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 .
1. Claims 1-17 filed 06/10/2024 are pending for examination.
2. Continuity: This application filed 06/10/2024 is a Continuation of 17532049 , filed 11/22/2021 ,now U.S. Patent # 12033207, 17532049 is a Continuation of 16398029 , filed 04/29/2019 ,now U.S. Patent # 11182845, 16398029 is a Continuation of 14971514 , filed 12/16/2015 ,now U.S. Patent # 10296957 and 14971514 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62156678 , filed 05/04/2015.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3.1. Claims 1, 6-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-9, 14 of U.S. Patent No12033207, hereinafter Patent’ 207. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same invention, as is evident from comparison of the claims 1 of the instant Application and claim 1 of the Patent’ 207. The underlined limitations of claim 1 of the patent’ 207 teach and cover the highlighted limitations of claims 1, 6-9 of the instant application, such that they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 6-9 of the instant Application:
1. A computer implemented method for providing user engagement information, comprising:
delivering, by a remote computing device, a step-by-step graphical instructional file to a wireless device;
the step-by-step graphical instruction file including sequencing of assembly parts, based on a plurality of parts associated with a product;
receiving, by the wireless device, the step-by-step graphical instructional file; tracking, by the wireless device, progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file;
ascertaining, by the wireless device, a current status of the user's efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and
transmitting, by the wireless device, a set of information relating to the current status of the user’s efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file, to the remote computing device, and
the communicating, by a wireless device , with the remote device including transmitting further information, the further information relating to a particular part, of the plurality of parts.
6. The method of claim 1, further including: scanning, by the wireless device, a code associated with the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and the communicating, by the wireless device, with the remote computing device being performed based on the scanned code.
7. The method of claim 6, the code is a QR code.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the step-by-step graphical instruction file is generated from a CAD file associated with the product.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of information allows the remote computing device to output information regarding the current status of the user, in the step-by-step graphical instructional file.
Claim 1 of the US Patent# 12033207:
1. A computer implemented method for providing user engagement information, comprising:
constructing a step-by-step graphical instructional file from a CAD file by a remote device, and the constructing including sequencing of assembly parts, based on the CAD file;
scanning, by a wireless device, a QR code associated with the step-by-step graphical instruction file;
communicating, by the wireless device, with the remote device based on the scanned QR code;
receiving, by the wireless device, the step-by-step graphical instructional file from the remote device;
tracking, by the wireless device, progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file;
ascertaining, by the wireless device, a current status of the user's efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file based on the progress; and
transmitting, by the wireless device, a set of information, relating to the current status, to the remote device, the set of information allowing the remote device to output information regarding the current status, of the user, in the step-by-step graphical instructional file, the set of information including status data, which represents the current status, and the status data is based on the progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file.
Further, the dependent claims 10-17 of the instant application are covered and supported by the claims 2-6, 8-9 and 14 of the Patent’207.
3.2. Claims 1, 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4 of U.S. Patent No11,182,845, hereinafter Patent’ 845. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same invention, as is evident from comparison of the claims 1 of the instant Application and claim 1 of the Patent’ 845. The underlined limitations of claim 1 of the patent’ 845 teach and cover the highlighted limitations of claim 1of the instant application, such that they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant Application:
1. A computer implemented method for providing user engagement information, comprising:
delivering, by a remote computing device, a step-by-step graphical instructional file to a wireless device;
the step-by-step graphical instruction file including sequencing of assembly parts, based on a plurality of parts associated with a product;
receiving, by the wireless device, the step-by-step graphical instructional file; tracking, by the wireless device, progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file;
ascertaining, by the wireless device, a current status of the user's efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and
transmitting, by the wireless device, a set of information relating to the current status of the user’s efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file, to the remote computing device, and
the communicating, by a wireless device , with the remote device including transmitting further information, the further information relating to a particular part, of the plurality of parts.
Claim 1 of the US Patent# 11182845:
1. A computer implemented method for providing user engagement information during a customer support session, comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device, a step-by-step graphical instructional file;
tracking, by the wireless device, a user's progress through the step-by-step graphical instructional file;
initiating, by the wireless device, a communication session with a remote device associated with a customer support representative;
ascertaining, by the wireless device, a current status of the user's progress through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and
transmitting, by the wireless device, the current status to the remote device allowing the customer support representative to determine the user's progress through the step-by-step file during the communication session;
determining an identifier associated with the step-by-step file; and
transmitting the identifier to the remote processor device, wherein the customer support representative is able to determine the step-by-step file during the communication session by the identifier.
Further, the dependent claims 11-14 of the instant application are covered and supported by the claim 3-4 and claim 1 of the Patent’845.
3.3. Claims 1-2, 9-10, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No10, 296,957, hereinafter Patent’ 957. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same invention, as is evident from comparison of the claims 1 of the instant Application and claim 1 of the Patent’ 957. The underlined limitations of claim 1 of the patent’ 957 teach and cover the highlighted limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, such that they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 6-9 of the instant Application:
1. A computer implemented method for providing user engagement information, comprising:
delivering, by a remote computing device, a step-by-step graphical instructional file to a wireless device;
the step-by-step graphical instruction file including sequencing of assembly parts, based on a plurality of parts associated with a product;
receiving, by the wireless device, the step-by-step graphical instructional file; tracking, by the wireless device, progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file;
ascertaining, by the wireless device, a current status of the user's efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and
transmitting, by the wireless device, a set of information relating to the current status of the user’s efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file, to the remote computing device, and
the communicating, by a wireless device , with the remote device including transmitting further information, the further information relating to a particular part, of the plurality of parts.
US Patent# 10296957
1. A computer implemented method for providing information during a life cycle of a user's engagement with a product or service, comprising:
receiving a request for first information pertaining to the product or service, wherein the request is triggered when a wireless device processes a computer readable artifact after the user has acquired the product or service;
retrieving the first information in response to the request, wherein the first information is retrieved without regard for the life cycle of the product or service and constitutes a step-by-step graphical instructional file;
providing the first information to the wireless device;
tracking, by the wireless device, the progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file;
initiating, by the wireless device, a communication session with a remote device associated with a customer support representative; and ascertaining, by the wireless device, the current status of the user's efforts through the step-by-by step graphical instructional file enabling the customer support representative to determine the progress through the step-by-step graphical instructional file during the communication session;
retrieving supplemental information pertaining to the product or service, wherein the supplemental information retrieved varies depending on a current state of the life cycle; and providing the supplemental information to the wireless device.
Further, the dependent claims 2, 9-10 and 14 of the instant application are covered and supported by the claims 1 and 1 of the Patent’957.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4 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--17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed per “2019 PEG”.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-17 are to a process comprising a series of steps, , which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer implemented method for providing user engagement information, comprising:
(i) delivering, by a remote computing device, a step-by-step graphical instructional file to a wireless device; the step-by-step graphical instruction file including sequencing of assembly parts, based on a plurality of parts associated with a product;
(ii) receiving, by the wireless device, the step-by-step graphical instructional file;
(iii) tracking, by the wireless device, progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file;
(iv) ascertaining, by the wireless device, a current status of the user's efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and
(v) transmitting, by the wireless device, a set of information relating to the current status of the user’s efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file, to the remote computing device, and
(vi) the communicating, by a wireless device, with the remote device including transmitting further information, the further information relating to a particular part, of the plurality of parts.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: Claims 1-17 recite abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The highlighted limitations of claim 1 represent a simple method to guide a user by providing step by step graphical instructions /guidelines, which, as described in the Applicant’s specification] are meant for assembly or disassembly or repairs of an item and the user can communicate with a human representative for additional help. The limitations comprising “ (i)delivering [to a user] a step-by-step graphical instructional file; the step-by-step graphical instruction file including sequencing of assembly parts, based on a plurality of parts associated with a product; (ii) receiving [by the user] the step-by-step graphical instructional file; (iii) tracking progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; (iv) ascertaining a current status of the user's efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and (v) transmitting a set of information relating to the current status of the user’s efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file.”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity “ managing interactions between people who include a user and a customer representative helping the user to guide him through the instructions provided to the user to conduct a repair or assembly or disassembly of an item, but for the recitation of “by a wireless device and a remote device in communication with each other”. However, the steps considered above do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually using telephone and mail and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general-purpose computer.
Further the limitations comprising “ (iii) tracking progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; (iv) ascertaining a current status of the user's efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file;”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to concepts performed by a person using a pen and paper by evaluating the progress information of the user while following the instructions, judging the current status and displaying it falling within the grouping of “Mental Process” but for the recitation of “by a wireless device and a remote device in communication with each other”. That is, other than a wireless device in communication with a remote device nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the wireless device and the remote device” language, the claim encompasses a person using a pen and paper by evaluating the progress information of the user while following the instructions, judging the current status and displaying it. The mere nominal recitation of by a wireless device and a remote device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
In view of the foregoing, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-17 recite abstract ideas falling within the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and a mental process.
Since the independent claim 1 recites limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Thus, claims 1-17 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising a generic wireless device in communication with a generic remote implements the steps “(i)delivering, by a remote computing device, a step-by-step graphical instructional file to a wireless device; the step-by-step graphical instruction file including sequencing of assembly parts, based on a plurality of parts associated with a product; (ii) receiving, by the wireless device, the step-by-step graphical instructional file; (iii)tracking, by the wireless device, progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; (iv) ascertaining, by the wireless device, a current status of the user's efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and (v) transmitting, by the wireless device, a set of information relating to the current status of the user’s efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file, to the remote computing device, and (vi) the communicating, by a wireless device, with the remote device including transmitting further information, the further information relating to a particular part, of the plurality of parts.”
The limitations “(i)delivering, by a remote computing device, a step-by-step graphical instructional file to a wireless device; the step-by-step graphical instruction file including sequencing of assembly parts, based on a plurality of parts associated with a product; (ii) receiving, by the wireless device, the step-by-step graphical instructional file; (v) transmitting, by the wireless device, a set of information relating to the current status of the user’s efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file, to the remote computing device, and (vi) the communicating, by a wireless device, with the remote device including transmitting further information, the further information relating to a particular part, of the plurality of parts. “, are mere data gathering and transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and transmit/output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and transmitting/outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Further, these limitations are recited as being performed by a computer device. The computer device is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In limitations (iii) and (iv), the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Limitations of the dependent claims 2-5, 9-17, have been considered and they recite limitations directed to extending the limitations of the base claim 1 and include non-functional descriptive data , which all are recited at a high level of generality, similarly to those of claim 1, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 6-7 recite scanning a QR code to access the step-by-step graphical instructional file and claim 8 recites converting a CAD file to the graphical instruction file are a long-standing practices of scanning codes to access content and converting CAD files for use in design, engineering and manufacturing before the effective date of the claimed invention. Further these limitations do not recite any technical improvement over the standard practices of scanning codes and converting CAD files. Accordingly, the limitations in claims 6-8, as drafted, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in dependent claims 2-17 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Thus, claims 1-17 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B :This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Since claims 1-17 , as per Step 2A, are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-17 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Limitations in claims 6-8, as analyzed per Step 2A, amount to simply appending long standing practices/procedures previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Additional elements of receiving data, delivering/transmitting/outputting data. were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/ outputting/ displaying/presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-17represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1-17 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5.1. Claims 1-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klayko et al. [US 20140244781 A1], hereinafter Klayko.
Regarding claim 1, Klayko teaches a computer implemented method for providing user engagement information [See Fig.1 and paras 0027—0029, “ [0027] A service provider 130, which is in communication with network 100 via server 132, enables, through supplemental information delivery logic 134 (described more fully below), many of the techniques and methodologies described herein. [0028] Finally, FIG. 1 shows a wireless device 140 that is operated by a user. Wireless device 140 may communicate via wireless network services provided by a wireless telecommunications network (not shown), or may instead communicate using wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) or other similar wireless communication techniques. Wireless device 140 may be any combination of one or more of inter alia a mobile phone, a feature phone, a smartphone, a tablet computer (such as for example an iPad.TM.), a mobile computer, ………. etc. [0029] A product 150 (e.g., the tricycle described above) is shown adjacent wireless device 140.] , comprising:
delivering, by a remote computing device, a step-by-step graphical instructional file to a wireless device; the step-by-step graphical instruction file including sequencing of assembly parts, based on a plurality of parts associated with a product [Se paras 0030—0031, ”FIG. 2 shows an example ladder diagram that depicts an initial delivery of information from product manufacturer 110 and retailer 122 to service provider 130. Specifically, the interactions that are collected under designated Set 1 in FIG. 2 represent several activities that might take place.[0031] For instance, at 240, product manufacturer 110 opens or establishes a communication channel to service provider 130 and sends, conveys, transfers, etc. to service provider 130 various forms of information (such as, e.g., Computer Aided Design (CAD) files, Bills of Material (BOMs), component part data, manuals, technical documentation, etc.) that it may maintain in, e.g., database 111, for a given product 150 (e.g., the tricycle in the earlier example). ……. The relevant feature is that service provider 130 operates one or more servers, generally designated as 132. It is noted that the delivery or conveyance of the various forms of information may be push-based (i.e., initiated by manufacturer 110) pull-based (i.e., initiated by service provider 130) or any combination of push and/or pull. [0033] In one possible implementation, service provider 130 accepts a CAD file and makes graphical improvements to it ranging from colors and shadowing to correct orientation and sequencing of the assembly parts. Once completed, the file is converted to one or more formats which can be provided to any mobile device or computer. The file may be compressed so that final version is a fraction of the original CAD file in size. …….];
receiving, by a wireless device, a step-by-step graphical instructional file [see Klayko paras 0015-0016 which discloses providing detailed step-by-step assembly information for a tricycle via a wireless device [ “ The tricycle arrives at the user's house in a box, but in dis-assembled form. That is, the tricycle requires assembly. To assist in the assembly process, …. a rich body of detailed, step-by-step, etc. assembly information (such as, for example, images, video clips, audio clips, two dimensional and three dimensional drawings, exploded views, detailed part drawings, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), tips and tricks, tool recommendations, part/fastener/etc. size guides, etc.) for the tricycle may be displayed or selectable on the user's wireless device and she may, as desired, peruse, navigate, drill-down into, advance, pause, repeat, zoom into or out of, rotate, explore, etc. that information as it guides her through the assembly process.”. Also, see Fig].1 which describes a user’s wireless device 140 is in communication with the remote service provider server 132, which can be a part of computer system 700 including an output interface 730 and display 732 , see Fig.7 and paras: 0097—0098, 0102--013 ];
tracking, by the wireless device, progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; ascertaining, by the wireless device, a current status of the user's efforts through the step- by-step graphical instructional file; and transmitting, by the wireless device a set of information, relating to the current status of the user’s efforts through the step-by-step graphical instructional file , to the remote computing device [See Klayko paras 0060-0067 and 0071, “ [0060]… service provider 130 may offer various reporting mechanisms including among other things scheduled (e.g., hourly, daily, weekly, etc.) reporting, on-demand reporting, scheduled (e.g., hourly, daily, weekly, etc.) data mining operations, and/or on-demand data mining operations with results delivered through any combination of one or more of (SMS, MMS, IMS, etc.) messaging, a Web-based facility, E-Mail, data transfer operations, a Geographic Information System (GIS) or other visualization facility, etc. ……[0061] Reporting information can include inter alia: [0062] Which assembly files were download from a cloud server; [0063] Whether assembly instructions were actually used; [0064] How long in, e.g., seconds the assembly instructions were used;[0065] How long it took each user to advance to the next step;[0066] What other processes were engaged at what point in the assembly process;[0067] How often updates are pushed or accepted by the user; ….[0071] How many and how often updated or new files were sent form the manufacturer;”. These excerpts from Klayko describe that via reporting mechanisms step-by-step progress of the user on the instructions of the user is communicated via wireless device and such reports include the current status such as which instructions were used, which files were downloaded , how long it took the user to advance from step to step]. Klayko fails to disclose that the set of information allowing the remote device to output information regarding the current status, of the user in the step-by-step graphical instructional file. Klayko, as discussed above, discloses that the remote server of the service provider includes a display device and also the service provider could include service representatives, etc. with whom the user can have interactions [see para 0081, “, Further, it is noted that, while the example that was presented above has a consumer focus, it will be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art that numerous other focuses (such as inter alia a service representative, a repair technician, an office worker, a factory worker, etc.) are easily possible with various of those focuses possibly employing different combinations, subsets, etc. of the interactions or exchanges that were described above. ‘] . Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of an ordinary skill at the time of the Applicant’s invention to have modified Klayko that the transmitted set of information including the current status on the progress can be displayed on the remote device so that the service representative or repair technician can see the current status.’]; and
the communicating, by a wireless device , with the remote device including transmitting further information relating to a particular part of the plurality of parts [ See Klayko “[0032] Service provider 130 may process, manipulate, transform, …. the received information/materials (including performing compression and optimization of the received information/materials) yielding possibly inter alia a range of generated materials such as for example video recordings, audio recordings, (two dimensional, three dimensional, etc.) diagrams or illustrations, line drawings, exploded drawings, detailed part drawings, FAQs, tips and tricks, tool recommendations, part/fastener/etc. size guides, etc. The received information/material may also include data, material, information, etc. that supports a text-to-speech, speech synthesis, etc. facility. The creation of the generated materials may leverage, draw upon, etc., among other things, various data sources within service provider 130 (including supplemental information delivery logic 134) and/or various data sources external to service provider 130. For example, service provider 130 may generate a set of rich materials (including inter alia video and audio recordings like those listed above) that support inter alia the use, repair, upgrade or enhancement, etc. of, e.g., product 150. Such rich material may leverage, incorporate, etc., information on among other things third party parts, products, services, etc. In other words, service provider 130 (and particularly supplemental information delivery logic 134) may be configured to gather, synthesize, organize, and present materials that would be of interest to a purchaser of product 150, at the time of purchase (e.g., within hours or days), soon after purchase (e.g., within days or weeks) or well-after purchase (e.g., days, weeks or years).
Regarding claim 2, and with reference to the limitations, “The method of claim 1, the transmitting the further information including transmitting information regarding a replacement part for the particular part”, Klayko teaches , see “[0052] Supplemental information delivery logic 134 may also be operable to have access to and handle purchasing and replacement instructions for products (or parts of products) served by the system. Purchase of products/parts can be completed directly with service provider 130 or by pushing the appropriate information to another selling website or directly back to retailer 120 or manufacturer 110.”
Regarding claim 3, and with reference to the limitations “The method of claim 1, the transmitting the further information including transmitting information regarding receiving, by the user, a replacement part for the particular part.”, Klayko teaches , see “[0052] Supplemental information delivery logic 134 may also be operable to have access to and handle purchasing and replacement instructions for products (or parts of products) served by the system. Purchase of products/parts can be completed directly with service provider 130 or by pushing the appropriate information to another selling website or directly back to retailer 120 or manufacturer 110.”
Regarding claim 4, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, the transmitting the further information including transmitting additional information regarding purchase of a further part, to replace the particular part.”, are covered by Klayko para 0052, cited above, which describes pushing supplemental and all appropriate information on replacement of parts or products.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, the transmitting the further information further including transmitting additional information regarding the product. “, are covered by Klayko para 0052, cited above, which describes pushing supplemental [corresponds to covering additional information] and all appropriate information regarding parts or products.
Regarding claims 6-7, Klayko teaches that the method of claim 1, further including: scanning, by the wireless device, a code associated with the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and the communicating, by the wireless device, with the remote computing device being performed based on the scanned code and that the method of claim 6, the code is a QR code [See paras 0011 and 0016, “ [0011] ……..The product is of interest to the user and, as a result, she uses her wireless device to scan a Quick Response (QR) code that is displayed in the advertisement. …. Smartphones (one type of wireless device) can execute an application known as a QR-code scanner that can read a displayed code and convert it to, e.g., a universal resource locator (URL) directing the smartphone's browser to the website of a company, store, or product associated with that code, such that the user can obtain specific information about the product being advertised. 0016] In response to the QR code scan, a rich body of detailed, step-by-step, etc. assembly information (such as, for example, images, video clips, audio clips, two dimensional and three dimensional drawings, exploded views, detailed part drawings, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), tips and tricks, tool recommendations, part/fastener/etc. size guides, etc.) for the tricycle may be displayed or selectable on the user's wireless device and she may, as desired, peruse, navigate, drill-down into, advance, pause, repeat, zoom into or out of, rotate, explore, etc. that information as it guides her through the assembly process.”
Regarding claim 8, Klayko teaches that method of claim 1, where the step-by-step graphical instructional file is generated from a CAD file associated with the product [see Klayko para 0033, “ service provider 130 accepts a CAD file and makes graphical improvements to it ranging from colors and shadowing to correct orientation and sequencing of the assembly parts. Once completed, the file is converted to one or more formats which can be provided to any mobile device or computer. The file may be compressed so that final version is a fraction of the original CAD file in size. ….’]
Regarding claim 9, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, wherein the set of information allows the remote computing device to output information regarding the current status of the user, in the step-by-step graphical instructional file.”, are already covered in the discussion and analysis for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the set of information is initiated by the wireless device when the wireless device ascertains the current status based on the progress”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1..
Regarding claim 11, the limitations, “ The method of claim 10, wherein the ascertains the current status is based on total time” are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 in view of Klayko paras 0060, 0064—0065].
Regarding claim 12, the limitations, “ The method of claim 2, wherein the ascertains the current status is based on time on an individual step of the step-by-step graphical instruction file”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 in view of Klayko paras 0060, 0064—0065].
.
Regarding claims 13-14, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, the output information, regarding the current status, includes displaying the information to a second user and the second user is a support representative”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 wherein it was discussed that the output information related to the current status of the progress is displayed to a service representative, or repair technician.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations, “ The method of claim 5, the progress through the step-by-step graphical instructional file includes an entire assembly, as performed by the user, of a product”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 in view of Klayko as the instruction file relates to guiding a user for the complete assembly of a tricycle received by the user in dis-assembled form and the reports , see paras 0060-0067 describe that the progress is reported , as performed by the user, for full assembly of the tricycle..
Regarding claim 16, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, the step-by-step graphical instructional file is configured to guide the user through at least one selected from the group consisting of an assembly of a product, a disassembly of a product, a repair of a product, and an installation of a product”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 wherein the received instruction file relates to guiding a user for the complete assembly of a tricycle.
Regarding claim 17, Klayko teaches that the method of claim 1, the method further including: inputting time stamps in conjunction with tracking, by the wireless device, the progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and based on the time stamps assessing at least one selected from the group consisting of: (a) how long it took the user to complete each step of the step-by-step graphical instructional file; and (b) how long it took the user to complete the step-by-step graphical instructional file in its entirety [See Klayko paras 0060 and 0064-0065, “ [0064] How long in, e.g., seconds the assembly instructions were used; [0065] How long it took each user to advance to the next step;”]. Klayko does not teach explicitly that time stamps are input for each step. Since Klayko teaches calculating and reporting “How long in, e.g., seconds the assembly instructions were used; [0065] How long it took each user to advance to the next step;”, it would be obvious to input the time stamp in order to calculate “How long in, e.g., seconds the assembly instructions were used and How long it took each user to advance to the next step.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Rosenblatt et al. [US 2013/0093829; see paras 0120-0122 and 0126] discloses a client device configured to track the progress of the user through the step-by-step graphical instructional file, teaches logging and tracking of time stamped data regarding a medical procedure on a step and step basis and to initiate a communication session with a representative associated with the server via video communications), the client device transmitting a data transmission including status information on the progress through the step-by-by step graphical instructional file to the server, enabling the representative to determine the progress through the step-by-step graphical instructional file during the communication session, and teaches sending message to device specialist where the message provides contextual information about the medical procedure.
(ii) Terwilliger et al. [US 2013/0069781 A1, see Abstract, Fig.2A and par 0027 ] teaches a system for the enhanced dissemination of information, the system comprising a client device configured to acquire information on an object, and a server to transmit a set of information to the client device, wherein the set of information constitutes a step- by-step graphical instructional file of the object and teaches that a user captures image of QR code for a component of interest to extract service identifiers from the code and the service engine retrieves service information and presents to the end user.
(iii) McKirdy [US 2013/0032634 A1; see paras 0048 and 0085] describes presenting a QR code which can be scanned by a user using his mobile device to interact with the content related to the QR code. Further, a TRX exercise platform can allow a user to perform various exercises by scanning a barcode on the exercise equipment that is capable of causing a mobile device to display video or graphical tutorials on how to perform a specific exercise, a complicated training system can be more efficiently explained allowing the person to benefit more from the exercise.
(iv) Rettich [US 2016/0171360 A1; see para 0009] discloses providing assembly instructions in the form of photographs, graphics, animations, audio and/or video or combinations of these types of information or types of media so that motion sequences or action sequences can be represented in a manner that can be grasped intuitively. The animations or videos can also contain 3D models of parts of the machine and the function sequences thereof.
(v) Rataul [US 20120310693 A1; see para 0080] discloses an Assembly instruction sequence component 818 for creating assembly sequences for combining materials, components, and parts into products, the assembly instruction sequence component 818 also processes these assembly instructions to guide and control assemblers creating products , FIGS. 7A-7B. Tool usage component 820 presents multimedia tool data on a user interface to assist in guiding an assembler creating products.
(vi) Williams et al. [US 20100057242 A1; see para 0008] describes that a computer controller is configured to convert a CAD file into component positions and provide them as instructions for components placement.
Foreign reference:
(vii) CN 1624700A [See claim 4] discloses a method wherein a device provides product manufacturing assembly mode of operation instruction data in a video file and audio file.
NPL reference
(viii) D. Roy, "Significance of Configuration and Subassemblies in Sequential Procedural Instructions and Role of Text-Graphical Aid: An Explorative Study," in IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 147-162, June 2007, retrieved from IPO. Com on 01202026 describes, that the presentation of assembly instructions with text with graphics helps in comprehending the instructions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688