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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/1/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed 3/1/2026 are entered.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9-10, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are original.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 18 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections with regards to copending Application No. 18/974,784 are maintained herein absent any specific arguments from Applicant.
35 USC § 101
Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to solving real technical problems that exist regarding live virtual inspections; that the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology because; and that a claim is likely not directed to an abstract idea if it covers a task that a human cannot perform with a pen and paper.
The argument is not persuasive. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The computing device, mobile device, data processor, data network, and platform(s) in representative claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The additional elements being recited in conjunction generically with a field agent platform, video streaming, and an app code does not change the outcome of the analysis. The additional elements are claimed and described in the specification at a high level of generality in a manner which does not convey a technological improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, the additional elements are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with a judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not provide integration into a practical application or an inventive concept, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues “a specific geocoding of media for fraud prevention” and “artifacts comprising at least a media in which GPS coordinates have been obtained and reverse geocoding to a street address of the media along with a watermark of a date and time”. However, the arguments are not persuasive. The argued features do not correspond to the scope of the claims. Claims 9 and 19 merely recite storing a geo-location corresponding to each of the artifacts and do not limit the claims to any specific method of geocoding or reverse geocoding to a street address along with a watermark. Similar to above, the additional element is claimed and described in the specification at a high level of generality in a manner which does not convey a technological improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, the additional element is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with a judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not provide integration into a practical application or an inventive concept, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
35 USC § 103
The prior rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson (US 11,386,364 B1) in view of Clark (US 11,709,861 B1), further in view of Nelson (US 2020/0410278 A1) are withdrawn in view of the current amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/974,784 (reference application, claims filed 12/23/2025) in view of Shukla (US 2012/0281561 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are obvious over the reference claims.
The instant claims recite substantially similar limitations as follows:
Instant claims
Copending Application No. 18/974,784
(claims filed 12/23/2025)
1(Currently Amended). A computer implemented method comprising:
establishing, by use of a data processor and a data network, a data connection between an inspector platform on a computing device and at least one field agent platform on a mobile device, wherein the data connection comprises a streaming video connection for a live guided virtual inspection on the at least one field agent platform;
1(Currently Amended). A computer-implemented method comprising:
establishing, by use of a data processor and a data network, a data connection between an inspector platform on a computing device and at least one field agent platform on a mobile device, wherein the data connection comprises a streaming video connection for a live guided virtual inspection on the at least one field agent platform;
receiving, during the live guided virtual inspection, a download of a guidesheet document at the at least one field agent platform, the guidesheet including information indicative of an inspection type and identification of required artifacts for the inspection type;
receiving during the live guided virtual inspection a download of a guidesheet document at the at least one field agent platform on the mobile device, the guidesheet including information indicative of an inspection type and identification of required artifacts for the inspection type;
enabling upload of artifacts from the at least one field agent platform to the inspector platform via the data network;
enabling an upload of artifacts from the at least one field agent platform to the inspector platform via the data network during the live guided virtual inspection, wherein the artifacts comprise at least a media in which GPS coordinates have been obtained and reverse geocoding to a street address of the media along with a watermark of a date and time;
automatically detecting, during the live guided virtual inspection, a loss of the data connection at an app code, wherein the detection of the loss of the data connection is a signal from underlying WebRTC (or analog) library that the stream has disconnected, a timeout in AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML), a timeout from WebSocket connection, or an insufficient bandwidth detect from transmission rate indicator;
detecting, during the live guided virtual inspection, a loss of the data connection at a Javascript in a browser or an app code, wherein the detection of the loss of the data connection is a signal from underlying WebRTC (or analog) library that the stream has disconnected, a timeout in AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML), a timeout from WebSocket connection, or an insufficient bandwidth detect from transmission rate indicator;
automatically transitioning, on the mobile device, the at least one field agent platform to a self-guided inspection from the live virtual inspection upon detection of the loss of the data connection;
automatically transitioning, on the mobile device, the at least one field agent platform to a self-guided inspection from the live virtual inspection upon detection of the loss of the data connection at the Javascript in the browser or the app code informing the at least one field agent platform what artifacts are required to completed complete the self-guided inspection;
enabling the at least one field agent platform to continue collection of artifacts for local storage during the loss of the data connection; and
enabling the at least one field agent platform to continue collection of artifacts for local storage during the loss of the data connection; and
enabling the at least one field agent platform to upload artifacts from local storage after the data connection is restored;
enabling the at least one field agent platform to upload artifacts from local storage after the data connection is restored.
wherein the inspector platform is configured to run a background monitor to determine if the upload of artifacts from the at least one field agent platform are complete by the background monitor determining that the remaining desired artifacts are now complete by waiting a configurable period of time of no upload from the commencement of artifacts uploads from the at least one field agent platform.
see below
3(Original). The method of claim 1 wherein the artifacts are documents, images, or videos.
3(Original). The method of claim 1 wherein the artifacts are documents, images, or videos.
5(Original). The method of claim 1 including enabling the inspector platform to locate a desired inspection type and notify the at least one field agent platform of the desired inspection type.
5(Original). The method of claim 1 further comprising enabling the inspector platform to locate a desired inspection type and notify the at least one field agent platform of the desired inspection type.
7(Original). The method of claim 1 wherein the inspection type is used to fetch a specific guidesheet document corresponding to the inspection type from a backend server.
7(Original). The method of claim 1 wherein the inspection type is used to fetch a specific guidesheet document corresponding to the inspection type from a backend server.
9(Original). The method of claim 1 including storing a geo-location corresponding to each of the artifacts
9(Original). The method of claim 1 further comprising storing a geo-location corresponding to each of the artifacts.
10(Original). The method of claim 1 including storing comments corresponding to each of the artifacts from a field agent.
10(Original). The method of claim 1 further comprising storing comments corresponding to each of the artifacts from a field agent.
With regards to instant claim 1, reference claim 1 does not explicitly recite “wherein the inspector platform is configured to run a background monitor to determine if the upload of artifacts from the at least one field agent platform are complete by the background monitor determining that the remaining desired artifacts are now complete by waiting a configurable period of time of no upload from the commencement of artifacts uploads from the at least one field agent platform”. However, Shukla teaches a background process including sensing a period of data inactivity; starting a configurable dormancy timer; monitoring for data activity and for expiration of the dormancy timer; upon expiration treating the session as ended (see para. 0010-0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of reference claim 1 to include the features of Shukla, thus arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to balance power consumption (see Shukla para. 0009).
Dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 9-10 correspond to the reference dependent claims as demonstrated in the table above.
Instant claims 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are system claims corresponding to instant method claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9-10 and share substantially similar limitations as reference claims 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19. Instant claim 14 shares similar limitations as reference claim 14. They are provisionally rejected over the reference claims for similar reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are directed to a method (process) or system (machine) and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). The analysis proceeds to Step 2.
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 11. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
establishing, by use of a data processor and a data network, a data connection between an inspector platform on a computing device and at least one field agent platform on a mobile device, wherein the data connection comprises a streaming video connection for a live guided virtual inspection on the at least one field agent platform;
receiving, during the live guided virtual inspection, a download of a guidesheet document at the at least one field agent platform, the guidesheet including information indicative of an inspection type and identification of required artifacts for the inspection type;
enabling upload (sending) of artifacts from the at least one field agent platform to the inspector platform via the data network;
automatically detecting, during the live guided virtual inspection, a loss of the data connection at an app code, wherein the detection of the loss of the data connection is a signal from underlying WebRTC (or analog) library that the stream has disconnected, a timeout in AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML), a timeout from WebSocket connection, or an insufficient bandwidth detect from transmission rate indicator;
automatically transitioning, on the mobile device, the at least one field agent platform to a self-guided inspection from the live virtual inspection upon detection of the loss of the data connection;
enabling the at least one field agent platform to continue collection of artifacts for local storage during the loss of the data connection; and
enabling the at least one field agent platform to upload (send) artifacts from local storage after the data connection is restored;
wherein the inspector platform is configured to run a background monitor to determine if the upload of artifacts from the at least one field agent platform are complete by the background monitor determining that the remaining desired artifacts are now complete by waiting a configurable period of time of no upload from the commencement of artifacts uploads from the at least one field agent platform.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite commercial interactions, as they set forth or describe sales/marketing activities and business relations.
The claim limitations delineated in bold above also recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as they set forth or describe social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as commercial interactions or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computing device, mobile device, data processor, data network, and platform(s) in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 11 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: computer-implemented (preamble); computing device; mobile device; data processor; data network; platform(s)
Claim 11: computer-implemented (preamble); platform(s); computing device; mobile device;
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 9-10, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Similar to the independent claims, the additional hardware or software elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dhanvantri (US 2014/0139658 A1) discloses a remote visual inspection system and method for transmitting live digital video of an ongoing inspection to remote network sites.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights