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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 04/23/2024.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatantable by Daimler et al. (US 10,754,884 B1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Daimler discloses a server computer system comprising: a communications module (fig.1, “network connection device 174”);
at least one processor coupled to the communications module (fig.1, CPU 171”); and
a memory (fig.1, “memory 160”) coupled to the at least one processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to: obtain data associated with a plurality of assets (col.1, l.55; asset data is obtained from a database);
group the assets into one or more asset buckets (col.1, l.66-col.2, l.8; assets are grouped by user defined search criteria);
within at least one of the asset buckets, identify at least one representative asset based at least on stored selection criteria (fig.5; representative assets are displayed);
obtain at least one image associated with the at least one representative asset; and
send, via the communications module and to a computing device, an asset summary interface that includes the at least one image associated with the at least one representative asset (fig.1, fig.5; images of the representative assets are displayed in a result summary page).
INDEPENDENT claim 11 is a method variation of claim 1, claim 11 is therefore rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
INDEPENDENT claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium variation of claim 1, claim 20 is therefore rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 6-7, 9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimler in view of Takahashi et al. (US 10,896,234 B2).
As to claim 6, Daimler does not expressly disclose calculate at least one metric for each asset bucket; and update the asset summary interface to include at least one interface element associated with the calculated at least one metric.
In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi discloses calculate at least one metric for each asset bucket; and update the asset summary interface to include at least one interface element associated with the calculated at least one metric (fig.4, fig.5; col.12, l.19-l.31; a heat map is presented, wherein sizes of the circles represent different aggregated values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Daimler and Takahashi before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the asset grouping interface taught by Daimler to include visually clustering data sets taught by Takahashi with the motivation being to enhance data interpretation by allowing data to be visualized.
As to claim 7, the prior art as combined discloses wherein a size of the at least one interface element displayed on the asset summary interface is based on the calculated at least one metric (Takahashi, fig.4, fig.5; col.12, l.19-l.31; a heat map is presented, wherein sizes of the circles represent different aggregated values).
As to claim 9, Daimler does not expressly disclose wherein the asset summary interface displays at least one indication of each asset, the at least one indication displayed in a particular size based on at least one metric of the asset and in a particular format based on the asset bucket the asset is grouped into.
In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi disclose wherein the asset summary interface displays at least one indication of each asset, the at least one indication displayed in a particular size based on at least one metric of the asset and in a particular format based on the asset bucket the asset is grouped into (col.12, l.19-l.31; assets are visualized by size and color).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Daimler and Takahashi before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the asset grouping interface taught by Daimler to include visually clustering data sets taught by Takahashi with the motivation being to enhance data interpretation by allowing data to be visualized.
Claim 16 is a method variation of claim 6, claim 16 is therefore rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 17 is a method variation of claim 7, claim 17 is therefore rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimler in view of O’Toole et al. (US 2014/0218400 A1).
As to claim 8, Daimler does not expressly disclose calculate at least one metric for each asset bucket; and overlay at least one interface element associated with the calculated at least one metric on the static image.
In the same field of endeavor, O’Toole discloses calculate at least one metric for each asset bucket; and overlay at least one interface element associated with the calculated at least one metric on the static image (fig.4, fig.5; metrics “68” are selectable and overlaid on map display “62”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Daimler and O’Toole before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the asset grouping interface taught by Daimler to include visual data overlay taught by O’Toole with the motivation being to enhance data interpretation by allowing data to be visualized.
Claim 18 is a method variation of claim 8, claim 18 is therefore rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimler in view of Hong (US 2013/0219315 A1).
As to claim 10, Daimler does not expressly disclose engage a normalization engine to normalize the obtained data associated with the plurality of assets into a particular format.
In the same field of endeavor, Hong discloses engage a normalization engine to normalize the obtained data associated with the plurality of assets into a particular format ([0068]; asset data is normalized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Daimler and Hong before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the asset grouping interface taught by Daimler to include data normalization taught by Hong with the motivation being to reduce confusion by displaying unified dataset.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimler in view of Gibbon et al. (US 2020/0258172 A1).
As to claim 21, Daimler does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of assets includes one or more assets generated using an artificial intelligence engine trained on asset data.
In the same field of endeavor, Gibbon discloses wherein the plurality of assets includes one or more assets generated using an artificial intelligence engine trained on asset data ([0044]; asset data is usable to train the machine learning engine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Daimler and Gibbon before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the asset grouping interface taught by Daimler to include an artificial intelligence engine taught by Gibbon with the motivation being to enhance asset discovery by using AI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179