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 .
This communication is in response to application 18/762,853 filed 07/03/2024. Claims 1, 12, and 14 are amended and hereby entered. No claims are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 2/03/2026, with respect to claims 17-20 are fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 17-20 have been withdrawn. The independent claim 17 is a system containing a digital EOP device with an interface (general purpose computer) and a physical document (e.g. book, paper, etc.), both of which include the same nonfunctional descriptive data and is not considered to be an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 filed 2/03/2026, with respect to claim 14 are fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(d) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/03/2026 regarding 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-16 and 35 USC 102/103 of claims 1-20 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101:
The applicant submits the amended claims do not recite a mental process because of the newly amended features specifying instructions and data are sent electronically via machine readable signals. The applicant submits this requires specific use of technology that is physically impossible for a human to perform (e.g. transmission of machine-readable signals). However, the claims still recite both abstract ideas of a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. The transmission of machine-readable signals and electronic data fall under MPEP 2106.05(f) in which the abstract ideas are performed by a general-purpose computer. Inclusion of general-purpose computers to transmit the data does not negate the presence of the abstract idea. Therefore, the abstract idea is still present and the rejection is maintained.
Further the applicant submits that there is practical application because there is an improvement in the technical field of automated facility management. However, the claims describe the abstract ideas of a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity, and use a general-purpose computer to perform the abstract ideas. There is no improvement in the technology of computers or technical field of automated facility management, see MPEP 2106.05(a) “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient”. In the instant application, the generic computer components simply perform the method consisting of the abstract ideas (e.g. receiving, transmitting, presenting data, and or following instructions). Therefore, the claims fall under MPEP 2106.05(f), and there is no practical application or significantly more.
Further the applicant submits amended claim 12 does not recite a mental process because the claims require signal transmission and hardware-based printing. However, the claims recite alternative claim language: “transmitting electronic printing information…to a printer or another computing device” and “printing, by said printer or said another device… information…”. The claims do not require a physical printer. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes the transmission of data to a computing device and the computer executing a print command. Therefore, the claim still recites an abstract idea without practical application and falls under MPEP 2106.05(f) as a general-purpose computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Additionally, the applicant submits claim 12 is integrated into practical application because there is an improvement in the functioning of the computer system, and technical field of safety. However, there is no improvement to computing technology or technical field as the claims only describe a general-purpose computer that is used to perform an abstract idea. The computer technology itself remains the same and there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer. Regarding the technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a) “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient”. The instant application simply uses the computer to execute a print command. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees and rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 102:
Regarding claim 1, the applicant submits the difference between Curtis and the instant application is that the display of procedural steps must be manually navigated to in Curtis. However, the claims simply state “retrieving, from an electronic data store, logic for executing an EOP set of steps, wherein the EOP is identified for mitigating the detected event”. The wherein clause describes the intended results of the retrieved logic, see MPEP 2111.04. The positively recited steps of detecting an event, retrieving logic, and executing logic are all taught by the primary reference.
Additionally, the claims further state that executing the logic determines “one or more” conditions, steps and manual actions to be performed to mitigate the detected event. The claim language “to mitigate the detected event” describes intended use or results of the determining one or more conditions, steps and manual actions. The rejection relying on Curtis shows determination of conditions, steps, and manual actions to be performed, (see rejection of claim 1 relying on Curtis, “highlighted”, “text of steps that have been completed”, and “next step to be completed”)
Regarding claim 6, the applicant submits Curtis fails to disclose a model that is trained because it uses static logic rather than machine learning or heuristic model refined through training data. However, a machine learning model or Heuristic model is not recited in claim 6. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Machine learning model or heuristic model) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims simply recite a trained model which is not distinct from threshold model taught by Curtis.
Further the applicant submits the model does not determine “when” to prompt a user for manual actions or verification actions. However, the applicant discusses Curtis’ logic rule (if A>B, then alert). This shows a determination to prompt when a condition is met. Further, the applicant argues the prompt is isolated, not part of a coordinated EOP logic flow that selectively delegates tasks. Again, the applicant argues features not recited in the claims. There is no positively recited step of selectively delegating tasks. The claim simply recites determining when to prompt a user (alert, notify, etc.) to perform an action within a set of steps. This prompt is taught by Curtis’ notification to a user to take corrective action.
Regarding Claim 10, the applicant submits Curtis does not teach “generating and returning instructions… for continuing through the EOP set of steps”. Specifically, the applicant argues an active generation of guidance in response to detected failure is not taught. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not imply that the generation of instructions results from the detection of network failure. The claims simply describe two steps of detecting failure and generating instructions. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding Claim 15, the applicant submits that the power management is intrinsic to the device taught by Curtis, which is different than the extrinsic power management taught in the instant application. However, the applicant specification only discusses the step “generating and transmitting instructions to temporary power source” in response to a detected network failure (see paragraphs 24 and 189), with no clarification regarding functional difference in an intrinsic vs extrinsic command. Therefore, the active step of generating and transmitting instructions to switch to a temporary power supply under its broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by Curtis.
Further, the applicant submits Curtis fails to teach the “static version” of the EOP steps. However, the applicant specification para 0024 and para 189 simply describe this “static version” as presenting information before the system or network failure. Curtis teaches a version displaying information from before the system or network failure. Paragraph 77 of Curtis discusses a “MOM mode” which provides information including EAPs and EOPs (data from before failure) in the event of network failures. Further, the EOPs and the cached data from before the network failure is displayed via GUI display, (see paragraphs 6-12 discussing a GUI display where users can view the information) Therefore, the prior art meets the claim.
Regarding 35 USC 103:
Regarding claim 17, the applicant submits the examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because a proposed physical combination is incompatible. In response to applicant's argument that a combination of the references would destroy the primary principle of operation of the primary reference, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefits of an electronic EOP being identical to a physical EOP would keep users safe during emergency
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The applicant admits that Curtis teaches digitizing workflow including documentation, acknowledging the prior use of physical documentation which is then digitized. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the use of physical documents to be obvious at the time of the claimed invention, without information gleamed from the applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 16, the applicant again argues both bodily incorporation and hindsight reasoning for digitizing paper data. However, as previously stated, the test for obviousness is not whether features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the main reference, nor is hindsight reasoning improper when reconstruction takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time. The applicant admits that the primary reference teaches a “superior solution” rendering the use of paper unnecessary. Therefore, at the time of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would have been knowledgeable enough to recognize digitizing paper data would yield predictable results.
Additionally, the applicant submits adobe merely discloses generic OCR for spreadsheets, not the specific complex logic required to map handwritten entries from a specific EOP format into the structured, object-oriented database. However, this is not what is described in the claims as there is no complex logic described. The claims recite the steps of receiving a scan paper version, processing user inputted information, populating an electronic version, and returning the electronic version to a device. This claim in its entirety is taught by Curtis in view of Adobe. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Claims 1-16 are systems. Thus, each claim on its face is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 USC 101. However, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The independent claim recites a system to collect, analyze and display results. These claim elements are being interpreted as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Receiving facility data, detecting an event, and displaying an EOP set of steps can equivalently be achieved by human observation and evaluation of facility data. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further, the claimed invention is also directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The independent claim recites a system for following emergency operating procedures. These elements are being interpreted as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). A system allowing for following emergency operating procedures as a series of steps falls under “following rules or instructions”. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems to implement the identified abstract ideas of receiving information, processing information, and displaying the result of the analysis (i.e. receiving facility information, analyzing, and displaying the data and the like) and following instructions (i.e. following an EOP) in a general computer environment. For instance, the additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract ideas themselves include the elements such as a “supervisory computer system”, “user device”, and “digital EOP device” recited at a high level of generality. These claim elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, these elements do not themselves amount to an improvement to the interface or computer, to a technology or another technical field.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the dependent claims
Claim 12 introduces a new additional elements “printer” and “computing device”. However, this falls under the same analysis present in step 2A Prong 2, as the elements merely acts as a modality to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claims 2-11 and 13-16 introduce no new additional abstract ideas or new additional elements and do not impact analysis under 35 USC 101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Curtis (US 20140137024 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Curtis teaches:
A system for monitoring and responding to an event in a facility using electronic emergency operating procedures (EOPs), the system comprising: a supervisory computer system of the facility, the supervisory computer system being configured to perform operations comprising: [(Figure 13)]
receiving facility operational electronic data from at least one facility electronic data source; [(Para 0007) “The GUI may enable the user to enter the information by providing a data entry field that identifies a data parameter of the equipment and enable the user to enter data for the data parameter. The entered data for the data parameter of the equipment may be stored in the memory along with a timestamp”, (Para 0010) “The system may further comprise a wireless transceiver and the program may upload the information to a remote database using the wireless transceiver.”]
detecting, based on the facility operational electronic data, an event in the facility; [(Para 0065) “If it has been determined that a warning is to be displayed, the system 100 may notify the user to take corrective action to maintain the equipment before a failure occurs.]
retrieving, from an electronic data store, logic for executing an EOP set of steps, wherein the EOP is identified for mitigating the detected event; [(Para 0075) “The document mode 240 can be selected to access one or more documents such as SOPs, EAPs, EOPs, MPs, MOPs, drawings, schematics, or other relevant documentation associated with equipment in the corresponding room or the facility. These documents may be accessed in a "step by step" mode of the interface 200 on a display of the display subsystem 120 that guides the user through each step in a procedure of a corresponding one of the documents.”]
executing the logic to determine one or more of conditions, steps, and manual actions to be performed to mitigate the detected event; [(Para 0075) “For example, text of the steps that have been completed and the subsequent steps can be displayed on the display, where the next step to be completed can be emphasized (e.g., highlighted in a different color, underlined, etc.). The interface 200 may enable the user to mark each step as complete. For example, the interface 200 may provide a check box next to each step that can be selected when the user has finished that part of the procedure.”]
generating and transmitting electronic instructions as machine-readable signals to one or more of a plurality of user devices to present, as graphical user interface (GUI) displays, a dashboard with the one or more conditions, steps, and manual actions to be performed, wherein the dashboard presents an electronic version of the EOP set of steps; [(Figure 6), (Para 0012) “The procedure may includes a plurality of textual steps, and the GUI may present a current one of the textual steps on the display and a selectable option that enables a user to select the option to indicate that the current one step has been completed”]
and while executing the logic, iteratively: determining whether the one or more conditions, steps, and manual actions are completed by the supervisory computer system or manually by a user based on user input received from the one or more of the plurality of user devices; [(Para 0012) “indicate that the current one step has been completed. Upon the user selecting the option, the application may control the GUI to present a next one of the textual steps on the display.”]
and generating and transmitting updated electronic instructions as machine-readable signals to the one or more of the plurality of user devices to present the dashboard with indications indicating that the one or more conditions, steps, and manual actions are completed; [(Para 0013) “The application program may be configured to control the GUI to indicate to the user that the procedure has been completed upon the user selecting the option that corresponds to a last one of the steps.”]
a plurality of user devices in network communication with the supervisory computer system, [(Figure 11)]
wherein each of the plurality of user devices are configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the supervisory computer system, as electronic data, one or more of the electronic instructions and the updated electronic instructions; [(Para 0086) “If the user decides they want the step-by-step view, instructions for a single step or paragraph of the document are presented to the user (S804)”]
presenting the dashboard with real-time updates of a status of completing the EOP set of steps to mitigate the detected event; [(Figures 2 and 3), (Para 0045) “Embodiments of the invention may provide several tools for data collection, data trending, data visualization, document management, and interactive operational procedures including Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Emergency Action Procedures (EAPs), Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs), Maintenance Procedures (MPs), Method of Procedures (MOPs) and other facility documentation. An SOP may include best practice approaches or a set of step-by-step instructions for the day-to-day operation of the equipment. An EAP may include step by step actions which must be done in case of an emergency.”]
receiving user input indicating verification of the one or more conditions, steps, and manual actions to complete for the EOP set of steps; [(Para 0031) “the invention presents a user with a graphical user interface (GUI) having data entry fields, into which equipment and facility operation data can be input”, (Para 0075) “For example, text of the steps that have been completed and the subsequent steps can be displayed on the display, where the next step to be completed can be emphasized (e.g., highlighted in a different color, underlined, etc.). The interface 200 may enable the user to mark each step as complete.”]
and transmitting the user input to the supervisory computer system, as machine-readable signals [(Figures 10-11, and 13)]
wherein the supervisory computer system is configured to (i) iteratively determine, based on the user input, whether the one or more conditions, steps, and manual actions are completed [(Para 0012) “The procedure may include a plurality of textual steps, and the GUI may present a current one of the textual steps on the display and a selectable option that enables a user to select the option to indicate that the current one step has been completed. Upon the user selecting the option, the application may control the GUI to present a next one of the textual steps on the display.”]
and (ii) generate and transmit the updated instructions as machine-readable signals to the one or more of the plurality of user devices to present the dashboard with indications indicating that the one or more conditions, steps, and manual actions are completed. [(Figure 2), (Para 0094) “The remote database may then update other devices(s) with the updated data. The data may include facility configurations, collected equipment data, facility documentation, document association properties with facility, equipment, and/or rooms, or training simulations.”]
Regarding Claim 2, Curtis further teaches
wherein the retrieved logic includes, for each step in the EOP set of steps, data input mapping, step logic, output fields and information, user input prompts and verifications, and links to one or more next steps in the EOP set of steps. [(Para 0086) “For example, if the user selects this choice, the interface 200 can present the document to the user (S806). If the user does not require access to the document or has already reviewed the document, after performing one step of the procedure (e.g., restarting the UPS, hitting the boiler reset, etc.), the user indicates to the interface that the step has been completed (S807). For example, the step displayed on the interface 200 may include a selectable checkbox that is selected by the user to indicate the step has been completed. The application can automatically determine whether the procedure has been completed (S808). For example, if the procedure has 4 steps, and all 4 steps were checked by the user, the application may assume that the procedure was completed, and may return to an initial state to enable the user to select a new document (S801). If the procedure has not been completed, the application advances to the next step of the procedure (S809) and displays the set of instructions for the next step”, (Para 0089) “The system 100 may iterate through the arrays based on user interaction. Once a step is completed, the present invention may show the next step is readily available. Visual notifications may be displayed as steps are completed.”]
Regarding Claim 3, Curtis further teaches
wherein the supervisory computer system performs operations further comprising: recording the one or more conditions, steps, and manual actions that are completed by the supervisory computer system or manually by the user based on the user input received from the one or more of the plurality of user devices; [(Para 0012) “The procedure may includes a plurality of textual steps, and the GUI may present a current one of the textual steps on the display and a selectable option that enables a user to select the option to indicate that the current one step has been completed.”]
and determining training instructions for at least one user in the facility based on the recorded conditions, steps, and manual actions, wherein determining the training instructions further comprises determining, for each step of the EOP set of steps, whether the step was performed according to one or more step-completion criteria. [(Para 0078) “For example, a training scenario could be walkthrough of a room full of several pieces of equipment in a room, where the trainee is expected to enter parameter data (e.g., boiler temperature, battery voltage, etc.) for each corresponding piece. If the trainee enters parameter data that is outside of expected thresholds, they would receive an alert that is similar to the actual one that would have been received during normal operation. However, since this is merely a simulation, the site administrator would not receive a notification (e.g., e-mail, text, etc.) of the alert.”]
Regarding Claim 4, Curtis further teaches
wherein recording comprises generating time sequence data of progress through each step of the EOP set of steps. [(Para 0088) “All changes to the nodes themselves may be logged by timestamps and the user identification of the manager or administrator who modified it.”]
Regarding Claim 5, Curtis further teaches
wherein the supervisory computer system is configured to execute computer logic to automatically perform at least one of the one or more conditions, steps, and manual actions to complete for the EOP set of steps. [(Para 0086) “ The application can automatically determine whether the procedure has been completed (S808). For example, if the procedure has 4 steps, and all 4 steps were checked by the user, the application may assume that the procedure was completed, and may return to an initial state to enable the user to select a new document (S801). If the procedure has not been completed, the application advances to the next step of the procedure (S809) and displays the set of instructions for the next step”, (Para 0108) “In an exemplary embodiment of the invention, the system 100 (e.g., via connectivity subsystem 130) utilizes radio signals (e.g., NFC, RFID, etc.) to perform various automated actions.”]
Regarding Claim 6, Curtis further teaches
wherein the computer logic is supported by a programmed model, the model having been trained to determine when to prompt one or more users at the plurality of user devices to perform at least one of the manual actions or a verification action during completion of the EOP set of steps. [(Para 0065) “If it has been determined that a warning is to be displayed, the system 100 may notify the user to take corrective action to maintain the equipment before a failure occurs”]
Regarding Claim 8, Curtis further teaches
wherein the electronic version of the EOP further comprises an indication of whether a continuous action is required during completion of the EOP set of steps. [(Para 0012) “The procedure may includes a plurality of textual steps, and the GUI may present a current one of the textual steps on the display and a selectable option that enables a user to select the option to indicate that the current one step has been completed. Upon the user selecting the option, the application may control the GUI to present a next one of the textual steps on the display”]
Regarding Claim 9, Curtis further teaches
wherein presenting the dashboard with real-time updates of a status of completing the EOP set of steps to mitigate the detected event comprises presenting output for completion of a step of the EOP set of steps in a first indicia and presenting output for incompletion of a step of the EOP set of steps in a second indicia. [(Para 0046) “Each room button 211 may provide a graphical indicator indicating whether the room has already been configured (e.g., a check) or has yet to be configured (e.g., an `x` or a blank box). However, the invention is not limited thereto”, (Para 0075) “For example, the interface 200 may provide a check box next to each step that can be selected when the user has finished that part of the procedure. The user may also be notified if a step has been skipped. The "step by step" mode may reduce confusion during an emergency by guiding the user in a high stress environment, which may also increase safety”]
Regarding Claim 10, Curtis further teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: detecting a system or network failure; [(Para 0097) “For example, if network access is not available, the application will locally cache data on the device's internal storage (e.g., memory 160). Once network access is restored, the application may synchronize the locally stored data with the remote database automatically.”]
and generating and returning instructions to at least one of the plurality of user devices for continuing through the EOP set of steps within a system or network connection. [(Para 0075) “These documents may be accessed in a "step by step" mode of the interface 200 on a display of the display subsystem 120 that guides the user through each step in a procedure of a corresponding one of the documents”]
Regarding Claim 11, Curtis further teaches:
wherein the instructions prompt a user at the at least one user device to continue through the EOP set of steps [(Para 0012) “Upon the user selecting the option, the application may control the GUI to present a next one of the textual steps on the display.” (Para 0075) “where the next step to be completed can be emphasized (e.g., highlighted in a different color, underlined, etc.)”]
using a paper-version of the EOP set of steps. [The limitations recite prompting a user to continue through an EOP set of steps. The EOP being written on paper is nonfunctional descriptive material and does not carry patentable weight.]
Regarding Claim 12, Curtis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting electronic printing information for each completed step in the EOP set of steps as machine-readable signals to a printer or another computing device, the another computing device comprising an electronically persistent display, and printing, by said printer or said another device and based on the transmitted electronic printing information, information for each completed step in EOP set of steps. [(Para 0071) “The trending mode 220 may also be used to generate a report of the collected data stating a brief analysis of said trends or anomalies, and may also include a printout of the data the selected fields in graphical and tabular format.” (Para 0085) “The interface 200 enables a user to generate a printable report”]
Regarding Claim 13, Curtis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: storing data corresponding to completion of the EOP set of steps in a plurality of bits that are maintained at a plurality of redundant and secure memory locations, wherein the data is recoverable from at least a portion of the plurality of redundant and secure memory locations when at least one of the redundant and secure memory locations is compromised. [(Figures 9 and 10) (Para 0098) “FIG. 9 shows interactions between the system for managing a facility 100 and the remote database 1101, according to an exemplary embodiment of the invention. The database may be located on the cloud”, (Para 0097) “The users of the systems 100 may access all information via a locally cached database for locations that do not have network access. For example, if network access is not available, the application will locally cache data on the device's internal storage (e.g., memory 160).”]
Regarding Claim 14, Curtis further teaches:
wherein the system is configured to recover the data from the plurality of redundant and secure memory locations in response to a determination that at least one of the redundant and secure memory locations is compromised by a bitflip event during the detected event in the facility. [The limitations recite recovering data from a memory location, and a determination that one of the memory locations is compromised. The limitations further recite nonfunctional descriptive material, (the bitflip event causing the compromised memory carries no patentable weight); see at least Curtis: [(Figures 9 and 10) (Para 0098) “FIG. 9 shows interactions between the system for managing a facility 100 and the remote database 1101, according to an exemplary embodiment of the invention. The database may be located on the cloud”, (Para 0097) “The users of the systems 100 may access all information via a locally cached database for locations that do not have network access. For example, if network access is not available, the application will locally cache data on the device's internal storage (e.g., memory 160).”]
Regarding Claim 15, Curtis further teaches:
wherein in response to detecting a system or network failure, the operations further comprise generating and transmitting instructions to a temporary power source that causes the temporary power source to provide power to the at least one of the plurality of user devices, [(Para 0032) “Exemplary embodiments of the invention facilitates data collection from equipment in a facility such as an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS), a Power Transfer Switch (PTS)”, (Para 0043) “The power management subsystem 170 may include a battery, an interface for receiving power from an external battery, software and/or hardware to manage power usage of the mobile system 100, etc. The power management subsystem may include an AC power adaptor for receiving power in a wired manner or a Wireless Power Receiver for receiving power in a wireless manner.”]
wherein, in response to receiving the power from the temporary power source, the at least one of the plurality of user devices is configured to display a static version of the EOP set of steps, the static version presenting information indicating progress through the EOP set of steps that was displayed at the at least one of the plurality of user devices before the system or network failure. [(Para 0077) “This MOM mode 250 is not limited to providing emergency related information, as it may also provide pertinent information on switching procedures, technical maintenance programs, and other operations procedures, facility one lines, and other facility infrastructure drawings including SOPs, EAPs, EOPs, MPs, MOPs, etc. Further, other documentation may be imported from a remote server and saved into the application locally, which allows use of the data without network connectivity.”]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis (US 20140137024 A1) in view of Hanada (US 20220157480 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Curtis teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Curtis does not teach but Hanada does teach:
wherein the electronic version of the EOP comprises an action response column and a response not obtained column. [(Figure 6)]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic EOP system display (Curtis) to show an action response column and a response not obtained column (Hanada). Both references fall in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that modifying the electronic EOP system to include these features would allow for a user to see which actions have been performed in an organized manner.
Regarding Claim 17, Curtis teaches:
A system comprising: a digital EOP device providing an electronic EOP interface; [(Para 0006) “The memory includes an application program. The program is configured to present a graphical user interface (GUI) on the display”, (Para 0075) “The document mode 240 can be selected to access one or more documents such as SOPs, EAPs, EOPs, MPs, MOPs, drawings, schematics”
However, Curtis does not teach but Hanada does teach:
and a physical document providing a physical EOP interface, wherein the electronic EOP interface is configured to replicate the physical EOP interface [(Figure 6), (Para 0073) “The contents described on the left page ML and the right page MR are the same as those on the corresponding page of the paper medium operating procedure which is the basis of the computer-based procedure M.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electronic EOP interface (Curtis) with the physical EOP interface (Hanada). Both references fall in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that it would be important to make the electronic version of the EOP identical to physical EOP to keep users safe during an emergency.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Curtis and Hanada teach the limitations of claim 17. Curtis does not teach but Hanada further teaches:
wherein the electronic EOP interface comprises an action response column and a response not obtained column that replicate corresponding columns in the physical EOP interface. [(Figure 6)]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic EOP system display (Curtis) to show an action response column and a response not obtained column (Hanada). Both references fall in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that modifying the electronic EOP system to include these features would allow for a user to see which actions have been performed in an organized manner.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Curtis and Hanada teach the limitations of Claim 17. Curtis further teaches:
wherein the electronic EOP interface further comprises an informational page presented concurrently with an EOP set of steps, the informational page (i) presenting information about performing each of the EOP set of steps [(Para 0075) “The document mode 240 can be selected to access one or more documents such as SOPs, EAPs, EOPs, MPs, MOPs, drawings, schematics, or other relevant documentation associated with equipment in the corresponding room or the facility. These documents may be accessed in a "step by step" mode of the interface 200 on a display of the display subsystem 120 that guides the user through each step in a procedure of a corresponding one of the documents”]
However, Curtis does not teach but Hanada teaches:
and (ii) replicating an informational page of the physical EOP interface. [(Para 0073) “The contents described on the left page ML and the right page MR are the same as those on the corresponding page of the paper medium operating procedure which is the basis of the computer-based procedure M.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electronic EOP interface (Curtis) with the physical EOP interface (Hanada). Both references fall in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that it would be important to make the electronic version of the EOP replicate the physical EOP to keep users safe during an emergency.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Curtis and Hanada teach the limitations of claim 17, Curtis further teaches:
wherein the electronic EOP interface further comprises presenting output for completion of a step of an EOP set of steps in a first indicia and presenting output for incompletion of a step of the EOP set of steps in a second indicia. [(Para 0075) “These documents may be accessed in a "step by step" mode of the interface 200 on a display of the display subsystem 120 that guides the user through each step in a procedure of a corresponding one of the documents. For example, text of the steps that have been completed and the subsequent steps can be displayed on the display, where the next step to be completed can be emphasized (e.g., highlighted in a different color, underlined, etc.). The interface 200 may enable the user to mark each step as complete. For example, the interface 200 may provide a check box next to each step that can be selected when the user has finished that part of the procedure. The user may also be notified if a step has been skipped”]
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis (US 20140137024 A1) in view of NPL Adobe (How to scan data using OCR to Excel Spreadsheets, 2023).
Regarding Claim 16, Curtis teaches the limitations of Claim 10, Curtis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: detecting that the computer or network failure is resolved; [(Para 0097) “Once network access is restored, the application may synchronize the locally stored data with the remote database automatically”]
and returning the populated electronic version of the EOP set of steps to the at least one of the plurality of user devices, [(Para 0094) “For example, updates to data generated on one system 100 may be uploaded to the remote database. The remote database may then update other devices(s) with the updated data. The data may include facility configurations, collected equipment data, facility documentation, document association properties with facility, equipment, and/or rooms, or training simulations”]
However, Curtis does not teach but Adobe does teach:
receiving, from the at least one of the plurality of user devices, a scan of a paper version of the EOP set of steps that was used by a respective user to complete the EOP set of steps during the computer or network failure; [The printed matter is nonfunctional descriptive material; (Page 2) “Scanning files, images, or documents to Excel is easy when using an OCR application, such as Adobe Scan. You can use Adobe Scan to scan a document and convert your spreadsheets into high-quality PDFs”]
processing the scan of the paper version of the EOP set of steps to identify user-inputted information in the paper version of the EOP set of steps that corresponds to completion of the EOP set of steps during the computer or network failure; [(Page 2) “OCR stands for optical character recognition. This technology can identify text and recreate it in a machine-readable form.”]
automatically populating the electronic version of the EOP set of steps with the identified user-inputted information in the paper version of the EOP set of steps; [(Page 2) “An OCR application can scan the image, recognize the letters and symbols, and reproduce them as actual text.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Electronic EOP system (Curtis) with a method of scanning paper (Adobe). The invention is merely a combination of old elements, and each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, yielding predictable results. One of ordinary skill would recognize that allowing a paper EOP to be scanned and populated would aid in updating a computer system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (EST).
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, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/B.L.T. /Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626