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 .
Claims 1-7, 9-21, and 24 are pending.
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 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Claim 16 recites “A computer program product comprising instructions” which is directed to software per se. As such, claim 16 does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 24 is rejected on the same rationale.
Claims 17-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 17-21 recite a method which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claim 24 recites a computer program product which is directed to non- statutory subject matter (please see above).
Step 2A Prong 1: claims 17 and 24 recite the following abstract ideas:
correlating the time of the input with the completion of the activity (the claim does not put any limit on how the correlation is performed. As such, this correlation, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the correlation can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of physical aid, like pen and paper. A person can acknowledge the time of an input and relate/correlate/match/note/connect when an activity is completed.
building a performance map from the sequence of activities and the times of completion (the claim does not put any limit on how the “building” is performed. As such, this “building”, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since building a performance map can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of physical aid, like pen and paper. A person can observe/note the completion time of each activity and then draw/sketch a map/chart to show when a user completes an activity (performance of said user).
Please note that the use of physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection IlI.B).
Step 2A Prong 2: claims 17 and 24 recite the following additional elements:
-collecting data for implementation of a sequence of activities performed by a user,
-accepting an input from the user device when an activity of the sequence of activities is completed,
-displaying the sequence of activities to the user via a user device
-computer, user device, display, computer program product
It is noted that “collecting data” and “accepting input” amount to gathering data for use in the claimed process which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g));
“displaying”, at best, recites displaying information (list/sequence of activities) on a display at a high level of generality (since there is no specific process is required for displaying), is insignificant extra solution activity as mere data outputting;
-“computer”, “user device”, “display”, and “computer program product” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the additional elements of claims 17 and 24, alone or in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 17 and 24 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application,
-additional element of “collecting data;” and “accepting input,” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as well as WURC activity similar to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
-additional element “displaying” recites displaying information on a display at a high level of generality (since there is no specific process is required for displaying), is WURC (see MPEP 2106.05(d) (iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115USPQ2d at 1092-93)).
-additional elements “computer”, “user device”, “display”, and “computer program product” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f))
These additional elements, alone and in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 17 and 24 are ineligible.
Under the same analysis, dependent claims 18, and 20-21 further limit the abstract idea, dependent claim 19 includes collecting input at a high level of generality. As such claims 18-21 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, onsale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klatt et al (US 20220164528 A1, hereinafter “Klatt”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16, Klatt teaches method, system, and computer program product for creating an interactive electronic document file (Fig. 5). Klatt further teaches
selecting a document having a description of a sequence of activities (Klatt shows an original electronic document which includes steps to change oil; Fig. 2, para 0006, 0027); converting the document into an electronic file format that allows application of an augmentation (the original electronic document showed in Fig. 2 was converted to an enhanced electronic documents; Fig. 3, para 0007, 0021, 0028),
selecting at least one augmentation for the sequence of activities (analyzing data and selecting augmentation; enhanced electronic document with augmentation) (Fig. 6-7, para 0049-0053, 0056-0057).
and applying the selected augmentation to the converted document in the electronic file format (Fig. 6-7, para 0049-0053, 0056-0057).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Klatt further teaches wherein the augmentation is one of an addition to enhance the communication of the information in the converted document, a logical element to guide users to appropriate sections of the converted document, or a data collection element to enable digital data capture (para 0007, 0021, 0028, 0035-0039, Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Klatt further teaches wherein the augmentation is one of the group of data entry; media display; attached documents; mixed or augmented reality experiences; troubleshooting elements; remote video assistance; remote audio assistance; step name with metadata; quizzes/tests; checklists; table entry; procedure metadata; picker interfaces; bar code or QR scanner; media capture; table displays; picker tables; signature entry; jump; loops to other sections; branches to other sections; escalation; index sections; embedded procedures; biometric; image recognition; and training content ((para 0007, 0021, 0028, 0035-0039, Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Klatt further teaches further comprising: selecting a plurality of converted documents that have similar characteristics to the converted document; and automatically selecting and applying the at least one augmentation to the plurality of converted documents (para 0050, Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Klatt further teaches further comprising displaying an authoring interface showing the converted document and a menu allowing selection of the at least one augmentation from a plurality of different augmentations (menu 1102 includes menu options that can be selected to be included, para 0059, Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Klatt further teaches further comprising network interface communicatively sending the converted document with the augmentation to a user device (para 0045-0046, 0065-0066, 0074-0075, Fig. 5, 13-15).
Regarding claims 7 and 14-15, Klatt teaches further comprising applying a rule to determine whether the selected augmentation is activated on a display of the user device and wherein the augmentation accepts input data from a worker associated with the user device, and wherein the input data is sent to a cloud client application in communication with the user device. (para 0050-0054, 0065-0066, Fig. 6-8, 13-14).
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.
Claims 17-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klatt in view of Dahod et al (US 20110246340 A1, hereinafter “Dahod”).
Regarding claims 17 and 24, Klatt teaches a method and a medium for collecting data for implementation of a sequence of activities performed by a user (Fig. 4). Klatt further teaches displaying the sequence of activities to the user via a user device (see Fig. 4); accepting an input from the user device when an activity of the sequence of activities is completed (para 0033, 0036); correlating the time of the input with the completion of the activity (para 0036). Klatt further teaches an interface for task assignment (Fig 13-14, para 0065) but does not explicitly teach building a performance map from the sequence of activities and the times of completion for the user. Dahod teaches an interface that displays performance map/chart that recorded completed activity by user (Fig. 3, para 0028-0039). Both Klatt and Dahod teachings are directed to executing/tracking sequences of activities/tasks. It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to include Dahod’s teaching in Klatt’s interface. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to enable Klatt’s task assignment interface to include task completion time for betting tracking performance/operation of users and system.
Regarding claim 18, Klatt in view of Dahod teaches wherein the sequence of activities includes an augmentation allowing a user to input when the activity of the sequence is completed (Klatt, para 0033-0036).
Regarding claim 19, Klatt in view of Dahod teaches collecting an input of a visible screen coordinate associated with the time of the input from the user device (Klatt, Fig. 4, para 0033-0036).
Regarding claim 20, Klatt in view of Dahod teaches wherein the user is one of a plurality of users, and wherein the performance map is built on collection of the completion of the sequence of activities and the times of completion for the plurality of users (Klatt, para 0033-0036, Fig. 4) (Dahod, para 0028-0029, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Klatt in view of Dahod teaches, wherein the performance map shows the performance of the user relative to the performances of the plurality of users and wherein the sequence of activities is one of a plurality of sequence of activities, and wherein the performance map is built on collection of the completion of sequences of activities and the times of completion for the plurality of sequence of activities and wherein the performance map shows the performance of the sequence of activities relative to the performances of the plurality of sequences of activities (Klatt, para 0033-0036, Fig. 4) (Dahod, para 0028-0029, Fig. 3).
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cronin (US 20200311334 A1) teaches converting workflow document to an interactive procedure platform having the capability of incorporating enriching content which relates to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kieu Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-4057. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday (6:30am - 4:30pm).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights