DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on 7/19/2024.
Claims 1-11 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to a system. Claim 11 is directed to a system. Thus, on their face they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
The following limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claim 1, 11:
a search entity configured for searching a plurality of tagged portions of / full documents;
generate a dashboard for viewing, receiving communication from the search entity and returning searched tagged portions of/full documents for viewing;
wherein a first one of the tagged portions of/ full documents is a recall that is searched by the search entity and communicated and returned for viewing;
wherein a second one of the tagged portions of / full documents is a final rule that is searched by the search entity and communicated and returned for viewing.
The following dependent claim limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely further descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claim 3:
wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents has portion tags that identify the plurality of tagged portions of documents and are searched by the search entity and communicated and sent to the user for display;
wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents has an external link document data set that has links to external sources that is obtained by the search entity and sent and displayed to the user,
Claim 4:
wherein the search entity is configured for searching a plurality of tagged full documents;
receiving communication from the search entity is a first one of the tagged full document and returning the first one of the tagged full document to the user.
Claim 5:
wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising regulatory activities comprising: technical service bulletins (TSBSs); investigations; inconsequential Petitions (IPs) Receipts; and complaints.
Claim 6:
wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising regulatory activities comprising early warning reports (EWRs).
Claim 7:
wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising investigations.
Claim 8:
refine regulatory activities to a current selection such that the numbers of different types of regulatory activities are displayed by the dashboard;
wherein the dashboard has a graphical display that displays the numbers of different types of regulatory activities in graphical form in a selectable time range.
Claim 9:
wherein the dashboard has a secondary display that displays different bar charts by manufacturer type of the numbers of different types of regulatory activities for that manufacturer type.
Claim 10:
wherein the dashboard has selections that are selectable wherein the dashboard allows selection between regulatory activities, articles, and interpretations; wherein when the selection is used to select articles the graphical display is removed and instead a chart display is shown in the dashboard that has a listing of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) articles, wherein the second one of the tagged portions of documents that is the final rule is displayed in the chart display;
and wherein when the selection is used to select interpretations the graphical display is removed and instead a chart display is shown in the dashboard that has a listing of interpretation letters wherein the selectable options are selectable in order to refine the articles and interpretation letters to current selections that are displayed in the chart displays.
The claims provide a manner of searching for documents that relate to the highway transportation industry. The invention is directed to “a dashboard that is used by the highway transportation industry to monitor and search technical service bulletins, investigations, recalls, or other activities associated with regulations, safety standards, and other requirements.” The claims specifically recite a mechanism for searching for documents that pertain to recalls and rules (per spec [0040], [0041] rules appears to be regulatory rules).But for the inclusion of generic computing devices, a human analog, either mentally or with pen and paper could perform the features of the claimed invention. A human would be able to search for tagged documents based on containing recalls or rules and return the selected documents for viewing. Thus, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims recite a mental process.
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: user interface (claim 1, 3, 4,11); dashboard server (claim 1, 11) comprising: a search application (claim 1, 3, 4, 11), a website server (claim 1, 3, 4, 11); wherein the dashboard server has a server memory that has the search application and the website server, wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents are located on the server memory. (claim 2); external databases (claim 3); wherein if actuated by the user, the links to external databases causes full documents from the external sources to be displayed at the user interface. (claim 3); first drop down, a second drop down, and a third drop down that are selectable (claim 8, 10); tabs (claim 10);
The dashboard server, search application, website server, interface, wherein the dashboard server has a server memory that has the search application and the website server, wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents are located on the server memory, and external databases are recited at a high level of generality and merely “apply it” (the abstract idea) using generic computing devices (spec. [0060]). Further, the computing device is merely used to process data (searching, generate, display) and sending and receiving data (receiving, communicated). Nothing in the claims improves computing devices themselves, technology, or a technical field. With regard to the particular interface elements recited in claims 8 and 10, the use of the interface elements including first drop down, a second drop down, and a third drop down that are selectable and tabs are recited at a high level of generality. The mere high level usage of the GUI elements does not go beyond the apply it level of implementation (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation “wherein if actuated by the user, the links to external databases causes full documents from the external sources to be displayed at the user interface” merely provides a general link to accessing information in a computing environment. Nothing in the claims improves upon link technology or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, as above with regard to practical application, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept as they merely provide generic computing components used as a tool to implement the abstract idea, provide a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (on a computer), and provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Further, the user of drop down menus and tabs are well-understood, routine, and conventional interface elements used for making selections (See https://web.archive.org/web/20130716044109/https:/www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/user-interface-elements.html - common interface elements including drop down menus – 2013; https://www.uxdesigninstitute.com/blog/ui-glossary/ - 100 most important UI terms, phrases, and resources that every designer should know including tabs and drop down menus – 2022; https://supercharge.design/blog/the-must-know-ui-design-elements - must know UI elements that’s users are familiar with including drop down menus and tabs – 2022; https://www.mockplus.com/blog/post/ui-elements - list of basic UI elements including tabs and drop down menus – 2019;
As a result, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garry et al (US 2018/0121862) in view of Fournier et al (US 2017/0154338)
As per claim 1:
Garry teaches:
A system for searching highway transportation information, comprising:
a user interface; (paragraph [0020] In certain embodiments, the customer interface 104 can be a touch screen, a mobile device, a tablet, or a computer. In other embodiments, an employee may interface with the customer interface 104 on behalf of the customer. [0023] In other embodiments, the customer interface 104 and employee interface 106 can exist in the same hardware as the service advisor database 102 and the master virtual device 202 or share certain components.)
a dashboard server comprising:
a search application configured for searching a plurality of tagged portions of documents; (paragraph [0024] The service advisor database 102 can aggregate the data collected from the customer interfaces 104 and employee interfaces 106 as well as data inputted directly into the database 102 by a service advisor. As shown in FIG. 1, the service advisor database 102 can use the aggregated data to create an appointment log, and a vehicle service history log. These logs can associate past service histories and past and future appointments to specific customers and/or customer vehicles. The service advisor database 102 can also include recall information provided by automobile manufacturers. This allows a user to perform a recall search or receive automated recall alerts for an associated customer or vehicle without needing to consult a separate system.)
a website server configured to generate a dashboard for viewing at the user interface, wherein the website server is configured for receiving communication from the search application and returning searched tagged portions of documents to the user interface; (paragraph [0024] The service advisor database 102 can also include recall information provided by automobile manufacturers. This allows a user to perform a recall search or receive automated recall alerts for an associated customer or vehicle without needing to consult a separate system. [0029] It is to be appreciated that the master virtual device 202 and/or the service advisor application 204 can be a network or a portion of a network, wherein the network is at least one of a website, a server, a computer, a cloud-service, a processor and memory, or a computing device connected to the Internet and connected to the one or more customer interfaces 104.)
wherein a first one of the tagged portions of documents is a recall that is searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and returned to the user interface; (paragraph [0024] The service advisor database 102 can also include recall information provided by automobile manufacturers. This allows a user to perform a recall search or receive automated recall alerts for an associated customer or vehicle without needing to consult a separate system.)
Garry does not expressly teach wherein a second one of the tagged portions of documents is a final rule that is searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and returned to the user interface.
Fournier teaches:
wherein a second one of the tagged portions of documents is a final rule that is searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and returned to the user interface. (paragraph [0030] In step 403, the processor 112 is configured to determine which recalls or updates should be performed based on the identifying data received from the vehicle 120 and data from the database 122. The database 122 may contain data that identifies specific makes and/or models or vehicle identification numbers that are subject to recalls or updates and recall data. The recall data may include the nature of the recalls or updates, associated software revision numbers of the recalls or updates, and/or identifying recall numbers or names of the recalls or updates. Furthermore, the database may comprise a current listing of CALIDs associated with recalls or updates. As such, in this step, the processor 112 is configured to check the data found in the database 122 if any of the data relates to the vehicle 120 by using the identifying data received from the vehicle 120.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a second one of the tagged portions of documents is a final rule that is searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and returned to the user interface as taught by Fournier with the recall search of Garry in order to identify a vehicle in need updates (paragraph [0030]).
As per claim 11:
Garry teaches:
A system for searching highway transportation information, comprising:
a user interface; (paragraph [0020] In certain embodiments, the customer interface 104 can be a touch screen, a mobile device, a tablet, or a computer. In other embodiments, an employee may interface with the customer interface 104 on behalf of the customer. [0023] In other embodiments, the customer interface 104 and employee interface 106 can exist in the same hardware as the service advisor database 102 and the master virtual device 202 or share certain components.)
a dashboard server comprising:
a search application configured for searching a plurality of tagged full documents; (paragraph [0024] The service advisor database 102 can aggregate the data collected from the customer interfaces 104 and employee interfaces 106 as well as data inputted directly into the database 102 by a service advisor. As shown in FIG. 1, the service advisor database 102 can use the aggregated data to create an appointment log, and a vehicle service history log. These logs can associate past service histories and past and future appointments to specific customers and/or customer vehicles. The service advisor database 102 can also include recall information provided by automobile manufacturers. This allows a user to perform a recall search or receive automated recall alerts for an associated customer or vehicle without needing to consult a separate system.)
a website server configured to generate a dashboard for viewing at the user interface, wherein the website server is configured for receiving communication from the search application and returning searched tagged full documents to the user interface; (paragraph [0024] The service advisor database 102 can also include recall information provided by automobile manufacturers. This allows a user to perform a recall search or receive automated recall alerts for an associated customer or vehicle without needing to consult a separate system. [0029] It is to be appreciated that the master virtual device 202 and/or the service advisor application 204 can be a network or a portion of a network, wherein the network is at least one of a website, a server, a computer, a cloud-service, a processor and memory, or a computing device connected to the Internet and connected to the one or more customer interfaces 104.)
wherein a first one of the tagged full documents is a recall that is searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and returned to the user interface; (paragraph [0024] The service advisor database 102 can also include recall information provided by automobile manufacturers. This allows a user to perform a recall search or receive automated recall alerts for an associated customer or vehicle without needing to consult a separate system.)
Garry does not expressly teach wherein a second one of the tagged portions of documents is a final rule that is searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and returned to the user interface.
Fournier teaches:
wherein a second one of the tagged full documents is a final rule that is searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and returned to the user interface. (paragraph [0030] In step 403, the processor 112 is configured to determine which recalls or updates should be performed based on the identifying data received from the vehicle 120 and data from the database 122. The database 122 may contain data that identifies specific makes and/or models or vehicle identification numbers that are subject to recalls or updates and recall data. The recall data may include the nature of the recalls or updates, associated software revision numbers of the recalls or updates, and/or identifying recall numbers or names of the recalls or updates. Furthermore, the database may comprise a current listing of CALIDs associated with recalls or updates. As such, in this step, the processor 112 is configured to check the data found in the database 122 if any of the data relates to the vehicle 120 by using the identifying data received from the vehicle 120.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a second one of the tagged portions of documents is a final rule that is searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and returned to the user interface as taught by Fournier with the recall search of Garry in order to identify a vehicle in need updates (paragraph [0030]).
Garry in view of Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 2:
Garry further teaches:
wherein the dashboard server has a server memory that has the search application and the website server, wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents are located on the server memory. (paragraph [0024] The service advisor database 102 can aggregate the data collected from the customer interfaces 104 and employee interfaces 106 as well as data inputted directly into the database 102 by a service advisor. As shown in FIG. 1, the service advisor database 102 can use the aggregated data to create an appointment log, and a vehicle service history log. These logs can associate past service histories and past and future appointments to specific customers and/or customer vehicles. The service advisor database 102 can also include recall information provided by automobile manufacturers. This allows a user to perform a recall search or receive automated recall alerts for an associated customer or vehicle without needing to consult a separate system. [0029] It is to be appreciated that the master virtual device 202 and/or the service advisor application 204 can be a network or a portion of a network, wherein the network is at least one of a website, a server, a computer, a cloud-service, a processor and memory, or a computing device connected to the Internet and connected to the one or more customer interfaces 104. In general, the network can be coupled to one or more devices via wired or wireless connectivity in which data communications are enabled between the network and at least one of a second network, a subnetwork of the network, or a combination thereof lit is to be appreciated that any suitable number of networks can be used with the subject innovation and data communication on networks can be selected by one of sound engineering judgment and/or one skilled in the art.)
Garry in view of Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 4:
Garry further teaches:
wherein the search application is configured for searching a plurality of tagged full documents; wherein the website server is configured for receiving communication from the search application is a first one of the tagged full document and returning the first one of the tagged full document to the user interface. (paragraph [0024] The service advisor database 102 can aggregate the data collected from the customer interfaces 104 and employee interfaces 106 as well as data inputted directly into the database 102 by a service advisor. As shown in FIG. 1, the service advisor database 102 can use the aggregated data to create an appointment log, and a vehicle service history log. These logs can associate past service histories and past and future appointments to specific customers and/or customer vehicles. The service advisor database 102 can also include recall information provided by automobile manufacturers. This allows a user to perform a recall search or receive automated recall alerts for an associated customer or vehicle without needing to consult a separate system.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garry et al (US 2018/0121862) in view of Fournier et al (US 2017/0154338) in view of Wang (US 2014/0379719) in view of Carbune et al (US 10,521,655)
Garry in view of Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 3:
Garry in view of Fournier does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents has portion tags that identify the plurality of tagged portions of documents and are searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and sent to the user interface for display; wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents has an external link document data set that has links to external databases that is obtained by the search application and sent to the website server and displayed on the user interface, wherein if actuated at the user interface the links to external databases causes full documents from the external databases to be displayed at the user interface.
Wang teaches:
wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents has portion tags that identify the plurality of tagged portions of documents and are searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and sent to the user interface for display; (paragraph [0100] FIG. 8 is a block diagram illustrating a system for searching documents according to some embodiments. The system may include the device illustrated in FIGS. 3-4, and adopt the methods illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 5. For example, the system can include a retrieving portion 801, a computer-based document tagging system 802 and a display portion 803.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents has portion tags that identify the plurality of tagged portions of documents and are searched by the search application and communicated to the website server and sent to the user interface for display as taught by Wang with the recall search of Garry in view of Fournier in order to improve low efficiency in information retrieval (paragraph [0004]).
Garry in view of Fournier in view of Wang does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents has an external link document data set that has links to external databases that is obtained by the search application and sent to the website server and displayed on the user interface, wherein if actuated at the user interface the links to external databases causes full documents from the external databases to be displayed at the user interface
Carbune teaches:
wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents has an external link document data set that has links to external databases that is obtained by the search application and sent to the website server and displayed on the user interface, wherein if actuated at the user interface the links to external databases causes full documents from the external databases to be displayed at the user interface. ([C15L62-65] Additionally, the target electronic document can include a link in the additional content to allow a reader to select the link and be provided with the entire Document A or an expanded portion of Document A.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents has an external link document data set that has links to external databases that is obtained by the search application and sent to the website server and displayed on the user interface, wherein if actuated at the user interface the links to external databases causes full documents from the external databases to be displayed at the user interface as taught by Carbune with the recall search of Garry in view of Fournier in view of Wang in order to access an entire document ([C15L62-65])
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garry et al (US 2018/0121862) in view of Fournier et al (US 2017/0154338) in view of https://web.archive.org/web/20220904043456/https://www.regulations.gov/faq?anchor=general-whatisanpa – and supporting screen shots - hereafter Regulation.gov
Garry in view of Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 5:
Garry in view of Fournier does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising regulatory activities comprising: technical service bulletins (TSBSs); investigations; inconsequential Petitions (IPs) Receipts; and complaints.
Regulations.gov teaches:
wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising regulatory activities comprising: technical service bulletins (TSBSs); investigations; inconsequential Petitions (IPs) Receipts; and complaints. (On Regulations.gov, you can find and comment on proposed regulations and related documents published by participating U.S. Federal government agencies. You can also find: Final Regulations, Notices, Scientific and Technical Findings, Guidance, Adjudications, Comments Submitted by Others, further see attached screen shots including investigations, inconsequential noncompliance petitions, bulletins, and comments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising regulatory activities comprising: technical service bulletins (TSBSs); investigations; inconsequential Petitions (IPs) Receipts; and complaints as taught by Regulations.gov with the with the recall search of Garry in view of Fournier in order to provide any information that is relevant to a particular vehicle.
Garry in view of Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 1. As per claim 7:
Garry in view of Fournier does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising investigations.
Regulations.gov teaches:
wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising investigations.
(On Regulations.gov, you can find and comment on proposed regulations and related documents published by participating U.S. Federal government agencies. You can also find: Final Regulations, Notices, Scientific and Technical Findings, Guidance, Adjudications, Comments Submitted by Others, further see attached screen shots including investigations, inconsequential noncompliance petitions, bulletins, and comments.)
PNG
media_image1.png
822
1612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising investigations as taught by Regulations.gov with the with the recall search of Garry in view of Fournier in order to provide any information that is relevant to a particular vehicle.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garry et al (US 2018/0121862) in view of Fournier et al (US 2017/0154338) in view of https://web.archive.org/web/20220904043456/https://www.regulations.gov/faq?anchor=general-whatisanpa – and supporting screen shots - hereafter Regulation.gov in view of https://web.archive.org/web/20210220045434/https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/early-warning-reporting - hereafter Early Warning
Garry in view of Fournier in view of Regulation.gov teaches the limitations of claim 5. As per claim 6:
Garry in view of Fournier in view of Regulation.gov does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising regulatory activities comprising early warning reports (EWRs).
Early Warning teaches:
wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising regulatory activities comprising early warning reports (EWRs). “Federal regulations mandate that vehicle and vehicle equipment manufacturers comply with Early Warning Reporting requirements. As outlined below, reporting requirements vary depending on the product and the manufacturer’s annual production volume. This information is intended to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements; it does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plurality of tagged portions of documents comprising regulatory activities comprising early warning reports (EWRs) as taught by Early Warning with the recall search of Garry in view of Fournier in view of Regulation.gov in order to provide any information that is relevant to a particular vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are allowed over the prior art, however, remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
The examiner was unable to find a reasonable combination of references to teach each and every limitation in the context in the claimed invention. Specifically the examiner could not find the particular interface with specific interface elements performing the designated functions as described in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER STROUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9AM-5PM.
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, Waseem Ashraff can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
CHRISTOPHER STROUD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621B
/CHRISTOPHER STROUD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621