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 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
I. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
II. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
III. CLAIMS 1, 10 and 18 of this application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wherein the worksite-specific directory is configured to” in Claim 1; “instantiate a primary directory configured to”, “wherein a first subordinate directory is configured to”, “wherein a second subordinate directory is configured to” in Claim 10; and “receive a first input including a query configured to” in Claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIMS 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by TURPIN et al (US 2023/0388758)*.
*The applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Per claim 1, TURPIN et al teach a method for dynamically updating a worksite-specific directory with feature vector data of users from multiple team-specific directories, the method comprising:
establishing access controls for the worksite-specific directory to access the multiple team-specific directories (paras 0066-67, 0080, 0091, 0106, 0125, 0172, 0176-181, 0190-191, 0213, 0230, 0271—access control list detailing permissions including access and operation rights of an object by an individual, enforcing a predetermined set of access rights between a particular set of machines and applications to regulate traffic and resource sharing between entities, group of entities and permission to global directory to access entities, databases, caches and servers, collaboration and channels of the cloud computing system describe team groups measured in terms of vector features, facility-specific SIM component and non-facility specific SIM components,),
wherein the multiple team-specific directories include feature vector data administered by a platform that hosts smart radio devices allocated to teams for respective team-specific directories (paras 0087-88, 0091, 0116-117, 0121, 0255, 0260-262—smart radio, vectors measured by the cloud computing system including time period and equipment location, worker identities features, feature vectors extracting by the cloud computing system, equipment platform), and
wherein the multiple team-specific directories are separate and independent of each other and are subordinate to the worksite-specific directory (paras 0066-67—facility-specific SIM component and non-facility specific SIM components);
instantiating a geofence that defines a boundary of a geographic area for a worksite of the worksite-specific directory (Figure 11, paras 0015, 0032, 0048, 0128, 0144—geofencing and geofenced-based communication within a facility or worksite, geofence refers to a virtual perimeter and boundaries),
wherein the worksite-specific directory is configured to display feature vector data for users of the smart radio devices that are located within the geographic area of the worksite (paras 0058, 0116-117, 0148, 0158-163, 0170-172, 0184, 0186, 0190-191, 0255—extractions of a feature vector from the interactions and collaborations using an ML model to describe types of work performed by the worker with the equipment and the other workers, identifying and displaying plurality of smart apparatuses located in the geofenced areas);
adding, at the worksite-specific directory, links for feature vector data in the multiple team-specific directories based on the access controls, the links granting access to feature vector data of the multiple team-specific directories (paras 0079, 0149-150, 0168, 0232, 0236-237—adding response to the text thread, adding access points at location entry points, providing response-ordered communication with local smart radios, smart radios operate to include additional devices such as mobile phones, device presents a notification that enables a quick link to the relevant social thread);
tracking locations of the users relative to the geofence of the geographic area for the worksite based on locations of the smart radio devices (paras 0004-14, 0028, 0030, 0036, 0041, 0047-48, 0053, 0088, 0094-95—device tracking of frontline workers, individuals, inventory, assets and geofencing of the geographic area and worksite based on smart radio locations and positions); and
dynamically updating, at the worksite-specific directory, the links for feature vector data of the multiple team-specific directories based on the locations of the users relative to the geofence of the geographic area for the worksite (paras 0031, 0037, 0042-43, 0045-46, 0093—real-time updates of feature vector data such as for evacuation, clock time, shifts, contacts, roles for each worker, project and facility for configuring each smart radio),
wherein links, at the worksite-specific directory, for feature vector data of users determined to be inside the geographic area are enabled (paras 0029, 0031-32, 0046-49, 0068, 0232—device presents a notification that enables a quick link to the relevant social thread, enabling the location of works who are currently out in the field using a facility map, enabling mass notifications to provide observations to report safety issues, enables quick repair, refurbishment or replacement), and
wherein links, at the worksite-specific directory, for feature vector data of users determined to be outside the geographic area are disabled (paras 0066-67, 0198, 0208, 0216—disabling the facility-specific SIM component when the smart radio is located outside of the defined geofences which prevents the smart radio from connecting to the local private network).
Claims 10 and 18 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
b. Per claim 2, TURPIN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein establishing access controls for the worksite-specific directory to access the multiple team-specific directories comprises: setting first access controls for a first team-specific directory, the first access controls granting access to a first set of feature vector data of a first set of users of smart radio devices assigned to the worksite; and setting second access controls for a second team-specific directory, the second access controls granting access to a second set of feature vector data of a second set of users of smart radio devices assigned to the worksite, wherein the second access controls are independent of the first access controls (paras 0063-68, 0199, 0271—role-specific and non-facility specific SIM component with first SIM for connecting to a facility-specific network and second SIM for connecting to a commercial network that is non-facility specific to enable smart radio communication over a local private network for the facility, enforcing a predetermined set of access rights and allowing different permissions in different facilities for the same user).
Claim 11 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 2 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
c. Per claim 3, TURPIN et al teach the method of claim 2, wherein each feature vector data of each user of respective smart radio devices comprises a combination of: an identifier of the user, an identifier of the smart radio device, a supervisory level of the user, a role of the user for the worksite, a location of the smart radio device, a team to which the user belongs, or a responsibility level of the user for a job at the worksite (paras 0029-30, 0039, 0042-45, 0087, 0093, 0116-117, 0175, 0255—feature vector data comprising name or identifier of worker assigned to a smart radio, worker credentials and role to associate worker expertise, worker assigned shift, supervisor contact and type, team member contacts, location of smart radio, equipment identity and location, productivity levels on an individual basis, seniority level).
d. Per claim 4, TURPIN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein adding links, at the worksite-specific directory, for feature vector data comprises: modifying the worksite-specific directory to include links to feature vector data in the multiple team-specific directories, wherein the worksite-specific directory is configured to use the links to access feature vector data stored at the multiple team-specific directories (paras 0063-68, 0199, 0241, 0251-253, 0271—role-specific and non-facility specific SIM component with first SIM for connecting to a facility-specific network and second SIM for connecting to a commercial network that is non-facility specific to enable smart radio communication over a local private network for the facility, enforcing a predetermined set of access rights and allowing different permissions in different facilities for the same user, modification and revisions to user’s current location and power consumption).
Claim 12 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 4 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
e. Per claim 5, TURPIN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein adding links, at the worksite-specific directory, for feature vector data comprises: copying feature vector data from the multiple team-specific directories to the worksite-specific directory; and associating feature vector data copied at the worksite-specific directory with different levels of access permissions, wherein a first level of the access permissions grants access to a portion of particular feature vector data, and wherein a second level of the access permission grants access to more than the portion of the particular feature vector data (paras 0052, 0116-117, 0125, 0271—feature vector data sharing across multiple apparatuses between entities, allowing different permissions in different facilities for the same user).
Claim 13 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
f. Per claim 6, TURPIN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein tracking locations of the users relative to the geofence of the worksite based on locations of the smart radio devices comprises, for each smart radio device: receiving an indication and a geographic location of the smart radio device; comparing the geographic location of the smart radio device to the geographic area of the worksite; and determining whether the smart radio device is within or outside of the geographic area of the worksite (paras 0066-68—determining smart radio located within geofence defined by the facility-specific location data and preventing connection to the local private network when located outside of the defined geofence and determining when the smart radio enters a different facility site with a difference geofence).
Claim 14 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
g. Per claim 7, TURPIN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein tracking locations of the users relative to the geofence of the worksite based on locations of the smart radio devices comprises, for each smart radio device: receiving periodic signals generated by the smart radio device, wherein the periodic signals indicate locations of the smart radio device at different points in time; determining whether the smart radio device is within the geographic area of the worksite for at least a first threshold period of time; and determining whether the smart radio device is outside of the geographic area of the worksite for at least a second threshold period of time (paras 0042, 0066, 0087-88, 0091-92, 0095, 0112, 0153, 0157, 0172, 0236—period time of cross-referenced with known locations of equipment, determining smart radio located within geofence defined by the facility-specific location data and preventing connection to the local private network when located outside of the defined geofence and determining when the smart radio enters a different facility site with a difference geofence, geofence defined for threshold service quality, threshold distance and to performing an activity within a threshold time).
Claim 15 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 7 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
h. Per claim 8, TURPIN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein dynamically updating links, on the worksite-specific directory, for the multiple team-specific directories comprises: adding links to the worksite-specific directory for users determined to be inside of the geographic area; and removing links from the worksite-specific directory for users determined to be outside of the geographic area (paras 0031, 0037, 0040-43, 0045-46, 0093—real-time updates of feature vector data such as for evacuation, clock time, shifts, contacts, roles for each worker, project and facility for configuring each smart radio, then preventing connection to the private network when the smart radio is outside of the defined geofence).
Claims 16 and 19 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 8 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
h. Per claim 9, TURPIN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein dynamically updating links, on the worksite-specific directory, for the multiple team-specific directories comprises: enabling links at the worksite-specific directory for feature value data of users determined to be inside of the geographic area; and disabling links at the worksite-specific directory for feature value data of users determined to be outside of the geographic area (paras 67-70, 0271—enabling and disabling network connection to the facility-specific SIM based on the geographic area).
Claims 17 and 20 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 9 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
VI. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: US 2025/0008296.
VII. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453