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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Applicant’s independent claim 1 recite steps that are executed “in response to” “the electronic device” inventory information is the same as the device tracking database and also steps that are executed “in response to” “the electronic device” having a mismatch between inventory information and the device tracking database. These steps which appear to operate on the same “the electronic device” appear to be mutually exclusive and cannot in conjunction with the same “the electronic device”. Clarification is needed. Claims 2-14 are rejected for the same reason.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1,16 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites the abstract idea of managing inventory which is a mental process. Other than reciting devices, server, module, database nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the devices, server, module, database the limitations on obtaining inventory information for electronic devices, accessing current status of electronic devices, comparing inventory information to current status, responsive to inventory information availability is the same as current status taking no action, responsive to inventory information availability does not match current status, identify current status of all electronic devices, responsive to device is retired status generating a first alert, responsive to device is missing status generating a second alert, responsive to device status is neither retired nor missing updating status as set out in inventory information is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to managing inventory stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. (fundamental economic practice) Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of devices, server, module, database amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the inventory management steps. The subject matter of claims 2/20 (device stock information to location associated with device), 3 (taking no further action regarding status if inventory information is similar), 4 (tracking database in storage media), 5 (connecting, requesting, gaining access to inventory information), 6 (automatically obtain information), 7 (obtain information on a schedule), 8 (notify incorrect status), 9 (notify found device), 10 (retired statuses), 11 (missing statuses), 12 (updating statuses), 13 (compare at least 10 devices), 14 (provide status report), 15 (communicate status report), 17 (communication module), 18 (effectuate first and second alert), 19 (connect, request and gain access to inventory information) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 1-9, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Taylor US20180365616A1 in view of
Ovenden 20220175135
Regarding Claim 1,
obtaining inventory information via electronic communication, the inventory information
having an indication for each electronic device that the electronic device is one of
available and unavailable;
accessing a device tracking database that includes a current status for each of the respective
electronic devices;
concurrently comparing, by a computer processor via execution of computer-readable
memory encoded with instructions, the indication in the inventory information to
the current status for each electronic device as set out in the device tracking
database for all electronic devices in the inventory information;
in response to one of the inventory information indicating that the electronic device is
available along with the current status in the device tracking database indicating the
electronic device is available and the inventory information indicating that the
electronic device is unavailable along with the current status in the device tracking
database indicating the electronic device is unavailable, taking no further action
regarding the current status of the respective electronic device in the device tracking
database;
in response to one of the inventory information indicating that the electronic device is
available along with the current status in the device tracking database indicating the
electronic device is unavailable and the inventory information indicating that the
electronic device is unavailable along with the current status in the device tracking
database indicating the electronic device is available, concurrently identifying, for
all electronic devices set out in the inventory information, the current status of the
electronic device in the device tracking database and:
Taylor is directed to a logistics system for building audit tasks, receiving task data and comparison against inventory products data. (Taylor, abstract). Taylor discloses scanning inventory products and a workflow for dealing with matches and mismatches in the inventory database. (Taylor, para 0075-77, “[0075]
FIG. 6 is a flowchart depicting a method 6000 for processing a task response 256 upon receipt of input from. At 6002, the task response data is received (for example, as the output from 4010 of method 4000, discussed above. The task response 256 can then be evaluated based on inventory database 500, and previous task response data in audit data store 204.
[0076]
If, at 6004, the task 250 is not a mismatch reconciliation task, at 6006, the task response 256 can be compared to the inventory database 500. If the task response 256 matches what is expected, processing can end at 6008. If task response 256 does not match, task response 256 can be stored at 6010 for comparison to results of a mismatch reconciliation task that is generated at 6012. In embodiments, the original task response 256 can be stored as part of the definition of the mismatch reconciliation task, while in other embodiments, the original task response 256 can be stored in a separate data store, such as inventory database 500 such that it can be retrieved based on the identification of the mismatch reconciliation task. Mismatch reconciliation task can be a repeat of the original task, or can be more or less detailed based on the applicable audit rules 402. For example, if an original task response 256 indicates that fewer full pallets of an item are present in a location than expected, the mismatch reconciliation task can involve a more thorough item-by-item count. Execution can then end at 6008.
[0077]
Returning to 6004, if the task was a mismatch reconciliation task, the response can be compared to previously stored task responses at 6014. If the reconciliation task response 256 matches the previous task response, the inventory database can be updated at 6016, and execution can end at 6008. If the reconciliation task response 256 does not match the previous task response, another reconciliation task can be generated at 6010 and 6012.”)
in response to the current status in the device tracking database being neither retired
nor missing, updating the current status in the device tracking database to
be similar to the indication set out in the inventory information for each
respective electronic device.
(Taylor, claim 4, “4. The system of claim 1, wherein the inventory API is configured to update the inventory data in the inventory database if a result of the mismatch reconciliation task response data matches the task response data.”)
Note that although Taylor does not explicitly disclose an inventory product is an “electronic device”, the limitation is obvious in light of the overall teaching of Taylor. Taylor discloses that a known product in use are mobile electronic devices such as smartphones and tablets. (Taylor, para 0009, “In embodiments, a logistics cycle system for managing inventory includes a rules engine comprising a set of inventory audit rules, an inventory database comprising inventory data, an inventory audit application program interface (API) coupled with the rules engine and the inventory database, and a plurality of mobile electronic devices, such as a smartphone, a tablet computer, or a mobile retail computer device such as an MC40 or a TC70.”) All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Taylor does not explicitly disclose
in response to the current status in the device tracking database indicating that the
electronic device is retired, generating a first alert;
in response to the current status in the device tracking database indicating that the
electronic device is missing, generating a second alert; and
Ovenden is directed to a medical supply cabinet. (Ovenden, abstract). Ovenden discloses auditing the cabinet to detect discrepancies (missing items, expired items) and to alert a user to correct these conditions. (Ovenden, para -159-60, “ [0159] FIG. 20 illustrates a flowchart showing the process for auditing the contents of a medical supply cabinet. As illustrated in FIG. 20, at step S10, the radio frequency identification tags of a medical supply cabinet are scanned (read). Based upon the scan, at step S20, the current supply status (present, missing, and/or expired) of the contents of medical supply cabinet are acquired. At step S30, the required supply status of the contents of medical supply cabinet is acquired, through the reading of a radio frequency identification tag that identifies the specific medical supply cabinet or by a user manually inputting the identification of the specific medical supply cabinet. The required supply status of the contents of medical supply cabinet can be retrieved, by the interface device, from a central database or can be pre-loaded onto the interface device.
[0160] At step S40, based upon a comparison of the current supply status of the contents of medical supply cabinet, acquired at step S20, and the required supply status of the contents of medical supply cabinet, acquired at step S30, the needed supplies to bring the medical supply cabinet back in compliance with regulations is displayed. This information can be used by the user to replace or replenish the necessary medical supplies.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
wherein the inventory information includes device stock
information for each electronic device set out in the inventory information and the step of
concurrently identifying the current status of the electronic device in the device tracking database further comprises:
in response to the current status in the device tracking database being neither retired nor
missing, adding the device stock information for the electronic device to at least
one designated location associated with the electronic device in the device tracking
database.
Taylor discloses that product information could be scanned and updated at the location level. (Taylor, para 0048-49, “[0048]
FIG. 3B is a block diagram depicting a data structure for a task 250. Task 250 can comprise a location 258, an item 260, a type 262 and a prompt 264. Locations 258 can be associated with one or more inventory locations such as a slot, area, shelf, retail section, department, aisle, store site, warehouse site, distribution center, or location where an inventory task may be assigned. Each location 258 can further have an associated location type. Item 260 can be one or more items that the task 250 is associated with. In embodiments, item 260 can be a product, group of products, or a sub-location (such as a shelf, or slot).
[0049]
Task type 262 can indicate the information that will be required for the task 250, such a quantity of items, an indication of whether one or more items is present, or an indication of whether one or more items has space available.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
wherein the step of concurrently comparing the indication in the
inventory information to the current status for each electronic device as set out in the device
tracking database further comprises:
in response to the indication in the inventory information being similar to the indication of
the current status of the electronic device in the device tracking database, taking no
further action regarding the status of the respective electronic device in the device
tracking database.
(Taylor, claim 4, “4. The system of claim 1, wherein the inventory API is configured to update the inventory data in the inventory database if a result of the mismatch reconciliation task response data matches the task response data.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
wherein the device tracking database is accessed in storage media.
(Taylor, abstract, “In embodiments, the logistics cycle system includes a rules engine comprising a set of inventory audit rules, an inventory database, an inventory audit application program interface (API) coupled with the rules engine and the inventory database, and a plurality of mobile electronic devices.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
wherein the step of obtaining the inventory information further
comprises:
establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers of a device provider server
system;
requesting, via electronic communication, access to the inventory information; and
gaining access, in response to the request, to the inventory information.
(Taylor, claim 9, “9. The system of claim 1, wherein the inventory API comprises a reporting engine configured to aggregate the received task response data from the plurality of mobile electronic devices and analyze the aggregated data to determine at least one user-level metric.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 5.
wherein the step of obtaining inventory information from the device
provider server system is performed automatically by the computer processor.
Taylor discloses that auditing data exchange could be performed automatically on a schedule. (Taylor, para 0004, “In some facilities or organizations, perpetual inventory processes are used to audit stock on hand. For example, a retail location or distribution facility may conduct an inventory audit daily or on each operational day to get a daily audit result. Daily audit results then can be averaged or accumulated. In other examples, audits are conducted periodically according to a schedule, on-demand when circumstances indicate an audit is necessary or could be helpful, or according to some other plan or schedule.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 6.
wherein the step of obtaining inventory information from the device
provider server system is performed automatically on a predefined schedule.
See prior art rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
wherein the first alert is configured to notify an operator that the
current status for the respective electronic device in the device tracking database may be incorrect.
Regarding Claim 9, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
Taylor does not explicitly disclose
wherein the second alert is configured to notify an operator that
the electronic device may be found.
However, the limitation is obvious in view of the overall teaching of the references. The examiner notes that Taylor and Ovenden disclose inventory databases. Ovenden further discloses that items could have a status of “missing” or “expired” and notification to a user to correct problems identified in an audit. See claim 1 above. Given that the art teaches detection an item is missing as a mismatch with an item status of available in a database and alerting a user to such, the examiner respectfully suggests that the converse of the situation would be an obvious modification. That is, detection of item recorded as missing in a database would yield an informational message to a user of that discovery. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Regarding Claim 13, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
wherein the step of concurrently comparing the indication in the
inventory information to the current status for all electronic devices set out in the inventory
information is performed concurrently for at least ten electronic devices.
(Taylor, abstract, “A logistics cycle system for managing inventory audits is disclosed. Users are dynamically assigned one or more audit tasks and are guided through performing the tasks and entering results into a mobile device. In embodiments, the logistics cycle system includes a rules engine comprising a set of inventory audit rules, an inventory database, an inventory audit application program interface (API) coupled with the rules engine and the inventory database, and a plurality of mobile electronic devices.”; para 0096, “It should be understood that the individual steps used in the methods of the present teachings may be performed in any order and/or simultaneously, as long as the teaching remains operable. Furthermore, it should be understood that the apparatus and methods of the present teachings can include any number, or all, of the described embodiments, as long as the teaching remains operable.”)
Regarding Claim 14, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
providing, to a client, a device status report that includes the current status for each
respective electronic device as set out in the device tracking database.
(Taylor, para 0017, “In embodiments the inventory API includes a reporting engine configured to aggregate the received task response data from the plurality of mobile electronic devices and analyze the aggregated data to determine at least one user-level metric. The user level metrics can be used to determine inventory audit rules.”)
Regarding Claim 15, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 14.
electronically communicating the device status report to the client.
(Taylor, para 0017, “In embodiments the inventory API includes a reporting engine configured to aggregate the received task response data from the plurality of mobile electronic devices and analyze the aggregated data to determine at least one user-level metric. The user level metrics can be used to determine inventory audit rules.”)
Regarding Claim 16,
See prior art rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the system of claim 16.
a communication module that functions in conjunction with the at least one computer
processor and is configured to obtain the inventory information from the device
provider server system and allow for use by the stock module.
(Taylor, abstract, “In embodiments, the logistics cycle system includes a rules engine comprising a set of inventory audit rules, an inventory database, an inventory audit application program interface (API) coupled with the rules engine and the inventory database, and a plurality of mobile electronic devices.”)
Regarding Claim 18, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the system of claim 17.
wherein the communication module is configured to effectuate the
first alert and the second alert to notify an operator.
See prior art rejection of claim 17
Regarding Claim 19, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the system of claim 17.
wherein the communication module is configured to obtain the
inventory information by:
establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers of the device provider server
system;
requesting, via electronic communication, access to the inventory information; and
gaining access, in response to the request, to the inventory information.
(Taylor, para 0090, “FIG. 9F depicts a performance reporting screen presenting the results of a performance report that can be generated by reporting engine 212. The overall completion percentage of tasks in the global task list 252 is shown at 920. In addition, the completion percentage for each user task list 254 is shown at 924.”)
Regarding Claim 20, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the system of claim 16.
wherein the inventory information includes device stock
information for each electronic device set out in the inventory information, and wherein the stock module, in response to the current status in the device tracking database being neither retired nor
missing, provides the device stock information for the electronic device to at least one designated location associated with the electronic device in the device tracking database.
(Taylor, claim 4, “4. The system of claim 1, wherein the inventory API is configured to update the inventory data in the inventory database if a result of the mismatch reconciliation task response data matches the task response data.”)
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Taylor US20180365616A1 in view of
Ovenden 20220175135 in view of
Parent US 7395275 B1
Regarding Claim 10, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
Taylor does not explicitly disclose
wherein the indication that the current status for the electronic
device is retired corresponds to the current status for the respective electronic device in the device tracking database being one of Retired Disposed, Retired Sold, Retired Lease End, and Retired Vendor Credit.
Parent is directed to a asset management system. (Parent, abstract). Parent discloses tracking leasing information and disposal for assets. The examiner interprets disposal of a previously leased asset to be retirement. (Parent, col.16,ln.55-col.17, ln.31, “(86) A particular business type of user who may take particular advantage of electronic system 20 is one engaged in the business of financing the capital requirements of other companies. For example, such financing may involve the lease or rental of forklifts 22.sub.1, . . . , 22.sub.n to the company who actually uses the forklifts in its business, and who pays a lease or rental fee. This type of user often has a large number of leases that may represent literally thousands of individual assets that are or will periodically be coming off of lease. Since this type of user has no direct use for such assets, such assets must be disposed of in an effective manner. The assignee of the present invention has determined that the information acquired during the tracking and management of the asset while the asset was being leased can be leveraged into a value proposition when such asset comes off of lease and must be disposed of. In particular, the assignee of the present invention has determined that keeping maintenance history data associated with assets on lease becomes a value-added feature when disposing of the asset in a fashion to be described in detail now.
(87) FIG. 10 shows a market-search parameter input form 216 generated by market search module 58 configured to allow a search of market database 36. Assets that have been tracked and managed by tracking and management system 28 over an operating life (or portion thereof) have associated therewith a substantial amount of valuable information, including maintenance history data. When such assets come off of lease, the particular type of user described above (i.e., lessor) transfers these assets into market database 36. Each asset in market database 36 has an associated asset profile comprising both asset specification data (including maintenance history data) and a bid definition.”; claim 23, “23. The system of claim 18 wherein said description includes status data indicative of whether a respective one of said assets has been sold.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to Taylor and Ovenden with the lease tracking of Parent with the motivation of efficiently conducting an equipment leasing business. (Parent, background).
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Taylor US20180365616A1 in view of
Ovenden 20220175135 in view of
Phillips 11270540
Regarding Claim 11, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
Taylor does not explicitly disclose
wherein the indication that the current status for the electronic
device is missing corresponds to the current status for the respective electronic device in the device
tracking database being one of Missing Lost and Missing Stolen.
Phillips is directed to an inventory storage system for tools. (Phillips, abstract). Phillips discloses inventory status could be lost. (Phillips, claim 17, “ 17. The inventory control system of claim 1, wherein an assigned status reflects that the target object is: checked out of inventory, incorrectly issued to a user, due for calibration and inspection, out for calibrations and inspection, broken, or lost.”) It
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to Taylor and Ovenden with the lost status of Phillips with the motivation of efficiently identifying item status. (Phillips, background).
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Taylor US20180365616A1 in view of
Ovenden 20220175135 in view of
Pellerin 20250069145
Regarding Claim 12, Taylor and Ovenden disclose the method of claim 1.
Taylor does note explicitly disclose
wherein the step of updating the current status in the device tracking
database with the indication set out in the inventory information for each respective device
includes changing the current status to one of In Stock Available, In Stock Unavailable, and In
Stock Pending Disposal.
Pellerin is directed to an asset management system that connects different external stakeholders in the assets. (Pellerin, background, “On another level, the asset management system and associated methods provide a common platform to connect the asset owner (or buyer), operator (or user), maintainer (service and maintenance entities), and the manufacturer. Additionally, the asset management system or platform will allow aggregating of data around individual assets to better drive analytics over time.”; para 0054, “[0054] The data structure DB includes information related to the assets and customers (owner, manufacturer, distributor, operator, and maintainer). Following is a non-exhaustive list of information that can be included in the data structure. [0055] Asset information (for specific asset) [0056] Asset Tag Identification Code [0057] Type of asset (e.g., baggage scanner, passenger scanner, X-ray machine, explosive detection system, security scanner, walkthrough metal detector, etc.) [0058] Asset manufacturer, make, model number, and serial number [0059] Software version [0060] Hardware version [0061] Supported auxiliary hardware [0062] Install date and End of Life date [0063] Service history (including audit trail) and next service date [0064] Maintenance/repair history (including audit trail) [0065] Testing/calibration history (including audit trail) and next testing/calibration date [0066] Update logs (including audit trail) [0067] Alerts [0068] Non-compliance [0069] Software upgrades [0070] End of Life [0071] Asset Usage Category (active/spare/decommissioned) and Operability Status (operable/inoperable) [0072] Asset model information information (for asset models) [0073] Asset manufacturer, make, and model number [0074] Jurisdictions in which asset is certified for use [0075] Certification letters [0076] Model specific documents (e.g., manuals, guides, warranties) [0077] Manufacturer notices (e.g., changes in recommended procedures) [0078] Asset software/drivers [0079] Warranty timeline. [0080] Qualification List harmonization information (for asset models) [0081] Technology qualification authority and/or manufacturer name for asset type [0082] Concordance of asset types with asset manufacturer make and model and/or technology qualification authority name for the asset type [0083] User information [0084] Username, User ID, and password [0085] User rights [0086] Owner information [0087] Owner name (e.g., airline, airport) [0088] Owner ID [0089] Operator information [0090] Operator name (e.g., airline, airport) [0091] Operator ID [0092] Maintenance/Service provider information [0093] Maintainer Name [0094] Maintainer ID [0095] Start and end of service and maintenance agreement [0096] Service Level Agreement (SLA) requirements [0097] Location information [0098] Facility location name [0099] Facility location codes [0100] Facility location (city, state, country) [0101] Specific location within the facility”) It
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to Taylor and Ovenden with the status of Pellerin with the motivation of efficiently identifying item status. (Id.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights