions for execution by the processor, the programming instructions, upon execution by the processor, causing the system to perform the following operation”.
Claim 34 additionally recites “A computer program product storing programming instructions for execution by a processor of a system, the programming instructions, upon execution by the processor, causing the system to perform the following operations”.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 23, 30, 37 additionally recite, “sending, by the user device, an indication that the first corrective action has been completed at the computing device…sending…instructions…to the user device”.
Claims 24, 31, 38 additionally recite “receiving, by the user device, the instructions for implementing the second corrective action; and displaying, via the UI of the user device…a second selectable prompt”.
Claims 25, 32, 39 additionally recite “sending, by the user device”, “sending…to the user device”.
Claims 26, 33 additionally recite “receiving, by the user device…displaying, via the UI of the user device…”.
These do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning as above.
Dependent Claims 21-22, 28-29, 35-36 do not recite any additional limitations beyond those present in Claims from which they depend and therefore do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 23-27, 30-34, 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee(US 20180129551 A1) in view of Swartzel(US 20020109593 A1) in further view of Brandmaier(US 20230053196 A1).
Claims 1, 27, 34
As to Claim 1,
Lee teaches:
A method comprising: transmitting, via communication components of digital tags in a retail facility, error signals indicating that the digital tags have unresolved errors,
In [0087], "In the present invention, in particular, an error management/processing method of a digital signage system will now be described. Further, FIG. 6 shows the sub-elements of the errorEvent element 580 of the metadata 500 of FIG. 5. The errorEvent element 580 of FIG. 5 serves to define all error events generated in the digital signage system or a process of managing the same and, for example, such error events can be related to a network, a device, a player, content, etc. An error event signal includes an error in displaying the content on the display and an error in receiving the content from a server".
the digital tags including displays that present pricing information for different items in a retail facility, the digital tags including a subset of digital tags ... and standalone digital tags powered by batteries or electrical outlets of the retail facility,
See [0034] for description of digital signage hardware - we understand a display panel intended to convey product and advertising info to constitute a tag. Regarding pricing information, we consider the product related information, specifically discounts, to teach this in [0047], "he advertisement message transmitter 112 can transmit an advertisement message related to content output from the display device 140 or a message related to an error generated in a predetermined display device to the mobile device 150. The advertisement message may include at least one of product information, discount information, event information, a mobile coupon or a mobile ticket related to content, for example".
wherein the digital tags transmit the error signals in response to detecting disconnection errors that impact functionality of the digital tags
In [0092], "In a method of efficiently managing/processing an error generated in a display device of a digital signage system using a mobile device according to an embodiment of the present invention, for example, information on the error can be automatically transmitted to a manager responsible for the display device, in which the error has been generated, using a predetermined method, such that the error is managed and processed". We implicitly understand errors in connection to be encompassed here, see [0121], "The control method can further include outputting information corresponding to the cause of the error of the display device, searching for or refreshing an available network, switching to an alternative network, checking the output state of the display device according to the switched alternative network, and managing/processing an error".
digital tags…to the subset of digital tags attached to the common ... than to the standalone digital tags…of the standalone digital tags to the common …
Note the division between selecting tags in groups and individually in [0129], "A signal for selecting a specific source device is received from a user through a user interface of the mobile device (S1820). Which source device is selected is determined (S1830). If the specific source device is a first source device (Yes in S1830), at least one display device capable of performing communication with the first source device is grouped and graphics data of the group or graphics data corresponding to each of the display devices belonging to the group is output (S1840). Outputting the graphics data of the group or each display device is within the scope of the present invention".
digital tags
Regarding error metadata that could serve as a basis for Brandmaier's prioritization in [0083], "The example of the metadata 500 includes a name element 510 including the name of a player, for device identification, a playerinfo element 520 including basic information of a player, a locationInfo element 530 including the location information of the player, a contentInfo element 540 including basic information of content, a contentChannel element 550 including content transmission/reception channel information, a contentplayLog element 560 including log information related to content playback, a playerEvent element 570 including event information of a player related to content, an errorEvent element 580 including information on an error event related to a network, a device, a player, content, etc. and a reserved element 590 for other data or future use". See [0129] as outlined above for groupings of digital tags.
Lee does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Swartzel teaches:
powered by a common digital rail…common digital rail…common digital rail…digital rail…the common digital rail
In [0032], "Many of the details of the above-described system are provided in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,537,126, 5,736,967 and 6,089,453, the specifications of which are hereby incorporated by reference. Generally, a system controller (TSC) 28 provides power and information to multiple area controllers (TAC) 31. The area controller modulates power and data into a single power/information signal which is distributed over conduct C.sub.1-C.sub.n. Along each conductor a plurality of electronic display tags 20 are positioned for inductively receiving the power/information signal. The power/information signal is then demodulated within the tag. In this manner power is provided to all of the tags from the system controller and communication between the system controller 28 and tags 20 takes place".
Lee discloses a system for managing errors across digital tag systems. Swartzel discloses a system meant to manage digital tag systems. Each reference discloses means of managing digital displays for purposes such as marketing and advertising. Extending the particular shared digital rail as recorded in Swartzel to the system of Lee is applicable owing to their shared field of endeavor in managing electronic displays.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to integrate the support for managing tags working with a shared digital rail as taught in Swartzel and apply that to the tag management as taught in Lee. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adding support for monitoring tags with a shared rail would extend the invention to another common configuration of digital displays.
Lee combined with Swartzel does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Brandmaier teaches:
receiving, by a computing device, the error signals; prioritizing, by an error manager implemented on the computing device,the ... for error resolution to obtain a prioritized order of … by assigning a higher priority…assigning priorities...based on relative proximities...
In [0087], "In the assignment module 620, particular roadside assistance service providers may be assigned to particular distressed vehicles/drivers based on one or more characteristics, including characteristics/rules from the collection module 610. For example, the assignment module 620 may match/assign a driver that only speaks Polish with a tow truck driver that understands Polish. Other characteristics/criteria utilized by the assignment module 620 may include proximity in location, prior user ratings, equipment on the tow truck, skillset/expertise of the driver of the tow truck, price/cost of the tow truck roadside assistance services, etc. The feedback/display module 630 may provide near real-time cues to the tow truck driver's mobile device, such as alerting when the amount of time spent on a task exceeds a predefined threshold, flagging high priority tasks/assignments, providing a step-by-step checklist for the repair, etc., and award points/score to the tow truck driver.". We note the wide grant of criteria for priority assignment in Brandmaier.
generating, by the error manager based on the prioritized order of …, a first corrective action associated with the common …; and sending, by the error manager, instructions for implementing the first corrective action to a user device; receiving, by the user device, the instructions for implementing the first corrective action: and displaying, via a user interface (UI) of the user device, the instructions for implementing the first corrective action
We understand the provision of a step-by-step checklist to analogize to the action to take and its instructions, in [0102], "Generally, the feedback module 620 may provide near real-time cues to the tow truck driver's mobile device, such as alerting when the amount of time spent on a task exceeds a predefined threshold, flagging high priority tasks/assignments, providing a step-by-step checklist for the repair, etc., and award points/score to the tow truck driver" Regarding remaining tasks in [0103], "As the drivers are progressing through a job or a roadside assistance service request, the feedback module 620 may provide status updates of the progress... A reminder or status update may pop-up as a visual indicator. The feedback module 620 may provide a reminder to tell the driver when the driver has gone beyond the average time for a particular task, and this task may be listed in red to signify that the driver is over the time. The feedback module 620 may also display a list of the tasks and the average time for each task. The driver may see these events or tasks in sequence".
and a first selectable prompt that, when selected by a user, confirms that a corresponding one of the unresolved errors associated with ... has been resolved
In [0103], "As the drivers are progressing through a job or a roadside assistance service request, the feedback module 620 may provide status updates of the progress. The drivers may also update their status through the feedback module 620...A reminder or status update may pop-up as a visual indicator". Regarding relevant status information, see [0131], "The roadside assistance service provider system 600 may provide the user with information regarding the status of the services, i.e. service confirmation, start time, service provider en-route, service provider onsite, service completed, and/or service canceled".
Lee combined with Swartzel discloses a system for managing errors across digital tag systems. Brandmaier discloses a system meant to prioritize errors and provide instructions for their resolution. Each reference discloses means of error management. Extending the particular shared digital rail as recorded in Swartzel to the system of Lee is applicable owing to the shared nature of the problem of error management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to combine the robust error management functionality of Brandmaier apply that to the tag management as taught in Lee combined with Swartzel. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit of adding the robust error management, prioritization, and provision of step by step solutions of Brandmaier being to address errors in order of importance and centrally manage their priority.
Claims 27, 34 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 27 additionally recites “A system comprising:a processor; anda memory storing programming instructions for execution by the processor, the programming instructions, upon execution by the processor, causing the system to perform the following operations”.
Claim 34 additionally recites “A computer program product storing programming instructions for execution by a processor of a system, the programming instructions, upon execution by the processor, causing the system to perform the following operations”.
In [0038] of Lee, “ An example of a digital signage system for managing/processing an error according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a server for generating, distributing and transmitting advertisement content to a display device and controlling the digital signage system, the display device for outputting the advertisement content received from the server, and a mobile device for downloading and installing a first application for managing/processing an error, requesting to check whether an error is generated from the display device through the first application, receiving a response, generating and outputting an error display user interface (UI) on a screen according to the response, and managing and processing the error of the display device using the error display UI”. In [0036] of Lee, “ The term “mobile device” described in this specification is, for example, a portable communication device, a portable computer, a portable terminal, and may include conveniently used interfaces such as a display screen, a touch input unit and/or a small keyboard. In addition, such a mobile device performs e-mailing, web-browsing, banking or gaming through connection with the Internet and other digital devices through a wireless Internet function like the above-described digital signage, and use a standardized general-purpose OS”.
Claims 23, 30, 37
As to Claim 23, Lee combined with Swartzel and Brandmaier teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Lee teaches:
digital tags…standalone digital tags…standalone digital tags…
In [0129], "A signal for selecting a specific source device is received from a user through a user interface of the mobile device (S1820). Which source device is selected is determined (S1830). If the specific source device is a first source device (Yes in S1830), at least one display device capable of performing communication with the first source device is grouped and graphics data of the group or graphics data corresponding to each of the display devices belonging to the group is output (S1840). Outputting the graphics data of the group or each display device is within the scope of the present invention".
Lee combined with Swartzel does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Brandmaier teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:sending, by the user device, an indication that the first corrective action has been completed;in response to receiving the indication that the first corrective action has been completed at the computing device,
In [0103], "As the drivers are progressing through a job or a roadside assistance service request, the feedback module 620 may provide status updates of the progress... A reminder or status update may pop-up as a visual indicator. The feedback module 620 may provide a reminder to tell the driver when the driver has gone beyond the average time for a particular task, and this task may be listed in red to signify that the driver is over the time. The feedback module 620 may also display a list of the tasks and the average time for each task. The driver may see these events or tasks in sequence".
generating, by the error manager based on the prioritized order of ..., a second corrective action associated with a corresponding one of the ... having a higher priority than the other ...;
We consider this to be an extension of the priority of assignment; when a lower priority task is finished, matching is performed to allocate lower priority tasks to available operators in[0087], "In the assignment module 620, particular roadside assistance service providers may be assigned to particular distressed vehicles/drivers based on one or more characteristics, including characteristics/rules from the collection module 610. For example, the assignment module 620 may match/assign a driver that only speaks Polish with a tow truck driver that understands Polish. Other characteristics/criteria utilized by the assignment module 620 may include proximity in location, prior user ratings, equipment on the tow truck, skillset/expertise of the driver of the tow truck, price/cost of the tow truck roadside assistance services, etc. The feedback/display module 630 may provide near real-time cues to the tow truck driver's mobile device, such as alerting when the amount of time spent on a task exceeds a predefined threshold, flagging high priority tasks/assignments, providing a step-by-step checklist for the repair, etc., and award points/score to the tow truck driver.". We note the wide grant of criteria for priority assignment in Brandmaier.
and sending, by the error manager, instructions for implementing the second corrective action to the user device.
This represents the continuation of a repair person after assignment to another task. We understand the provision of a step-by-step checklist to analogize to the action to take and its instructions, in [0102], "Generally, the feedback module 620 may provide near real-time cues to the tow truck driver's mobile device, such as alerting when the amount of time spent on a task exceeds a predefined threshold, flagging high priority tasks/assignments, providing a step-by-step checklist for the repair, etc., and award points/score to the tow truck driver" Regarding remaining tasks in [0103], "As the drivers are progressing through a job or a roadside assistance service request, the feedback module 620 may provide status updates of the progress... A reminder or status update may pop-up as a visual indicator. The feedback module 620 may provide a reminder to tell the driver when the driver has gone beyond the average time for a particular task, and this task may be listed in red to signify that the driver is over the time. The feedback module 620 may also display a list of the tasks and the average time for each task. The driver may see these events or tasks in sequence".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the error management of Brandmaier and apply that to the system of Lee combined with Swartzel. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 30, 37 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 23.
Claims 24, 31, 38
As to Claim 24, Lee combined with Durgesh teaches all the limitations of Claim 23 as discussed above.
Lee teaches:
standalone digital tag
In [0129], "A signal for selecting a specific source device is received from a user through a user interface of the mobile device (S1820). Which source device is selected is determined (S1830). If the specific source device is a first source device (Yes in S1830), at least one display device capable of performing communication with the first source device is grouped and graphics data of the group or graphics data corresponding to each of the display devices belonging to the group is output (S1840). Outputting the graphics data of the group or each display device is within the scope of the present invention".
Lee combined with Swartzel does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Brandmaier teaches:
The method of claim 23, further comprising:receiving, by the user device, the instructions for implementing the second corrective action; anddisplaying, via the UI of the user device, the instructions for implementing the second corrective action
Again, the progression from one corrective action to another follows following completion and assignment to another task. We understand the provision of a step-by-step checklist to analogize to the action to take and its instructions, in [0102], "Generally, the feedback module 620 may provide near real-time cues to the tow truck driver's mobile device, such as alerting when the amount of time spent on a task exceeds a predefined threshold, flagging high priority tasks/assignments, providing a step-by-step checklist for the repair, etc., and award points/score to the tow truck driver" Regarding remaining tasks in [0103], "As the drivers are progressing through a job or a roadside assistance service request, the feedback module 620 may provide status updates of the progress... A reminder or status update may pop-up as a visual indicator. The feedback module 620 may provide a reminder to tell the driver when the driver has gone beyond the average time for a particular task, and this task may be listed in red to signify that the driver is over the time. The feedback module 620 may also display a list of the tasks and the average time for each task. The driver may see these events or tasks in sequence".
and a second selectable prompt that, when selected by the user, confirms that a corresponding one of the unresolved errors associated with the corresponding … has been resolved.
Again, the progression from one corrective action to another follows following completion and assignment to another task. In [0103], "As the drivers are progressing through a job or a roadside assistance service request, the feedback module 620 may provide status updates of the progress. The drivers may also update their status through the feedback module 620...A reminder or status update may pop-up as a visual indicator". Regarding relevant status information, see [0131], "The roadside assistance service provider system 600 may provide the user with information regarding the status of the services, i.e. service confirmation, start time, service provider en-route, service provider onsite, service completed, and/or service canceled".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the error management of Brandmaier and apply that to the system of Lee combined with Swartzel. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 31, 38 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 24.
Claims 25, 32, 39
As to Claim 25, Lee combined with Durgesh teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Lee teaches:
generating...digital tags, a navigation instruction from a present location of the user device to a location of the corresponding standalone digital tag; and sending, by the error manager, the navigation instruction to the user device.
In [0104], "The mobile device can request, receive and provide information on a route or shortest route from the current location of the manager or the mobile device to the display device, in which the error has been generated, from the server using the location information of the GPS, the CCTV, etc. in addition to provision of the graphical image or map (hereinafter, map) 844 of FIG. 8. In this instance, the mobile device can continuously communicate with the server to continuously provide a movement route between the current location of the mobile device and a destination, that is, the display device, in which the error has been generated, thereby increasing convenience of the manager.".
Lee combined with Swartzel does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Brandmaier teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:sending, by the user device, an indication that the first corrective action has been completed;in response to receiving the indication that the first corrective action has been completed at the computing device, ...by the error manager based on the prioritized order of
In [0103], "As the drivers are progressing through a job or a roadside assistance service request, the feedback module 620 may provide status updates of the progress... A reminder or status update may pop-up as a visual indicator. The feedback module 620 may provide a reminder to tell the driver when the driver has gone beyond the average time for a particular task, and this task may be listed in red to signify that the driver is over the time. The feedback module 620 may also display a list of the tasks and the average time for each task. The driver may see these events or tasks in sequence".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the error management of Brandmaier and apply that to the system of Lee combined with Swartzel. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 32, 39 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 25.
Claims 26, 33
As to Claim 26, Lee combined with Swartzel and Brandmaier teaches all the limitations of Claim 25 as discussed above.
Lee teaches:
The method of claim 25, further comprising:receiving, by the user device, the navigation instruction; anddisplaying, via the UI of the user device, the navigation instruction
In [0104], "The mobile device can request, receive and provide information on a route or shortest route from the current location of the manager or the mobile device to the display device, in which the error has been generated, from the server using the location information of the GPS, the CCTV, etc. in addition to provision of the graphical image or map (hereinafter, map) 844 of FIG. 8. In this instance, the mobile device can continuously communicate with the server to continuously provide a movement route between the current location of the mobile device and a destination, that is, the display device, in which the error has been generated, thereby increasing convenience of the manager.".
Lee combined with Swartzel does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Brandmaier teaches:
and a second selectable prompt that, when selected by the user, confirms that the user device has reached a location of the corresponding standalone digital tag.
In [0103], "As the drivers are progressing through a job or a roadside assistance service request, the feedback module 620 may provide status updates of the progress. The drivers may also update their status through the feedback module 620...A reminder or status update may pop-up as a visual indicator". Regarding relevant status information, see [0131], "The roadside assistance service provider system 600 may provide the user with information regarding the status of the services, i.e. service confirmation, start time, service provider en-route, service provider onsite, service completed, and/or service canceled".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the error management of Brandmaier and apply that to the system of Lee combined with Swartzel. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 33 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 26.
Claims 21, 28, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee(US 20180129551 A1) in view of Swartzel(US 20020109593 A1) in further view of Brandmaier(US 20230053196 A1) in further view of Jain(US 20140006861 A1).
Claims 21, 28, 35
As to Claim 21, Lee combined with Swartzel and Brandmaier teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Lee combined with Swartzel and Brandmaier does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Jain teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first corrective action is to reseat a battery attached to the common digital rail.
The general solution of reseating a power supply is described in[0038], "Generally speaking, inference engine 151 can process relatively unstructured data such as ticket title section 302 and/or diary description section 402 to infer various concepts, e.g., problems such as a load balancer failed, actions such as replacing the power supply, and activities such as reseating the power supply to diagnose the proble'. In analogizing the rail that is connected to a power supply, we understand that to be exemplified by the load balancer in [0039], "Again, a trained human such as a network engineer can read the instant messaging conversation and recognize that certain activities were performed, e.g., J. Doe reseated two power supplies and powered the load balancer back up but the problem was not resolved until one of the power supplies was replaced.".
Lee combined with Swartzel and Brandmaier discloses a system for managing errors across digital tag systems. Jain discloses a system meant to provide intelligent analysis of error reports and provide insight as to their resolution. Each reference discloses means of error management. Extending the particular shared digital rail as recorded in Swartzel to the system of Lee is applicable owing to the shared nature of the problem of error management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to combine the robust error management functionality of Brandmaier apply that to the tag management as taught in Lee combined with Swartzel. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit of adding the robust error managment, prioritzation, and provision of step by step solutions of Brandmaier being to address errors in order of importance and centrally manage their priority.
Claims 28, 35 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 21.
Claims 22, 29, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee(US 20180129551 A1) in view of Swartzel(US 20020109593 A1) in further view of Brandmaier(US 20230053196 A1) in further view of Filial(US 20250001466 A1).
Claims 22, 29, 36
As to Claim 22, Lee combined with Swartzel and Brandmaier teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Lee combined with Swartzel and Brandmaier and Jain does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Filial teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first corrective action is to remove a digital tag from the common digital rail and to reattach the digital tag to the common digital rail.
Maintenace is described with the removal and retachment of a device attached to a rail in [0088], "A maintenance device that functions with such a driving mechanism with the aid of an electric motor can be used in the same way as the previously discussed maintenance device with the pullback motor. In this case, however, additional sensors can be provided so that the maintenance device stops, for example, before it presses against the electronic device in the electronic shelf rail. This makes it easier for the employee to remove the electronic device from the shelf rail and insert it again after passing the maintenance device'.
Lee combined with Swartzel discloses a system for managing errors across digital tag systems. Brandmaier discloses a system meant to prioritize errors and provide instructions for their resolution. Each reference discloses means of error management. Extending the particular shared digital rail as recorded in Swartzel to the system of Lee is applicable owing to the shared nature of the problem of error management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to combine the robust error management functionality of Brandmaier apply that to the tag management as taught in Lee combined with Swartzel. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit of adding the robust error managment, prioritzation, and provision of step by step solutions of Brandmaier being to address errors in order of importance and centrally manage their priority.
Claims 29, 36 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 22.
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 THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights