DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is responsive to amendments filed 11/17/2025.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 have been amended, claims 2-3 have been canceled, and claims 22-24 have been newly added. Claims 1 and 4-24 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended independent claim 1 to include the limitations from now canceled claims 2-3 as well as the following new limitation: “making the particular version of the document in electronic form available for viewing on a display screen of the smart device”. Applicant argued that “DOUGHERTY does not disclose or suggest making available at least a version of a particular construction drawing, as amended in claim 1. More specifically, DOUGHERTY does not disclose or suggest “capturing an image of a non-alphanumeric code from a document that includes substantive information that is subject to change over time with a smart device,…determining…whether or not the document is [a] particular version of the document, receiving, at the smart device, the particular version of the document in electronic form, in response to a computer determination that the version of the document…is not the particular version of the document; and making the particular version of the document in electronic form available for viewing on a display screen of the smart device”, as recited in claim 1.
The examiner agrees that DOUGHERTY does not teach the amended limitation, “making the particular version of the document in electronic form available for viewing on a display screen of the smart device”. However, DOUGHERTY does teach making the particular version of the document available in electronic form since an embodiment includes prompting the user to download the correct document. With this in mind, upon further search and consideration, a new rejection has been made in view of HAMILTON, II et al, US 2018/0314743 as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 22 and 24 is 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 22 recites the limitation "the initial version" in lines 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the initial version” has simply been interpreted as “an initial version”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the computer memory" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the computer memory” has simply been interpreted as “computer memory”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the drawing repository" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the drawing repository” has been interpreted as “a drawing repository”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOUGHERTY et al, US 8,797,603 in view of HAMILTON, II et al, US 2018/0314743.
Re claim 1:
DOUGHERTY teaches a computer-based method comprising:
Capturing an image of a non-alphanumeric code (QR code 80) from a document (25) that includes substantive information that is subject to change over time with a smart device (60), wherein the non-alphanumeric code includes a document identifier that identifies the document and a version of the document, and a URL for a remote network location where information about the document and versions thereof, if any, is stored (column 7, lines 44-51; column 9, lines 27-47; Figure 5);
Initiating a request, from the smart device, to check at the remote network location defined by the URL whether the version of the document whose non-alphanumeric code was read by a code reader is a particular version of the document (column 9, lines 49-65);
Receiving a response from a server at the remote network location (column 10, lines 11-20); and
Producing a notification on a display screen of the smart device that indicates whether or not the document whose non-alphanumeric code was captured in the image is the particular version of the document (column 10, lines 10-31);
Determining, in response to the request and based on the information about the document and versions thereof stored at the remote network location defined by the URL, whether or not the document whose non-alphanumeric code was read by the code reader is the particular version of the document (column 10, lines 10-31);
Receiving, at the smart device, the particular version of the document in electronic form, in response to a computer determination that the version of the document whose non-alphanumeric code was read by the code reader is not the particular version of the document (i.e., user is prompted to download the correct version of the document (column 10, lines 10-31)).
DOUGHERTY does not teach making the particular version of the document in electronic form available for viewing on a display screen of the smart device.
HAMILTON teaches a method for accessing a latest version of documentation for a device, wherein a latest version of a document is downloaded from a server (130) to a user mobile device (120) and is made available for viewing on a display screen of the user mobile device [0003] [0040]-[0043] [0049] [0062] [Figures 1 and 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of HAMILTON in the method of DOUGHERTY such that the particular version of the document is made viewable on a display screen of the smart device. Making documents viewable on a display screen after downloading the document from a remote location is merely a common alternative to printing the document. Since DOUGHERTY teaches prompting the user to download the correct version of the document, making the correct version viewable on the smart device enables the user to view the document immediately upon download.
Re claim 4:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
Storing, at the remote network location defined by the URL, information about the document and versions thereof, if any, wherein the information about the document and versions thereof, if any, comprises:
A drawing repository that contains at least an initial version of the document (column 3, lines 65-67; column 4, lines 1-10; column 11, lines 1-11; Figure 3); and
A lookup table that contains an array or matrix of metadata about at least an initial drawing stored in computer memory in a manner that is searchable (column 7, lines 52-67; column 8, lines 1-57; column 11, lines 1-11; Figure 3).
Re claim 5:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 4, wherein the information about the document and versions thereof, if any, comprises:
A drawings repository that contains the initial version of the document and one or more revisions of the document (column 3, lines 65-67; column 4, lines 1-10; column 11, lines 1-11; Figure 3); and
A lookup table that contains an array or matrix of metadata about the initial version of the document and the one or more revisions of the document stored in computer memory in a manner that is searchable, stored in computer memory (column 7, lines 52-67; column 8, lines 1-57; Figure 3).
Re claim 6:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 4 further comprising:
Populating the drawings repository with at least the initial version of the document and populating the lookup table with the metadata about at least the initial version of the document from one or more computer workstations prior to performing the steps in claim 1 (column 5, lines 1-48; column 11, lines 1-11; Figures 3-4).
Re claim 7:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON teaches the computer-based method of claim 6 further comprising:
Applying a unique non-alphanumeric code to each respective version of the document created at one or more of the computer workstations (column 5, lines 49-57; column 9, lines 36-42).
Re claim 8:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 7 further comprising:
Generating each unique non-alphanumeric code with a QR code generator (column 5, lines 49-57; column 9, lines 36-39).
Re claim 9:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 8, wherein generating each unique QR code comprises:
Inputting to the QR code generator: a document identifier that identifies a corresponding one of the documents and a version represented by that document, and a URL for a remote network location where information about that document and versions thereof, if any, is to be stored (column 9, lines 30-39).
Re claim 10:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the document with the non-alphanumeric code is a real-world physical substrate (i.e., printed paper document 25 (column 6, lines 1-8; column 9, lines 36-42)).
Re claim 15:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the non-alphanumeric code is a QR code (column 9, lines 36-42).
Re claim 16:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the document is a rasterized 2D drawing or a geographic information systems (GIS) map and related data files (Figure 5).
Re claim 17:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the image is captured with a camera integrated into the smart device (column 10, lines 59-65).
Re claim 18:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising reading the non-alphanumeric code from the document with a code reader integrated into the smart device (column 9, lines 43-48).
Re claim 19:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 18, wherein the document identifier identifies the document and the version of the document, and the URL for the remote network location where information about the document and versions thereof, if any, is stored (column 9, lines 27-35).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOUGHERTY et al, US 8,797,603 in view of, HAMILTON, II et al, US 2018/0314743, as applied in claim 10, and further in view of FOWLER et al, US 2021/0382957.
Re claim 11:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 10, wherein reading the non-alphanumeric code from the document comprises directing a camera of the smart device to focus on the non-alphanumeric code on the real-world physical substrate and navigate to the remote network location across a network (column 9, lines 43-65).
DOUGHERTY does not explicitly teach activating a web browser in the smart device to navigate to the remote network location.
FOWLER teaches reading a QR code with a camera of a smart device and activating a web browser in the smart device to navigate to the remote network location across a network [0053] [0059] [0060] [0063] [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the method of DOUGHERTY to activate a web browser in the smart device to navigate to the remote network location, as taught in FOWLER. Browser applications are typically used by smart devices to facilitate communication with one or more network locations (FOWLER [0053]).
Re claim 14:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the smart device comprises:
A housing (Figure 4);
A camera coupled to the housing (column 3, lines 57-58; column 6, lines 9-15; figure 4);
A display screen (Figure 4); and
A reader for the non-alphanumeric code (column 5, lines 54-65; Figure 4).
DOUGHERTY does not explicitly teach the smart device comprises a web browser.
FOWLER teaches a smart device comprising a housing, camera coupled to the housing, display screen, reader for non-alphanumeric codes, and a web browser [0053] [Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the method of DOUGHERTY for the smart device to further comprise a web browser, as taught in FOWLER. Browser applications are typically used by smart devices to facilitate communication with one or more network locations (FOWLER [0053]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOUGHERTY et al, US 8,797,603 in view of HAMILTON, II et al, US 2018/0314743, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of SINHA et al, US 2020/0151702.
Re claims 12-13:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, but does not teach the document with the non-alphanumeric code is in an electronic form, wherein reading the non-alphanumeric code from the document comprises causing the non-alphanumeric code on the document to appear on the display screen of the smart device and activating a web browser in the smart device to navigate to the remote network location across a network.
SINHA teaches a document (612) in an electronic form [0113] [Figure 6A], wherein reading the non-alphanumeric code from the document comprises causing the non-alphanumeric code on the document to appear on the display screen of the smart device and activating a web browser in the smart device to navigate to a remote network location across a network [0093] [0113]-[0119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of SINHA in the method of DOUGHERTY such that the document with the non-alphanumeric code is in an electronic form and reading the non-alphanumeric code from the document causes the non-alphanumeric code to appear on the display screen of the smart device and activate a web browser in the smart device to navigate to the remote network. Such incorporation advantageously provides for a paperless document option where users can scan and read non-alphanumeric codes from the user device without use of an external camera (SINHA [0005]). Further, browser applications are typically used by smart devices to facilitate communication with one or more network locations (FOWLER [0053]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOUGHERTY et al, US 8,797,603 in view of HAMILTON, II et al, US 2018/0314743, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of in view of HARPER et al, US 11,593,580.
Re claim 20:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, but does not teach reading the non-alphanumeric code from the document with a code reader at the remote network location.
HARPER teaches a method comprising capturing, by a smartphone, an image of a barcode (10) from a document and reading the barcode from the document with a code reader at a remote network location (column 10, lines 33-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the method of DOUGHERTY to include reading the non-alphanumeric code from the document with a code reader at the remote network location, as taught in HARPER. Reading barcodes with a code reader at a remote network location is a common alternative to reading and processing barcodes at a local barcode capturing device. Remote barcode reading services provide barcode analysis for user devices that do not have the capability of locally processing the barcode.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOUGHERTY et al, US 8,797,603 in view of HAMILTON, II et al, US 2018/0314743, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of PIERCE et al, US 2006/0282761.
Re claim 21:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, but does not teach upon receipt of the request at the remote network location, checking whether the document is a single self-contained document or part of a packet of documents to be interpreted concurrently by an originator of the request.
PIERCE teaches a computer-based method comprising checking whether a document (11) is a single self-contained document or part of a set of documents to be interpreted concurrently by a user [0019] [Figure 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of PIERCE in the method of DOUGHERTY such that a check is performed to determine whether the document is a single self-contained document or part of a packet of documents to be interpreted concurrently by an originator of the request. Such incorporation would be for the purpose of informing users about potential missing documents from a set of documents [0019] [Figure 5].
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOUGHERTY et al, US 8,797,603 in view of HAMILTON, II et al, US 2018/0314743, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of GILL et al, US 2011/0295936.
Re claim 22:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising:
Storing, at the remote network location defined by the URL, information about the document and versions thereof, if any (column 9, lines 27-35).
DOUGHERTY does not explicitly teach the information about the document and versions thereof comprises storing a drawings repository that contains the initial version of the document and one or more revisions of the document, and storing a lookup table that contains an array or matrix of metadata about the initial version of the document and the one or more revisions of the document stored in the computer memory in a manner that is searchable, wherein each document in the drawings repository is stored in logical association with a corresponding file name that identifies a subject matter of that particular document, revision information of that particular document, and a revision date for that particular document.
GILL teaches a web server providing access to documents having multiple versions, wherein information about the documents and versions thereof comprises storing a document repository (180) that contains the initial version of the document and one or more revisions of the document [0029], and storing a lookup table that contains an array or matrix of metadata about the initial version of the document and the one or more revisions of the document stored in the computer memory in a manner that is searchable, wherein each document in the drawings repository is stored in logical association with a corresponding file name that identifies a subject matter of that particular document, revision information of that particular document, and a revision date for that particular document [0054]-[0056] [0065] [0067] [0070]-[0076] [Figures 3B and 4B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of GILL in the method of DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, such that a document repository containing the initial version and one or more revisions of the document is provisioned, the repository including a lookup table. Document repositories and lookup tables are common data structures used in the art to logically store and organize data electronically. Further incorporating the document repository and lookup table, as in GILL, in the method of DOUGHERTY would advantageously provide logical storage and lookup of document versions to facilitate provisioning users with the correct version of the particular document when prompted to download the correct version.
Re claim 23:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, as detailed above.
DOUGHERTY teaches a URL that can be used to download the most current version of the document is transmitted to the central document management server from a provider document management server (column 8, lines 65-67; column 9, lines 1-4). When the version of the document whose non-alphanumeric code was reader by the code reader is not a latest version of the document, the user may be given the option to download the correct version (column 9, lines 14-16, 20-22; column 10, lines 28-45).
DOUGHERTY does not teach displaying, at a display screen of the smart device, a user-selectable hyperlink, the selection of which by the user causes a website associated with the hyperlink to provide access to the latest version of the document.
GILL teaches a web server providing access to documents having multiple versions, wherein a user of a client system is presented with user-selectable hyperlinks, the selection of a hyperlink causes a website associated with the hyperlink to provide access to a particular version of a document, which may be the latest version of the document available [0020] [0072] [0080] [0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of GILL in the method of DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, such that a user-selectable hyperlink is displayed on a display of the smart device for selection by the user to cause a website associated with the hyperlink to provide access to the latest version of the document. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize use of user-selectable hyperlinks as a common, well-known method of provisioning users with the ability to download documents from a remote location. Since DOUGHERTY teaches a step of prompting the user to download the correct version of the document, modifying DOUGHERTY to further incorporate a user-selectable hyperlink would provide a common means of facilitating the download of the correct version to the user smart device.
Re claim 24:
DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein capturing the image of the non-alphanumeric code from the document comprises taking a photograph of a paper version of the document at a worksite associated with the substantive information on the document, using a camera of the smart device (column 9, lines 43-48).
DOUGHERTY does not explicitly teach a drawing depository stored at a remote network location accessible by the smart device via a network.
GILL teaches a document repository (180) stored at a remote network location accessible by client devices via a network [0029]-[0031] [Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of GILL in the method of DOUGHERTY, in view of HAMILTON, such that a drawing depository stored at a remote network location accessibly by the smart device via a network is provided for the purpose of facilitating the download of the correct version of the document to the smart device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A GUDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7607. If the Examiner cannot be reached by telephone, she can be reached through the following e-mail address: laura.gudorf@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:00-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and e-mail are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Lee can be reached on (571)272-2398. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LAURA A GUDORF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876