DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed October 15, 2024. Currently, claims 1–7 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 11, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. More particularly, Applicant did not submit copies of non-patent literature documents 5–7. With respect to non-patent literature document 5, Applicant listed the International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed on July 12, 2027; however, Applicant submitted an International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed on July 10, 2027. With respect to non-patent literature documents 6–7, which are duplicate entries, Applicant listed the 19 page International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed on March 14, 2019; however, Applicant submitted a 29 page International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed on March 14, 2019. The documents have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the claims include numerous instances of inconsistent claim terminology. For example, claim 1 recites “a request for … information” in the element reciting “receiving an identity” and “retrieving the information from the storage device”. However, claim 1 then recites “sending the retrieved requested information”. Examiner submits that the referenced “information” is the same information in each element, such that renaming the “information” as “retrieved requested information” creates potential confusion in the claim. Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “sending the
Claim 1 further recites “a requesting portable personal computing device” in the element for “receiving an identity” and subsequently recites “the portable personal computing device” in the elements for “sending” and “receiving an uploaded input” and “the requesting portable personal computing device” in the element for “storing”. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “a
Claim 2 recites “receiving … a selection of one of the document templates” and “retrieving … according to the received selection of the document templates”. In view of the inconsistent claim language identified above, Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “retrieving … according to the one of the document templates” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 3 recites “displaying to the first user on the display a plurality of documents … from which a selection of one of the documents can be made by the first user.” In view of the inconsistent claim language identified above, Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “displaying to the first user on the display a plurality of documents … from which a selection of one of the plurality of documents can be made by the first user” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 3 further recites “the first information send to the first user and the new information” in the element reciting “receiving second information”. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “the first information send to the first user and the new information” in order to address the inadvertent typographical error.
Claim 4 recites “receiving a list of document templates” and “displaying the received list of document templates”. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “displaying the
Claim 7 recites “when the input is uploaded” and “the uploaded input”. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the field” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “when performing a job remotely
Claim 1 further recites “the download of information” and “the plurality of portable personal computing devices” in the element for “receiving an identity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “a request for [[the]] a download of information” and “[[the]] a plurality of portable personal computing devices” in the element for “receiving an identity”.
Claim 1 recites “the user relation” in the element reciting “receiving an uploaded input”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “the uploaded input representing completion of the selected document by the user in relation to the job to be performed”.
Claim 1 recites “the stored information” in the element reciting “determining whether content”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] stored information”.
In view of the above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, inherits the deficiencies described above. As a result, claim 2 is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “document templates” in the element for “retrieving”. However, claim 2 previously recites “a list of document templates” and “a selection of one of the document templates”. As a result, the scope of claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of “document templates” in the element for “retrieving” to reference the previous recitations or intends to introduce a second, different “document templates”.
For purposes of examination, an in view of the objection above, claim 2 is interpreted as reciting “retrieving the one of the document templates … according to the one of the document templates” and “sending the one of the document templates”.
Claim 3 recites “the field” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “when performing a job remotely to recite “suitable to send to other users
Claim 3 further recites “the selected job” in the element reciting “displaying to the first user”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the objection raised above, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “displaying to the first user on the display a plurality of documents associated with [[the]] a selected job from which a selection of one of the plurality of documents can be made by the first user”.
Claim 3 recites “the selected document” in the element reciting “sending a request for information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “the information being identified by the selection
Claim 3 recites “the displayed information” in the element reciting “displaying the first information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “the first
Claim 3 recites “an input as a selection” in the element reciting “receiving from the first user, via the input device, an input as a selection”. However, claim 3 previously recites “receiving an input via an input device”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation of “an input” to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “input”.
Claim 3 further recites “the displayed items” in the element reciting “receiving from the first user, via the input device, an input as a selection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “receiving from the first user, via the input device,
Claim 3 recites “another one of the portable personal computing device” in the element reciting “receiving second information”. However, claim 3 previously recites “a portable personal computing device” in the element reciting “displaying to a first user”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of “another one of the portable personal computing device” to reference the previously recited personal computing device or intends to introduce a second, different “portable personal computing device”.
Claim 3 further recites “a request for information” and “the information” in the element reciting “receiving second information”. However, claim 3 previously recites “sending a request for information from a server via a communication network, the information being identified by the selected document”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the “information” in the element reciting “receiving second information” to reference the previous instances of “information” or intends to introduce second, different “information”.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “receiving second information from the server at another one of the portable personal computing device when a second user sends a second request for the information from the server, the information being identified by a document selected by the second user”.
Claim 3 recites “items” in the element reciting “displaying the second information”. However, claim 3 previously recites “items” in the element reciting “displaying the first information”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation of “items” to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce second, different “items”.
Claim 3 further recites “the displayed information” in the element reciting “displaying the second information”. As noted above, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the displayed information” in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “displaying the second information received from the server on the display device in a manner that allows for selection of second items from the second information”.
Claim 3 recites “an input as a selection” in the element reciting “receiving from the second user an input as a selection”. However, as noted above, claim 3 previously recites “receiving an input via an input device” and “receiving from the first user … an input as a selection of one or more of the displayed items”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the third recitation of “an input” to reference the first recitations or intends to introduce a different “input”.
Finally, claim 3 recites “the second displayed items” in the element reciting “receiving from the second user an input as a selection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the interpretations presented above, the claim is interpreted as reciting “receiving from the second user
In view of the above, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4–7, which depend from claim 3, inherits the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 4–7 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the user” in the elements for “receiving from the user” and “wherein the document template selected”. Although claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, previously recites “a first user” and “a second user”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the user” in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as reciting “receiving from [[the]] a user a selected one of the document templates”.
Claim 4 further recites “the selected document templates” in the element reciting “sending”, “the retrieved document templates” in the element reciting “receiving from the server”, and “the document template selected”, “the labels”, “the fields”, and “the document to be completed” in the recited “wherein” clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as reciting “sending to the server the one of the document templates”, “receiving from the server the one of the document templates”, and “wherein [[the]] a document template a document to be completed”.
Claim 5 recites “the document template” in lines 1 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “the document
Claim 5 further recites “the user” in line 4. However, claim 5 previously recites “a user with a field supervisor or manager role” and “a user with a field worker role”. Further, claim 3, from which claim 5 depends, previously recites “a first user” and “a second user”. As a result, the scope of claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the recitation of “the user” is intended to reference the first user, the second user, the user having a field supervisor or manager role, or the user having a field worker role.
Claim 5 recites “tasks, risks and controls” in line 5. However, claim 5 previously recites “tasks, risks and controls” in lines 3–4. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitations to reference the first recitations or intends to introduce second, different elements.
Finally, claim 5 recites “the downloaded information” in lines 5–6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “wherein the document template comprises fields for inputting: method steps, tasks, risks and controls to be assessed by the user with the field worker role prior to commencement of the job, and the input comprises entering the method steps, the tasks, the risks and the controls using [[the]] downloaded information.”
Claim 6 recites “the user” in lines 1–3. As noted above, claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, previously recites “a user with a field supervisor or manager role” and “a user with a field worker role”. Further, claim 3, from which claim 6 depends, previously recites “a first user” and “a second user”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for each recitation of “the user” to reference the first user, the second user, the user having a field supervisor or manager role, or the user having a field worker role.
Claim 6 further recites “the form” and “the field supervisor or manager” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “wherein the method further comprises tracking whether the user with the field worker role has completed [[the]] a form and flags to the user with the field supervisor or manager role and that the user with the field worker role has yet to complete the form or tracks that the user with the field worker role has not completed the form, until the user with the field worker role has completed the form.”
Claim 7 recites “the current location and time” in lines 4–5 and “the record” in lines 5–6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the objections raised above, claim 7 is interpreted as reciting “when the input is uploaded to the server and to upload to the server the current location and a current time for the server to store the current location and [[a]] the current time in [[the]] a record in association with the input.”
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–2 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “receiving an identity of a user along with a request for the download of information associated with a selected document from one of the plurality of portable personal computing devices remotely located in the field”; “receiving an uploaded input, the uploaded input representing completion of the selected document by the user relation to the job to be performed”; “determining whether content of the uploaded input entered by the user is already in the information”; and “updating the information to include new information in the uploaded input that is not already in the information so that when there is a subsequent request for the information the new information is provided to other users to complete a subsequent risk related document.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for completing risk documents in the field. Further, the element for “determining” recites mental processes because the element embodies observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 2 further describes the process for completing risk documents in the field and further recites certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claim 2 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a storage device, a server, a portable personal computing device, and steps for “storing”, “retrieving”, “sending”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool for performing the recited abstract idea, and the steps for “storing” , “retrieving”, “sending” are insignificant extrasolution activities to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 2 does not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claim from which claim 2 depends. As a result, claim 2 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a storage device, a server, a portable personal computing device, and steps for “storing”, “retrieving”, “sending”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool for performing the recited abstract idea, and the steps for “storing” , “retrieving”, “sending” are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which identifies “receiving or transmitting data” and “storing and retrieving information” as conventional computer functions. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claim 2 does not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claim from which claim 2 depends. As a result, claim 2 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neagu et al. (U.S. 2014/0052487) in view of SAVAGE et al. (U.S. 2015/0127607).
Claim 1: Neagu discloses a computer implemented method of completion of respective risk related documents used when performing a job in the field by each of a plurality of users (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 20, wherein a computer facilitates completion of documents by remote workers, and wherein the term “risk” is afforded limited patentable weight as a label that does not patentably limit the recited documents), said method comprising:
storing in a storage device of a server information associated with a risk related document for users in the field to complete when making a risk assessment of the job (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 15, in view of paragraphs 3 and 20, wherein project forms, which include page documents for performing subtasks, are stored in a server storage device);
receiving an identity of a user of a requesting portable personal computing device along with a request for the download of information associated with a selected document from one of the plurality of portable personal computing devices remotely located in the field (See FIG. 7 and paragraph 31, in view of paragraphs 17–18, wherein identifiers associated with the worker are used in combination with document requests to retrieve documents that are accessible to a given user, and wherein information submitted by a given user is stored such that the information is accessible to secondary users; see also FIG. 1 and paragraph 15, wherein each worker interacts with the system using a mobile device);
retrieving the information from the storage device in response to the request (See FIG. 7 and paragraph 31, in view of paragraphs 17–18, wherein identifiers associated with the worker are used in combination with document requests to retrieve documents that are accessible to a given user, and wherein information submitted by a given user is stored such that the information is accessible to secondary users);
sending the retrieved requested information to the portable personal computing device (See FIG. 7 and paragraph 31, in view of paragraphs 17–18, wherein identifiers associated with the worker are used in combination with document requests to retrieve documents that are accessible to a given user, and wherein information submitted by a given user is stored such that the information is accessible to secondary users);
receiving an uploaded input from the portable personal computing device, the uploaded input representing completion of the selected document by the user relation to the job to be performed (See paragraphs 17–18, wherein the worker uploads task information indicating completion of the task); and
storing the uploaded input in relation to the selected document (See paragraphs 17–18, wherein the worker uploads task information indicating completion of the task, and wherein the uploaded information is stored). Neagu does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Savage discloses storing the uploaded input in relation to the selected document and the identity of the user of the computing device (See paragraph 133, wherein activity history tracks all file activity, including editing time and identity);
determining whether content of the uploaded input entered by the user is already in the stored information (See paragraph 42, wherein only changed data blocks are updated; see also paragraphs 132 and 141); and
updating the stored information to include new information in the uploaded input that is not already in the stored information so that when there is a subsequent request for the information the new information is provided to other users to complete a document (See paragraph 42, wherein only changed data blocks are updated; see also paragraphs 132 and 141).
Neagu discloses a system directed to managing dispatch forms for mobile workers. Savage discloses a system directed to managing documents in a remote worker environment. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing documents associated with remote employees. The technique of identifying and storing new content is applicable to the system of Neagu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing documents associated with remote employees.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Savage would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Savage to the teachings of Neagu would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate remote employee document management into similar systems. Further, applying the identification and storage of new content to Neagu would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved document management.
Claim 3: Neagu discloses a computer implemented method of each of a plurality of users to complete respective risk related documents used when performing a job in the field (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 20, wherein a computer facilitates completion of documents by remote workers, and wherein the term “risk” is afforded limited patentable weight as a label that does not patentably limit the recited documents), said method comprising:
displaying to a first user of a portable personal computing device on a display device of the portable personal computing device a list of jobs the first user is allocated to (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 3 and 20, wherein forms, which define an overall project task, are displayed to the user for selection; see also paragraph 16, wherein each mobile device may have multiple forms);
receiving an input via an input device of the portable personal computing device as a selection of one of the jobs (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 3 and 20, wherein the user selects a given form from the plurality of forms, and wherein each form defines an overall project task; see also paragraph 16, wherein each mobile device may have multiple forms);
displaying to the first user on the display a plurality of documents associated with the selected job from which a selection of one of the documents can be made by the first user (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are displayed to the user for selection);
receiving a selection of a document from the first user via the input device (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are selected by the user);
sending a request for information from a server via a communication network, the information being identified by the selected document (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein, upon selection of a given job page, a request is submitted);
receiving first information from the server, via the communications network (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is received, including any information on the job page; see also FIG. 2D–E and paragraph 17–18, wherein the received information includes page field information and information previously submitted by other workers);
displaying the first information received from the server on the display device in a manner that allows for selection of items from the displayed information (See FIG. 2D–E and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is displayed; see also FIG. 2D–E and paragraph 17–18, wherein the received information includes page field information and implicitly includes information previously submitted by other workers);
receiving from the first user, via the input device, an input as a selection of one or more of the displayed items (See FIG. 2D–E and paragraph 21, wherein the user selects fields of the displayed page form);
receiving from the first user an input of new information, via the input device, the new information being of a type that is suitable to send to other users in the field (See paragraphs 17–18, wherein the worker uploads task information into the form page using the mobile device);
sending the new information to the server, via the communication network (See paragraphs 17–18, wherein the worker uploads task information indicating completion of the task, and wherein the uploaded information is stored);
receiving second information from the server at another one of the portable personal computing device when a second user sends a request for information from the server, the information being identified by a document selected by the second user (See FIG. 2D–E and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is displayed in response to a selection by a subsequent user, and wherein the information is displayed for workers based on an associated identity),
displaying the second information received from the server on the display device in a manner that allows for selection of items from the displayed information (See FIG. 2D–E and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is displayed, and wherein the information is displayed for workers based on an associated identity);
receiving from the second user an input as a selection of one or more of the second displayed items (See FIG. 2D–E and paragraph 21, wherein the user selects fields of the displayed page form). Although Neagu implicitly discloses the second information comprising the first information and the new information (See paragraphs 17–18, wherein a subsequent co-worker may check out an updated file), Neagu does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Savage discloses wherein the second information comprises the first information send to the first user and the new information (See paragraphs 132 and 141, wherein documents are edited, updated and accessed by multiple users; see also paragraph 42);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Savage would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 5: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that claim 5, which is drawn to a method, does not include any method steps and further notes that the recited fields and ability to be allocated do not patentably limit any of the recited steps. The elements have been addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Neagu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the document template is able to be allocated by a user with a field supervisor or manager role to a user with a field worker role for completion; and wherein the document template comprises fields for inputting: method steps, tasks, risks and controls to be assessed by the user prior to commencement of the job, and the input comprises entering the method steps, tasks, risks and controls using the downloaded information (See paragraph 21, in view of paragraph 16, wherein users may assign document tasks to other users, and wherein manager users are disclosed; see also FIG. 2D–E, wherein document tasks include fields for inputting).
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neagu et al. (U.S. 2014/0052487) in view of SAVAGE et al. (U.S. 2015/0127607), and in further view of Fredell et al. (U.S. 6,678,698).
Claim 2: As disclosed above, Neagu and Savage disclose the elements of independent claim 1.
Neagu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing a list of documents associated with a task or tasks from the server to the portable personal computer device (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are displayed to the user for selection; see also FIG. 1);
receiving at the server a selection of one of the documents from the portable personal computer devices (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are selected by the user; see also FIG. 1);
retrieving documents from the storage device according to the received selection of the documents (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is retrieved, including any information on the job page); and
sending the retrieved documents from the server to the portable personal computer device (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is received, including any information on the job page). Neagu and Savage do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Fredell discloses a document template (See col. 15, ll. 47–48 and col. 16, ll. 15–18, wherein document templates are disclosed).
As disclosed above, Neagu discloses a system directed to managing dispatch forms for mobile workers, and Savage discloses a system directed to managing documents in a remote worker environment. Fredell discloses a system directed to managing distributed information used in projects. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing information associated with distributed employees. The technique of utilizing document templates is applicable to the systems of Neagu and Savage as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing information associated with remote employees.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fredell would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Fredell to the teachings of Neagu and Savage would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate remote employee information management into similar systems. Further, applying document templates to Neagu and Savage would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved information management.
Claim 4: Neagu discloses the method according to claim 3, further comprising:
receiving a list of documents associated with a task or tasks from the server, via the communications network (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are displayed to the user for selection; see also FIG. 1);
displaying the received list of documents on the display device in a manner that allows for selection of one of the documents (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are displayed to the user for selection; see also FIG. 1);
receiving from the user a selected one of the documents, via the input device (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are selected by the user; see also FIG. 1);
sending to the server the selected documents (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is retrieved, including any information on the job page); and
receiving from the server the retrieved documents (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is retrieved, including any information on the job page),
wherein the document selected includes the labels of the fields in the document to be completed by the user entering the information into the document (See FIG. 2D–E). Neagu and Savage do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Fredell discloses document templates (See col. 15, ll. 47–48 and col. 16, ll. 15–18, wherein document templates are disclosed); and
wherein the document template selected preselects the information in the document to be completed by the user entering the information into the document (See col. 15, ll. 47–48, wherein task templates preselect for industry and function, and col. 16, ll. 15–18, wherein checklist items are preselected according to task).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fredell would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 6: Neagu and Savage do not expressly disclose the elements of claim 6.
Fredell discloses wherein the method further comprises tracking whether the user has completed the form and flags to the field supervisor or manager and that the user has yet to complete the form or tracks that the user has not completed the form, until the user has completed the form (See col. 15, ll. 45–65, wherein the system allows a project manager to monitor tasks and task status, and wherein managers are notified of overdue tasks).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fredell would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neagu et al. (U.S. 2014/0052487) in view of SAVAGE et al. (U.S. 2015/0127607), and in further view of Lichti (U.S. 2015/0066557).
Claim 7: As disclosed above, Neagu and Savage disclose the elements of independent claim 3. Although Neagu discloses a portable personal computing device (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 15), Neagu does not disclose the remaining elements of claim 7.
Savage discloses further comprising: accessing a GPS unit of the personal computing device to determine a current location of the personal computing device (See paragraph 149, wherein GPS asset tracking is disclosed with respect to mobile devices) and to upload to the server the current time for the server to store the current time in the record in association with the uploaded input (See paragraph 133, wherein activity history tracks all file history, including when file changes are made).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Savage would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Neagu and Savage do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Lichti discloses accessing a GPS unit of the portable personal computing device to determine a current location of the portable personal computing device when the task is completed and to upload to the server the current location and current time for the server to store the current location and a current time in the record in association with task (See paragraph 79, in view of paragraph 29, wherein worker movements are logged with respect to task completion time and location; see also FIG. 7 and paragraphs 48–49, 51–52, and 69).
As disclosed above, Neagu discloses a system directed to managing dispatch forms for mobile workers, and Savage discloses a system directed to managing documents in a remote worker environment. Lichti discloses a system directed to managing tasks with respect to mobile resources. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing information associated with distributed employees. The technique of logging time and location is applicable to the systems of Neagu and Savage as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing information associated with remote employees.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lichti would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lichti to the teachings of Neagu and Savage would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate remote employee information management into similar systems. Further, applying time and location considerations to Neagu and Savage would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved information management.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nixon et al. (U.S. 2014/0282257) discloses a system directed to generating and monitoring progress of a work item checklist for performing work items in the field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623