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 .
1. Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
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.
2. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) 1-9 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because of the reasons set forth below.
Claims 1-9 recite a “computer-readable medium.” Applicant’s specification, in pages 4-5 paragraphs [0014]-0015], discloses: Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by device 100. Therefore, “machine-readable media” may be transitory, which is nonstatutory…The term computer-readable media as used herein includes both storage media and communication media. As such, “computer-readable medium” recited in claims 1-9 is not limited to a non-transitory embodiment or statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
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. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No.11,665,249 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claim 1-9 are anticipated by patent claims 1-9.
Claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 2 of the above patent recites every element of claim 2 of the instant application.
Claim 3 of the above patent recites every element of claim 3 of the instant application.
Claim 4 of the above patent recites every element of claim 4 of the instant application.
Claim 5 of the above patent recites every element of claim 5 of the instant application.
Claim 6 of the above patent recites every element of claim 6 of the instant application.
Claim 7 of the above patent recites every element of claim 7 of the instant application.
Claim 8 of the above patent recites every element of claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim 9 of the above patent recites every element of claim 9 of the instant application.
Therefore, claims 1-9 of the above patent are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of claims 1-9 of the instant application. It has been held that a generic invention is anticipated by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemenson, US 2012/0316930 A1, in view of Zanghi et al. (hereafter, “Zanghi”), US 10,423,934 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Clemenson teaches at least one computer-readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed by one or more processing devices, enable the one or more processing devices to perform a method (i.e., computer instructions are executed using one or more processors and can be stored in non-volatile storage medium, Fig. 4 and page 7 paragraph [0148]), the method comprising the steps of:
providing over a network a request for first information from a second service provider at a job site characterizing a first service provided by a first service provider at the job site (i.e., once their work is completed on a room, the owner or general contractor 108 may request an inspection of the work a subcontractor performed, Fig. 1 and page 6 paragraph [0118]);
receiving over the network from the second service provider the first information (i.e., for each of the plurality of areas, receiving, from an inspector that inspected the respective area, an inspection status associated with each inspection, Fig. 2 and page 6 paragraph [0126]).
Clemenson does not explicitly teach providing over the network a request for second information from a third service provider at the job site characterizing a second service provided by the second service provider at the job site; and receiving over the network from the third service provider the second information.
Zanghi teaches providing over the network a request for second information from a third service provider at the job site characterizing a second service provided by the second service provider at the job site (i.e., upon completion of a serving task by a first technician, the auditing module 218 can instruct/request a second technician to review the vehicle after servicing to evaluate the performance of the first technician, Fig. 2 and col. 9 lines 60-63); and receiving over the network from the third service provider the second information (i.e., receive a third indication associated with the performance of the technician, col. 23 lines 31-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Clemenson to provide over the network a request for second information from a third service provider at the job site characterizing a second service provided by the second service provider at the job site; and receive over the network from the third service provider the second information, as taught by Zanghi. One would be motivated to allow the performance of the service provider(s) to be evaluated to determine a quality of the service performed by the service provider(s).
Regarding claim 2, Clemenson teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the request for first information comprises one or more requests to characterize the provided first service (i.e., Inspection type, e.g., {Foundation, In Wall Closure, Framing, Pluming}, pages 3 paragraph [0050]-page 4 paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 3, Clemenson teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the request for second information comprises one or more requests to characterize the provided second service (i.e., pages 3 paragraph [0050]-page 4 paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Clemenson teaches the medium of claim 1, further comprising comparing the first information with previously received information characterizing the first service (i.e., Fig.2 and page 6 paragraphs [0121]- [0122]).
Regarding claim 9, Clemenson teaches the medium of claim 1, further comprising comparing the second information with previously received information characterizing the second service (i.e., Fig. 2 and page 6 paragraphs [0121]- [0122]).
.
5. Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemenson as applied to claims 1, 2, and/or 3 above, and further in view of Jackson et al. (hereafter, “Jackson”), US 2018/0293669 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Clemenson teaches the medium of claim 2.
The combination of teachings of Clemenson and Zanghi does not explicitly teach further comprising selecting the one or more requests based on a reference code identifying the first service.
Jackson teaches selecting the one or more requests based on a reference code identifying the first service (i.e., Fig. 12 and page 11 paragraphs [0103]- [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Clemenson and Zanghi, to select the one or more requests based on a reference code identifying the first service, as taught by Jackson. One would be motivated to do so to allow user to choose to categorize a review when the review is submitted (i.e., Jackson, page11 paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 5, Clemenson teaches the medium of claim 3.
The combination of teachings of Clemenson and Zanghi does not explicitly teach selecting the one or more requests based on a reference code identifying the second service.
Jackson teaches selecting the one or more requests based on a reference code identifying the second service (i.e., Fig. 12 and page 11 paragraphs [0103]- [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Clemenson and Zanghi, selectin the one or more requests based on a reference code identifying the second service, as taught by Jackson. One would be motivated to do so to allow user to choose to categorize a review when the review is submitted (i.e., Jackson, page11 paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 6, Clemenson teaches the medium of claim 1.
The combination of teachings of Clemenson and Zanghi does not explicitly teach wherein the first information comprises one or more photographs of the job site.
Jackson teaches wherein the first information comprises one or more photographs of the job site (i.e., an area for the user to input images, page 11 paragraph [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Clemenson and Zanghi, to comprise one or more photographs of the job site, as taught by Jackson because it was conventionally employed in the art for a completed work to be visually reviewed.
Regarding claim 7, Clemenson teaches the medium of claim 1.
The combination of teachings of Clemenson and Zanghi does not explicitly teach wherein the first information comprises one or more photographs of the job site.
Jackson teaches wherein the second information comprises one or more photographs of the job site (i.e., an area for the user to input images, page 11 paragraph [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Clemenson and Zanghi, to comprise one or more photographs of the job site, as taught by Jackson because it was conventionally employed in the art for a completed work to be visually reviewed.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex Mon-Fri 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Wing Chan can be reached at (571)272-7493. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441