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
This non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on February 12, 2024, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 reciters "wherein the geo-fences may further define..." The examiner notes that "the geo-fences" lack antecedent basis - it appears that applicant likely intended claim 19 to depend from claim 18 but claim 19 depends from claim 1 which does not require geo-fences. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 13, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 11, 13, 16, 17, and 19, the phrase “e.g.” (i.e. "for example") renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s)/term(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-20 are directed to a system (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claim (1) and dependent claims (2-20) recite obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – abstract information about resources by monitoring/tracking the resources, resource categories/type, tracking data (which can be location and concentrations, type of tracking devices, etc., - all abstract information)), information/data analysis and manipulation to determine more data (e.g. mapping the information and using colors to find concentrations, various steps discussing comparing information, mapping movements over time, generally associating tracking devices, determining disparities, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (regarding how to use resources).
The limitations of independent claim (claim 1) and dependent claims (2-20), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people resources and other resources in a project (including scheduling, and following rules or instructions to manage project resource at a location)) and covers performance of steps in the human mind (observation and evaluation and making decisions regarding resources in a project (e.g. construction project) at a location/area). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), the claim limitations fall within the Mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mental processes grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc., (for example, system, devices (not specifically claimed and all the devices stated are old and well-known – e.g. GPS in claim 9), server, graphical user interface, display, GPS sensors (and satellites), battery powered tracking devices, wireless communication, geo-fences/geofencing (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20)) in the context of the independent claim (claim 1) and dependent claims (2-20), the claim encompasses the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people resources and other resources in a project (including scheduling, and following rules or instructions to manage project resource at a location)) and covers performance of steps in the human mind (observation and evaluation and making decisions regarding resources in a project (e.g. construction project) at a location/area)). As shown above, the independent claim (claim 1) and dependent claims (2-20) and specification recite, for example, system, devices (not specifically claimed and all the devices stated are old and well-known – e.g. GPS in claim 9), server, graphical user interface, display, GPS sensors (and satellites), battery powered tracking devices, wireless communication, geo-fences/geofencing (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20)) in the context of the independent claim (claim 1) and dependent claims (2-20) (generic/general-purpose computer/computing components/elements/ devices, etc.,) which are recited at a high level of generality, performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc., terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using the above stated generic/general-purpose computer/computing components/elements/devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network with familiar computing components/elements/devices/etc., (for example, system, devices (not specifically claimed and all the devices stated are old and well-known – e.g. GPS in claim 9), server, graphical user interface, display, GPS sensors (and satellites), battery powered tracking devices, wireless communication, geo-fences/geofencing (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20)) as a tool to perform abstract processes involving information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers, computing components, and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claim (claim 1) and dependent claims (2-20) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claim (claim 1) and dependent claims (2-20) recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc., (for example, system, devices (not specifically claimed and all the devices stated are old and well-known – e.g. GPS in claim 9), server, graphical user interface, display, GPS sensors (and satellites), battery powered tracking devices, wireless communication, geo-fences/geofencing (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20)) and software. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, paras. 0019, 0022-0023, 0046-0047, 0097-0099 [these paragraphs showing general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The independent claim (claim 1) and dependent claims (2-20) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements or combination of elements in the independent claim (claim 1) and dependent claims (2-20) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-20) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims (2-20) and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims (2-20) further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), information/data analysis and manipulation to determine more data (e.g. mapping the information and using colors to find concentrations, various steps discussing comparing information, mapping movements over time, generally associating tracking devices, determining disparities, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (regarding how to use resources). These claims are directed towards organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people resources and other resources in a project (including scheduling, and following rules or instructions to manage project resource at a location)) and covers performance of steps in the human mind (observation and evaluation and making decisions regarding resources in a project (e.g. construction project) at a location/area). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite, for example, system, devices (not specifically claimed and all the devices stated are old and well-known – e.g. GPS in claim 9), server, graphical user interface, display, GPS sensors (and satellites), battery powered tracking devices, wireless communication, geo-fences/geofencing (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20) (generic/general-purpose computer/computing components/elements/ devices, etc.,) performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with the above states generic/general-purpose computer/computing components/devices/etc., - i.e. for example, system, devices (not specifically claimed and all the devices stated are old and well-known – e.g. GPS in claim 9), server, graphical user interface, display, GPS sensors (and satellites), battery powered tracking devices, wireless communication, geo-fences/geofencing (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See detailed rejection above.
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, 8, 13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacElheron et al., (US 2014/0229212).
As per claim 1, MacElheron discloses a system for monitoring project resources (Abstract [track…project…through a tracking system], 0009 [project…components…tracking system…reports…productivity of contractors, construction crews or individuals], 0010-0012 [tracking…construction (project) progress…generate reports…resources (material, equipment, tools, crews, etc.)…tracking system…reports (for example)…reflect productivity of construction crews or individuals and track progress; see with 0017 [also tracking states of components]]), the system including:
a plurality of tracking devices, for tracking each of a plurality of project resources, each of the plurality of tracking devices associated with a resource category (see citations above and also see ¶¶ 0010-0011 [portable computers (such as tablets) can be used to collect onsite project information…project…components…components…associated with various types of project information, and can be grouped (categorized)…tracking system…computers (such as tablets, although laptops, smartphones, or handheld devices would do) adapted to collect construction data from the field], 0012 [components…grouped; see with 0015 [component categories] and 0019 [retrieving component data… a tablet or hand-held device…identifying the selected component…associating a number of hours worked with the selected identifier…group components into categories]], 0022 [further details what the devices are and can do (what they are used for)], 0042 [organize project information around component categories]); and
a server configured to receive tracking data from each of the tracking devices and associate the tracking data with the resource category of the associated tracking device (fig. 1 [computing system and network also showing servers, devices, etc.,], 3-5; ¶¶ 0010-0012 [[portable computers (such as tablets) can be used to collect onsite project information…project…components…components…associated with various types of project information, and can be grouped (categorized)…tracking system…computers (such as tablets, although laptops, smartphones, or handheld devices would do) adapted to collect construction data from the field], and 0019 [retrieving component data…a tablet or hand-held device…identifying the selected component…associating a number of hours worked with the selected identifier…group components into categories; see with 0021-0022 [receive component identifiers identifying components of a construction project…update construction (project) status…provide indicators associated with the received component identifiers and their construction status…display operative to display graphical representations of the components based on the received indicators], 0029 [grouping component data into categories]]);
wherein the server is configured to generate a graphical user interface to display the data associated with the received tracking data according to the resource category (see citations above and also see ¶¶ 0019-0021 [tracking…components…group components into categories], 0022 [interface…display graphical representations of the components based on the received indicators; with 0024 [tracking each component…through its current state]]).
As per claim 8, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the project resources include workers and/or plant and/or equipment (¶¶ 0011 [equipment, tools, crews (workers)], 0054 [labour, materials, equipment, tools, safety issues, etc., - components/resources]).
As per claim 13, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the tracking devices are configured to wirelessly communicate the tracking data to the server, e.g. using a cellular network or Long Range Wide Area Network (LoRaWAN) (fig. 1 [layer 3 shows wireless connection]).
As per claim 15, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the tracking devices are configured to provide an identifier of a resource category to the server (¶¶ 0010 [portable computers (such as tablets etc., (see with 0011 for other devices)) can be used to collect onsite project information…stages can be followed to manage a construction project from deconstructing engineering information, rebuilding constructible component libraries, reallocating components…tracking the construction progress at component level (ad-hoc basis – stages)…component-centric modeling scheme, where components can be associated with various types of project information, and can be grouped, sorted, searched and accessed; see with 0026-0030 [categories…manage the project…track components/resources…grouping component…into categories ]], 0019 [tracking...state of components… tablet or hand-held device, for example wherein the component data are loaded into the tablet or hand-held device from the database via a portable computer…group components into categories; see with 0028 [track the components in different disciplines…tracking system]]).
As per claim 17, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to enable selection of resource categories for display, e.g. with reference to a heat map or as points (¶¶ 0005 [match the resources of equipment, materials and labor with project work tasks…allow selection…components], 0019 [tablet or hand-held device…presenting the plurality of components to a user; receiving a selection of one of the components; with 0021 [interface]], 0026, 0046 [Project information can be classified into categories, such as skid lists, cost information, equipment lists, discipline specific lists]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacElheron et al., (US 2014/0229212) in view of Tashkin (US 20210350310).
As per claim 2, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the graphical user interface is configurable to display a heat map of the project resources, the heat map displaying a concentration of resources with reference to a resource category.
Analogous art Tashkin discloses wherein the graphical user interface is configurable to display a heat map of the project resources, the heat map displaying a concentration of resources with reference to a resource category (Fig. 24; ¶¶ 0107 [locations…workers (resource category)…geographical map…form of heat map…areas are highlighted…based on the concentration of…workers (resources)]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron graphical user interface is configurable to display a heat map of the project resources, the heat map displaying a concentration of resources with reference to a resource category as taught by analogous art Tashkin in order to clear and accurate visualization regarding the project and use of resources since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Tashkin (using heat maps to visual concentrations is an old and well-known tehcnique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 3, MacElheron discloses the system above but does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 2 wherein the heat map is configured to display a concentration of resources with reference to a resource category.
Analogous art Tashkin discloses wherein the graphical user interface is configurable to display a heat map of the project resources, the heat map displaying a concentration of resources with reference to a resource category (Fig. 24; ¶¶ 0107 [locations…workers (resource category)…geographical map…form of heat map…areas are highlighted…based on the concentration of…workers (resources)]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron wherein the graphical user interface is configurable to display a heat map of the project resources, the heat map displaying a concentration of resources with reference to a resource category as taught by analogous art Tashkin for clear and accurate visualization regarding the project and use of resources since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Tashkin (using heat maps to visual concentrations is an old and well-known tehcnique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacElheron et al., (US 2014/0229212) in view of Tashkin (US 20210350310), further in view of Wang et al., (US 2015/0324812).
As per claim 4, MacElheron discloses the system above, but does not explicitly state system of claim 3, wherein the resource categories are colour coded on the heat map, wherein a colour intensity or opacity is used to indicate concentration.
Analogous art Tashkin discloses wherein the resource categories are color coded on the heat map (¶¶ 0107 [heat map…highlighted…different colors…workers]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron discloses wherein the resource categories are color coded on the heat map as taught by analogous art Tashkin for clear and accurate visualization regarding the project and use of resources since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Tashkin (using heat maps to visual concentrations is an old and well-known tehcnique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
However, neither MacElheron nor Tashkin explicitly state wherein a colour intensity or opacity is used to indicate concentration.
Analogous art Wang discloses wherein a color intensity or opacity is used to indicate concentration (for example, see ¶¶ 0087-0088 [heat map…(people) traffic (at a location)…displaying…distribution…displaying in different color shades; see with 0099 [display…different (people/crowd/)…densities (concentration)…in different color shades on a map…heat map]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron in view of Tashkin color intensity or opacity is used to indicate concentration/density as taught by analogous art Wang for clearer and accurate visualization regarding visualizing concentration in a location since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Wang (using different color intensity/shades to show density/concentrations on heat maps is an old and well-known tehcnique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D); and also since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR-A). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacElheron et al., (US 2014/0229212) in view of Tashkin (US 20210350310), further in view of Zhang et al., (US 2021/0112377).
As per claim 5, MacElheron in view of Tashkin discloses the system of claim 2 and resource categories (see citations above), but neither MacElheron nor Tashkin explicitly state wherein the heat map is configured to display concentrations of over lapping resource categories.
Analogous art Zhang discloses wherein the heat map is configured to display concentrations of over lapping resource categories ((note that the specification (e.g. para. 0088) describes overlapping as trade saturation of resources, resulting in inefficiency (e.g. oversupply of resources, etc.,)) ¶¶ 0004-0005 [heat map…colors…overlap…color reflect heat value that represents information (such as distribution, density, trend of change, etc.) of an item of interest…a driver [e.g. of type of resource category] enters a target heat region marked by a darker color (e.g., a darker color may indicate a surplus of service resources)]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron in view of Tashkin color intensity or opacity is used to indicate concentration/density as taught by analogous art Zhang for clearer and accurate visualization for efficient decision making regarding resource use in an region (reduce the surplus of resources) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Zhang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claims 6-7, 9-12, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacElheron et al., (US 2014/0229212) in view of Lichti (US 2015/0066557).
As per claim 6, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, further configured to determine one or more metrics regarding project resources based upon the received tracking data (see citations above for claim 1, for example see fig. 1 [computing system and network also showing servers, devices, etc.,], 3-5; ¶¶ 0010-0012 [[portable computers (such as tablets) can be used to collect onsite project information…project…components (resources)…components…associated with various types of project information, and can be grouped (categorized)…tracking system…computers (such as tablets, although laptops, smartphones, or handheld devices would do) adapted to collect construction data from the field], and 0019 [retrieving component data… a tablet or hand-held device…identifying the selected component…associating a number of hours worked with the selected identifier…group components into categories; see with 0021-0022 [receive component identifiers identifying components of a construction project…update construction (project) status…provide indicators associated with the received component identifiers and their construction status…display operative to display graphical representations of the components based on the received indicators], 0029 [grouping component data into categories]]). However, MacElheron does not explicitly state movement of the project resources.
Analogous art Lichti discloses movement of project resource (¶¶ 0004 [mobile resource management system having at least one tracking device associated with…mobile resource to be tracked], 0029-0030 [mobile resource monitoring system suitable for tracking mobile resources…tracking associated with characteristic data or tags, and location information…mobile resources (personnel, vehicles or pieces of equipment)…tracking capabilities…GPS], 0049-0051 [MGRS coordinates, latitude and longitude, etc.,…(e.g.) determine a length of time a mobile resource spends at a location…combines location and length of time information and then uses it for further calculations…tracking device is at a first position and moves within a threshold distance of the first position (e.g. 10 meters), the tracking device can be determined to be located at the first position for the entire duration of time in which it is moving, but stays within the defined distance of the first position; see with 0058 [updates to display on a map with the movement trace ], 0059], 0060 [map…display movements…show the mobile resources movements on the screen]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron movement of project resource as taught by analogous art Lichti in order to more efficiently determine optimal use resources that are mobile and better analysis (regarding costs, etc.,) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lichti (tracking movement of mobile resources/objects using tracking devices is an old and well-known technique) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 7, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, and one or more metrics regarding project resources and displaying the information on the graphical user interface (see citations above for claim 1, for example ¶¶ 0019-0021 [tracking…components…group components into categories], 0022 [interface…display graphical representations of the components based on the received indicators; with 0024 [tracking each component…through its current state], 0021-0022 [receive component identifiers identifying components of a construction project…update construction (project) status…provide indicators associated with the received component identifiers and their construction status…display operative to display graphical representations of the components based on the received indicators]]). However, MacElheron does not explicitly state the system claim 6, with movement of the project resources and with reference to a timeline.
Analogous art Lichti discloses movement of project resource and reference to a timeline (¶¶ 0004 [mobile resource management system having at least one tracking device associated with…mobile resource to be tracked; with 0009 [display…data (or visual representations of the data), including, for example, where object(s) or mobile resources are, where they have been, and where they have stayed for periods of time relative to, for example, the overall length of a monitoring session(s) or specified time period]], 0029-0030 [mobile resource monitoring system suitable for tracking mobile resources…tracking associated with characteristic data or tags, and location information…mobile resources (personnel, vehicles or pieces of equipment)…tracking capabilities…GPS], 0046-0047 [tracking time…length of time information…from the tracking device itself or calculating from data obtained or stored by the system concerning time spent at a particular area…keeping time…sub-time frames], 0049-0051 [MGRS coordinates, latitude and longitude, etc.,…(e.g.) determine a length of time a mobile resource spends at a location…combines location and length of time information and then uses it for further calculations…tracking device is at a first position and moves within a threshold distance of the first position (e.g. 10 meters), the tracking device can be determined to be located at the first position for the entire duration of time in which it is moving, but stays within the defined distance of the first position; see with 0052 [after a defined period of time (e.g., 1 minute), the tracking device is located at a second position within a threshold distance (e.g., 3 meters) of the first position. The location of the tracking device for this period of time can be determined to be at a single position and reported by the system as length of time at a location 520. Similarly, if after a second defined period of time has elapsed, the tracking device is moved from the second position to a third position within a threshold distance, the location of the tracking device for the entire period of time (from when to the tracking device was at the first position until the time when the tracking device was at the third position) can be determined to be located at a single position and reported by the system as such], 0058 [updates to display on a map with the movement trace], 0059], 0060 [map…display movements…show the mobile resources movements on the screen]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron movement of project resource as taught by analogous art Lichti in order to more efficiently determine optimal use resources that are mobile and better analysis (regarding costs, etc.,) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lichti (tracking movement of mobile resources/objects using tracking devices is an old and well-known technique) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 9, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1 and determine project resource (see citations above for claims 1 and 8), but MacElheron does not explicitly state wherein the tracking devices include GPS sensors, configured to determine a location of the tracking device, and according to data from satellites.
Analogous art Lichti discloses tracking devices include GPS sensors, configured to determine a location of the tracking device, and according to data from satellites (¶¶ 0029-0030 [tracking devices…include…GPS…tracking units…for providing location information for tracked mobile resources; see with 0006 [communication link…satellite], 0032 [satellite networks]], 0049 [GPS coordinates, such as from a GPS receiver or GLONASS receiver; see with 0006 [communication link…satellite], 0032 [satellite networks]], 0077).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron movement of project resource as taught by analogous art Lichti in order for optimal and accurate tracking (and resource monitoring) of mobile resources/objects since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lichti (tracking movement of mobile resources/objects using tracking devices with GPS and satellite communication is an old and well-known technique commonly and vastly used in regular life and many industries) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 10, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the individual tracking devices are allocated to project resources but they are separate tracking devices from the resources (i.e. not permanently linked/part of the resource) (¶¶ 0010 [portable computers (such as tablets etc., (see with 0011 for other devices)) can be used to collect onsite project information…stages can be followed to manage a construction project from deconstructing engineering information, rebuilding constructible component libraries, reallocating components…tracking the construction progress at component level (ad-hoc basis – stages)…component-centric modeling scheme, where components can be associated with various types of project information, and can be grouped, sorted, searched and accessed]). However, MacElheron does not explicitly state wherein the tracking devices are allocated to resources/objects on an ad-hoc basis, without linking the individual tracking devices to particular resources/objects.
Analogous art Lichti discloses wherein the tracking devices are allocated to resources/objects on an ad-hoc basis, without linking the individual tracking devices to particular resources/objects (¶¶ 0030 [tracking device…associated with… such as personnel, vehicles or pieces of equipment…can be assigned to (not linked but chosen to be assigned and is ad-hoc as “can be”) a single item or to a group, such as a team of personnel or set of tools or people with specific levels of training or qualifications… a tracking device can be stored, mounted, carried or otherwise positioned in close proximity (ad-hoc and not linked) with an associated mobile resource…assigned to an employee or to a vehicle…mounted to personnel badges, clothing, equipment or other objects]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron wherein the tracking devices are allocated to resources/objects on an ad-hoc basis, without linking the individual tracking devices to particular resources/objects as taught by analogous art Lichti in order to allow optimal choice based on preferences and/or requirements and accurate tracking based on preferences and/or requirements since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lichti would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 11, MacElheron in view of Lichti discloses the system of claim 10, but MacElheron does not explicitly disclose wherein the resource category is displayed on the tracking device, e.g. using color coding (note that the terms/phrases after the “e.g.” (“for example”) are not considered claimed subject matter – see §112 rejection above).
Analogous art Lichti discloses wherein the resource category is displayed on the tracking device (¶¶ 0030 [tracking device…associated with…such as personnel, vehicles or pieces of equipment…can be assigned to (not linked but chosen to be assigned and is ad-hoc as “can be”) a single item or to a group, such as a team of personnel or set of tools or people with specific levels of training or qualifications… a tracking device can be stored, mounted, carried or otherwise positioned in close proximity (ad-hoc and not linked) with an associated mobile resource…assigned to an employee or to a vehicle…mounted to personnel badges, clothing, equipment or other objects; with 0031 [tracking devices with specific qualifications…(with example of a police SWAT team) six SWAT team members (each associated with a tracking device with the "SWAT" characteristic tag), and one SWAT team captain (associated with a tracking device with the "SWAT team captain" characteristic tag) and one SWAT driver (also associated with a tracking device, with the "SWAT driver" characteristic tag) are located within a certain distance of the SWAT truck (itself associated with a tracking device and tagged as a "SWAT truck")]; with 0064-0070 [display…mobile resource C (specific resource)…resource A (etc.,)…tracking device], 0047-0048 [discusses tracking devices and displaying the characteristics and resources (and various other information) on interface]]; see also 0059-0060).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron wherein the resource category is displayed on the tracking device as taught by analogous art Lichti for optimal and accurate tracking/monitoring since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lichti would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 12, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1 and discloses tracking devices are known to be battery operated (¶¶ 0011 [tablets, although laptops ( well-known to be battery powered), smartphones (inherently battery powered)]). However, MacElheron does not explicitly state battery powered.
Analogous art Lichti discloses battery powered (tracking devices) (¶¶ 0005 [tracking devices…comprise a battery], 0030 [tracking device…battery life]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron battery powered when refereeing to tracking devices as taught by analogous art Lichti since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lichti would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 14, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the tracking devices are configured to periodically log location data, and associate the location data with a timestamp.
Analogous art Lichti discloses wherein the tracking devices are configured to periodically log location data, and associate the location data with a timestamp (see citations above for claims 6-7 and also see ¶¶ 0041 [logs…mobile resources…location (enter an area that is an assigned task area, as displayed in FIG. 6. When resource B enters Task Area 1, for example, it is automatically logged into the system, and when it leaves, it is noted as outside the task area and can be automatically logged out)… when a mobile resource should be on the clock, and the time they actually log in (timestamp); see with 0046-0047 [tracking time at a location…keeping time…time spent at location…logs…location]]; see also 0061-0066).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron wherein the tracking devices are configured to periodically log location data, and associate the location data with a timestamp as taught by analogous art Lichti in order to more efficiently determine optimal use resources that are mobile and better analysis (regarding costs, etc.,) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lichti (tracking movement and location of mobile resources/objects with timestamps (for example, to determine time spent at a location) using tracking devices is an old and well-known technique) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 16, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the tracking devices are reconfigurable to be associated with different resource categories, e.g. with reference to a button or user interface (note that the terms/phrases after the “e.g.” (“for example”) are not considered claimed subject matter – see §112 rejection above).
Analogous art Lichti discloses wherein the tracking devices are reconfigurable to be associated with different resource categories (see citations above for claims 6-7 and also see ¶¶ 0030 [tracking device…can be associated with mobile resources or objects such as personnel, vehicles or pieces of equipment…can in some cases be associated with non-mobile objects such as, for example, a checkpoint on a trail or a building (note that different resource categories shown to which the tracking device can be associated with based on requirements/preferences/etc.,; also note a tracking unit or mobile phone with tracking capabilities can be assigned to an employee or to a vehicle)]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron wherein the tracking devices are reconfigurable to be associated with different resource categories as taught by analogous art Lichti in order to more optimally/efficiently use devices to determine optimal use resources that are mobile and better analysis since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lichti (it is old and well-known to be able to configure detached tracking devices to various types of resources (people, equipment, vehicles, etc.,)) using tracking devices is an old and well-known technique) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claims 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacElheron et al., (US 2014/0229212) in view of Kashani-Nejad et al., (US 2021/0306807) (hereinafter Kashani).
As per claim 18, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1 and enabling graphical user interface (see citations above for claims 1 and 17), but does not explicitly state wherein the graphical user interface is configured to enable one or more geo-fences to be defined, each geofence defining an area, wherein the system is configurable to perform analysis and/or display data according to a defined area.
Analogous art Kashani discloses enabling one or more geo-fences to be defined, each geofence defining an area, wherein the system is configurable to perform analysis and/or display data according to a defined area (¶¶ 0028-0035 [tracking (tracking devices)…tracking network…track location…GUI…heat map…location tracking], 0039 [tracking of individuals and items etc.,], 0068-0070 [geofencing…creation of a virtual perimeter around a real-world geographic area…area of a geofence may be either dynamically generated, such as by a predetermined radius around a point (e.g., a radius of 100 meters), or may be made of a predetermined set of boundaries, such as a selection of city blocks on a map…geofencing may use the signal from an electronic device to take an action or alert a user when they enter or exit the geofence…geofence…application providing the user interface on the user device; see with 0041 [application with a user interface, such as a graphical user interface, also known as a GUI]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron enabling one or more geo-fences to be defined, each geofence defining an area, wherein the system is configurable to perform analysis and/or display data according to a defined area as taught by analogous art Kashani in order to more optimally/efficiently use signal from devices so as to take best actions and alert users regarding movements in locations (with improved location accuracy) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Kashani (it is an old and well-known technique to use geofencing for location accuracy and to monitor/track movement in within areas and alert users) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 19, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the geo-fences may further define forbidden areas, wherein an alert is issued if a tracking device enters a forbidden area, e.g. a dangerous or culturally significant area.
Analogous art Kashani discloses wherein the geo-fences may further define forbidden areas, wherein an alert is issued if a tracking device enters a forbidden area ( see citations for claims 18 above and also see ¶¶ 0068-0070 [geofencing…creation of a virtual perimeter around a real-world geographic area…area of a geofence may be either dynamically generated, such as by a predetermined radius around a point (e.g., a radius of 100 meters), or may be made of a predetermined set of boundaries, such as a selection of city blocks on a map…geofencing may use the signal from an electronic device to take an action or alert a user when they enter or exit the geofence…geofence…application providing the user interface on the user device; see with 0071 [geofences around restricted areas…tracker…enters the geofence of the restricted area…receive an alert] and 0039-0041 [providing real-time location and alerts, and more specifically to devices, methods, and systems for providing real-time tracking of individuals and items within a predetermined area…application with a user interface, such as a graphical user interface, also known as a GUI]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron wherein the geo-fences may further define forbidden areas, wherein an alert is issued if a tracking device enters a forbidden area as taught by analogous art Kashani in order to more optimally and accurately inform users regarding restricted movements in certain areas by accurately using signals from devices/trackers so as to take most appropriate actions/decisions since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Kashani (it is an old and well-known technique to use geofencing around restricted area and issue alerts during entry/exit from the restricted areas (monitor/track movement in within areas and alert users)) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacElheron et al., (US 2014/0229212) in view of Lichti (US 2015/0066557), further in view of Logan et al., (US 2008/0154692).
As per claim 20, MacElheron discloses the system of claim 1, configured to monitor one or more metrics of the project resources with reference to a project plan or schedule (see citations above for claim 1 with ¶¶ 0009-0012 [project schedules…planning system…track construction…components; with 0010-0011 [portable computers (such as tablets) can be used to collect onsite project information…project…components (resources)…components…associated with various types of project information, and can be grouped (categorized)…tracking system…computers (such as tablets, although laptops, smartphones, or handheld devices would do) adapted to collect construction data from the field], 0012 [components…grouped; see with 0015 [component categories] and 0019 [retrieving component data… a tablet or hand-held device…identifying the selected component…associating a number of hours worked with the selected identifier…group components into categories]], 0022 [further details what the devices are and can do (what they are used for)], 0042 [organize project information around component categories]]). However, MacElheron does not explicitly state metrics of movement of the resources.
Analogous art Lichti discloses movement of resource and metrics of movement of the resources (¶¶ 0004 [mobile resource management system having at least one tracking device associated with…mobile resource to be tracked], 0029-0030 [mobile resource monitoring system suitable for tracking mobile resources…tracking associated with characteristic data or tags, and location information…mobile resources (personnel, vehicles or pieces of equipment)…tracking capabilities…GPS], 0049-0051 [MGRS coordinates, latitude and longitude, etc.,…(e.g.) determine a length of time a mobile resource spends at a location…combines location and length of time information and then uses it for further calculations…tracking device is at a first position and moves within a threshold distance of the first position (e.g. 10 meters), the tracking device can be determined to be located at the first position for the entire duration of time in which it is moving, but stays within the defined distance of the first position; see with 0058 [updates to display on a map with the movement trace ], 0059], 0060 [map…display movements…show the mobile resources movements on the screen]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron movement of resource and metrics of movement of the resources as taught by analogous art Lichti in order to more efficiently determine optimal use resources that are mobile and better analysis (regarding costs, etc.,) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lichti (tracking movement of mobile resources/objects using tracking devices is an old and well-known technique) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Neither MacElheron nor Lichti explicitly state determine a disparity between the project plan or schedule and the metrics of movement of the project resources, and issue an alert or notification according thereto.
Analogous art Logan discloses determine a disparity between the project plan or schedule and the metrics of movement of the project resources, and issue an alert or notification according thereto (¶¶ 0025 [tracking device for tracking resources including location and movement within an area (the yard)], 0051-0056 [provides a functional time strip of the receiving yard 505 identifying each of the receiving tracks 511(a)-(n), and the planned usage/availability of the tracks. The display is fully interactive in that the inbound trains 300 may be assigned to the receiving yard using drag and drop technology. A portion of the display may be used to schedule and monitor the actions of the yard personnel. For example, inspection teams 525 can be identified and their proposed schedule for the planning horizon 502 can be displayed. Interactivity, such as drill down technology can be used to identify the current personnel assigned to the inspection teams, or to monitor the actual progress of the inspection teams throughout the day…real time progress…display parameters such as percentage of completion, aggregate time, etc.,… monitor actual execution of the task vs. the planned execution of the task and provide an alert when the deviation exceeds a predetermined threshold…alerts…based on deviation from the plan… detailed alert allows the user to determine exactly what part of the plan has fallen behind or moved ahead and allows the user to determine what other parts of the plan will be affected by the alerted change…full status of the yard can be provided to the yard manager in a real-time interactive display of track resources, yard resources for a selectable planning horizon; 0056 [the display may provide alerts when a selected resource is scheduled in excess of that which was required based on metrics that have been identified using historical data. For example, alerts can be generated based on deviations from the scheduled plan. Alerts may also be based on resource utilization issues, i.e., too many events occurring with too few of crews or not enough arrival or departure tracks for plan]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of MacElheron in view of Lichti determine a disparity between the project plan or schedule and the metrics of movement of the project resources, and issue an alert or notification according thereto as taught by analogous art Logan in order to identify which specific part of the plan needs adjustment and efficiently make adjustments and continual planning to complete goals/projects/tasks since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Logan (it is an old and well-known tehcnique to issue alert when things are not going according to plan or schedule and adjust moving/movable resources to stay on track and/or mitigate problems/delays/issues/etc.,) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is as follows:
Kezeu (US 2015/0242769): Discusses platforms and systems for monitoring and managing worksites.
Scalisi et al., (US 2006/0255935): Provides for monitoring objects and individuals. In this system, a monitoring station is remotely accessible through a user interface. The interface is adapted to provide a visually cognizable rendering of an area and a tool useful for selecting at least a portion of said area, and to communicate a first request signal to provide location coordinates of a first tracking device. The first tracking device comprises a first transceiver adapted to receive the first request signal, and to transmit a first reply signal that comprises a first identification code. In addition, a second tracking device having a second transceiver is adapted to receive the first reply signal, compare the first identification code to a stored identification code, and communicate to the monitoring station a second reply signal that comprises location coordinates of the first tracking device in part responsive to verification of the first identification code.
Padala et al., (US 2019/0304596): Illustrates portable electronic transmitters are active transmitters, but other portable electronic transmitters can be passive transmitters, or both. Most of the contemporary tracking data that is produced (and preferably at least some of the historical tracking data) is granular to a level of an individual healthcare asset within a type or category of healthcare assets (e.g., gurney A, MRI scanner B, surgeon C, cardiologist D, nurse practitioner E, operating room F, etc.). The contemporary tracking data generally tracks at least one of (a) an individual healthcare professional among a type of healthcare professional (e.g., doctor A, cardiologist, B, general practitioner C, nurse D, etc.) or (b) one or more pieces of healthcare equipment within one or more types of healthcare equipment (e.g., scalpel A, bed B, etc.,). Further yet, it is contemplated that lab activities can be monitored and predicted by methods, models, and systems of the inventive subject matter. Such applications can monitor or predict the workflow and the time that a particular lab request will take, as well as incorporate duration, time, and other logistic variables into workflow modeling for other activities (preferably dependent or related activities) in the facility (e.g., operating room, emergency room, inpatient services, etc.). For example, with respect to lab activities, variables such as patient MRN, type of lab ordered, group of tests, ordering physician, ordering nurse, date and time ordered, date and time acknowledged, date and time start processing in lab information systems (LIS), date and time complete processing in LIS, date and time communicated back to EMR, lab equipment used, specimen number, specimen type, or lab name can be monitored or tracked. Using such variables, models can be trained to predict, for example, total number of orders placed today, total number of orders currently open, weighted average for time taken for each procedure, number of lab personnel, number of labs currently open, number of labs currently closed, which equipment is being used, which equipment is not being used, current time to get samples into the lab, lab order rate for physician, whether some labs are seasonal, or whether some lab tests cluster (e.g., test for strep throat is usually seasonal and will tend to have groups of patients tested together, etc.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625