DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 18 June 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the wearable RF beacon-emitting devices. This appears to be a typographical error of “wearable RF beacon-emitting devices”.
Claim 18 recites “the mobile communication device”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a mobile communication device”.
Claim 20 recites “the vehicle associated with the vehicle”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the vehicle associated with the worker”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
detecting one or more workers working at a site of the project;
determine worker presence for the workers to generate shift report data for the workers indicative of work hours completed for a work shift at the site; and
receiving the shift report data and also receiving progress data indicative of progress made on the project, analyzing the shift report data to determine if the shift report data complies with contractual requirements and correlates to expected progress on the project and to generate an alert report if the shift report data does not comply with the contractual requirements or does not correlate to the expected progress on the project;
receive the alert report, present the alert report to the project owner.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses managing a project. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing the personal behavior of people, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 includes the following additional element(s): a worker detection and reporting device having a processor; a memory coupled to the processor; a short-range wireless receiver coupled to the processor to detect short-range wireless signals from a plurality of worker devices, wherein the short-range wireless signal has a maximum signal range of 1 km; a cellular radiofrequency transceiver to transmit the shift report data via a base transceiver station and the internet; a server comprising a server memory, a server processor, and a server data transceiver for receiving the shift report data from the worker detection and reporting device and also receiving progress data; the server memory and the server processor storing and executing a labour management module having, or interacting with, an artificial intelligence module trained on past project data; a computing device associated with a project owner, the computing device comprising a device memory, a device processor and a device data transceiver to communicatively connect the computing device via the internet to the server; the computing device having a user interface cooperating with the device processor. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does 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(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4 and 6-20 further include(s) the additional element(s): wearable sensors (claim 2, 4); the wearable sensors comprising smart watches, smart rings, smart glasses, smart clothing or exoskeletons that include Bluetooth transceivers (claim 3); wearable RF beacon-emitting devices (claim 6); the wearable RF beacon-emitting devices comprising one or more personal protective devices having an RF beacon emitter that emits an RF beacon (claim 7); mobile communication devices (claim 8); the mobile communication devices broadcast WiFi signals or Bluetooth signals (claim 9); RFID tag detected by RFID detectors (claim 10); perimeter access proximity cards detected by a proximity card reader (claim 11); a wireless communication device (claim 12); a construction vehicle (claim 13); a robotic inspection vehicle having the cellular radiofrequency transceiver (claim 14); the robot inspection vehicle is a UAV having a camera (claim 15); weather sensor (claim 16); transmitting a query to the worker detection and reporting device (claim 17); transmitting to a mobile communication device (claim 18); transmits to a mobile communication device (claim 19); a mobile communication device (claim 19) a GNSS cache stored in a memory of the mobile communication device (claim 19); transmitting to a vehicle associated with the worker (claim 20); a GNSS cache stored in a memory of the vehicle (claim 20). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2-4 and 6-20 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 5 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 4. Therefor claim(s) 5 are ineligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20180039930 A1) in view of Qiao (see attached NPL).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches a system for managing a project, the system comprising:
a worker detection and reporting device for detecting one or more workers working at a site of the project, (see at least Paragraph [0076] “non-transitory computer readable medium having thereon resident at least one program comprising instructions, which instructions, when executed by a computer processor perform the steps of enabling the server to identify each worker who works on the project on a day to day basis so as to determine a trade consistency index.”) the worker detection and reporting device having:
a processor; (see at least paragraph [0076] “processor”)
a memory coupled to the processor; (see at least Paragraph [0076] “on-transitory computer readable medium having thereon resident at least one program comprising instructions, which instructions, when executed by a computer processor”)
a short-range wireless receiver coupled to the processor to detect short-range wireless signals from a plurality of worker devices associated with workers working the site of the project, (see at least paragraph [0052] “RFID, Bluetooth (or other tracking technology) scanners or readers or, in general, a tracking assembly, are located at each point of entry/egress on a construction site. The RFID or Bluetooth scanner or readers are configured in such a way that they can detect a worker's RFID tag or Bluetooth beacon (or other trackable device) and the worker's direction of travel or otherwise confirmation of the presence of the worker on the site”; Fig. 42)
wherein the processor of the worker detection and reporting device is configured to determine worker presence for the workers based on the short-range wireless signals from the plurality of worker devices and to generate shift report data for the workers indicative of work hours completed for a work shift at the site; and (see at least Paragraph [0052] “RFID, Bluetooth (or other tracking technology) scanners or readers or, in general, a tracking assembly, are located at each point of entry/egress on a construction site. The RFID or Bluetooth scanner or readers are configured in such a way that they can detect a worker's RFID tag or Bluetooth beacon (or other trackable device) and the worker's direction of travel or otherwise confirmation of the presence of the worker on the site […] The computing device logs the signal for the worker, the date and time it was detected, and whether the event logged was an entry, exit or otherwise confirmation of a worker's presence on a site.”; Paragraph [0134] “the daily labor report shows on-site labor hours for the day specified.”; Fig. 29 and 42)
a cellular radiofrequency transceiver to transmit the shift report data via a base transceiver station and the internet; (see at least Paragraph [0052] “The computing device transmits this information on a periodic basis via the cellular network, through Wi-Fi, satellite or Ethernet connections over the internet to a server.”)
a server comprising a server memory, a server processor, and a server data transceiver for receiving the shift report data from the worker detection and reporting device and also receiving progress data indicative of progress made on the project, (see at least Paragraph [0052] “The computing device transmits this information on a periodic basis via the cellular network, through Wi-Fi, satellite or Ethernet connections over the internet to a server.”; Paragraph [0089] “The server collects and processes data received from the hand-data entry screens as well as RFID, Bluetooth or other tracking technology data collected at the site.” Paragraph [0091] “data regarding the incident is entered manually on a data entry screen for the person who had or caused the incident.”; Examiner notes the server receives the data from the worker tracking devices and hand entered data about incidents that could delay or cause issues with the project.)
the server memory and the server processor storing and executing a labour management module having, or interacting with, an artificial intelligence module trained on past project data, the artificial intelligence module analyzing the shift report data to determine if the shift report data complies with contractual requirements and correlates to expected progress on the project and to generate an alert report if the shift report data does not comply with the contractual requirements or does not correlate to the expected progress on the project; (see at least Paragraph [0061]” the server is able to process certain elements of artificial intelligence through algorithms that can predict schedule delays and the duration of the delays, […] can learn and adjust trade resource requirements based on […] historical data from other projects of similar type and scale.”; Paragraph [0054] “the operator of the system translates each contract with a given specialty (e.g., plumbing) into “trade resources” (i.e., man hours and days for a given worker on the project) and tracks it.”; Paragraph [0063] “This delay can then be communicated via an alert”)
a computing device associated with a project owner, the computing device comprising a device memory, a device processor and a device data transceiver to communicatively connect the computing device via the internet to the server to receive the alert report, the computing device having a user interface cooperating with the device processor to present the alert report to the project owner. (see at least paragraph [0090] “one such report is a trade alert. In a preferred embodiment, a trade alert is an email or text warning sent to specific people about specific companies when the hours on site are outside of a predetermined threshold for a construction plan or forecast.”; Fig. 3 shows that the corporate admin, licensee admin, and on-site prescient can generate alerts for projects they own. Fig. 4 shows how the data moves from different computing devices via the internet and gets displayed on a user interface.)
Thomas does not teach:
wherein the short-range wireless signal has a maximum signal range of 1 km.
However, Qiao teaches:
wherein the short-range wireless signal has a maximum signal range of 1 km. (Page 4 “The Wi-Fi HaLow […] is able to solve […] transmission distance up to 1km”)
This operation of Qiao is applicable to the system of Thomas as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using short range signals to transmit data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Thomas to incorporate a maximum signal range as taught by Qiao. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Thomas in order to solve the weakness of Wifi in penetrability and transmission distance (see page 4 of Qiao).
Regarding claim 2, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the plurality of worker devices associated with workers are wearable sensors worn by the workers and wherein the worker detection and reporting device receives the short-range wireless signals from the wearable sensors to determine the worker presence. (see at least Paragraph [0051] “each worker is assigned a unique RFID tag, Bluetooth beacon (or other tracking device) that is placed in or on their assigned hard hat or on a badge or other wearable item specific to that worker.”; Fig. 42)
Regarding claim 3, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 2. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the wearable sensors comprises smart watches, smart rings, smart glasses, smart clothing or exoskeletons that include Bluetooth transceivers and wherein the worker detection and reporting device detects the worker presence by detecting Bluetooth signals from the Bluetooth transceivers. (see at least Paragraph [0051] “each worker is assigned a unique RFID tag, Bluetooth beacon (or other tracking device) that is placed in or on their assigned hard hat or on a badge or other wearable item specific to that worker.”; Fig. 42)
Regarding claim 6, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the plurality of worker devices associated with workers are wearable RF beacon-emitting devices worn by the workers and wherein the worker detection and reporting device receives the short-range wireless signals from the wearable RF beacon-emitting devices to determine the worker presence. (see at least Paragraph [0051] “each worker is assigned a unique RFID tag, Bluetooth beacon (or other tracking device) that is placed in or on their assigned hard hat or on a badge or other wearable item specific to that worker.”; Fig. 42)
Regarding claim 7, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the wearable RF beacon-emitting devices comprises one or more personal protective devices worn by the workers having an RF beacon emitter that emits an RF beacon, and wherein the worker detection and reporting device detects the RF beacon to determine the worker presence. (see at least Paragraph [0051] “each worker is assigned a unique RFID tag, Bluetooth beacon (or other tracking device) that is placed in or on their assigned hard hat or on a badge or other wearable item specific to that worker.”; paragraph [0052] “RFID, Bluetooth (or other tracking technology) scanners or readers or, in general, a tracking assembly, are located at each point of entry/egress on a construction site. The RFID or Bluetooth scanner or readers are configured in such a way that they can detect a worker's RFID tag or Bluetooth beacon (or other trackable device) and the worker's direction of travel or otherwise confirmation of the presence of the worker on the site”; Fig. 42)
Regarding claim 8, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the plurality of worker devices associated with workers are mobile communication devices carried by the workers and wherein the worker detection and reporting device receives the short-range wireless signals from the mobile communication devices to determine the worker presence. (see at least Paragraph [0146] “Other tracking technologies such as Bluetooth, ultra wide band, Zigbee, or others may be used including, but not limited to, […] cell-phones”)
Regarding claim 9, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 8. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the mobile communication devices broadcast Wi-Fi signals or Bluetooth signals, and wherein the worker detection and reporting device detects the Wi-Fi signals or the Bluetooth signals from the mobile communication devices to determine the worker presence. (see at least Paragraph [0146] “Other tracking technologies such as Bluetooth, ultra wide band, Zigbee, or others may be used including, but not limited to, […] cell-phones”; Paragraph [0052] “RFID, Bluetooth (or other tracking technology) scanners or readers or, in general, a tracking assembly, are located at each point of entry/egress on a construction site. The RFID or Bluetooth scanner or readers are configured in such a way that they can detect a worker's RFID tag or Bluetooth beacon (or other trackable device) and the worker's direction of travel or otherwise confirmation of the presence of the worker on the site”)
Regarding claim 10, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the plurality of worker devices associated with workers are RFID tags worn by the workers and detected by RFID detectors at the site, wherein the worker detection and reporting device receives signals from the RFID detectors to determine the worker presence. (see at least Paragraph [0052] “RFID, Bluetooth (or other tracking technology) scanners or readers or, in general, a tracking assembly, are located at each point of entry/egress on a construction site. The RFID or Bluetooth scanner or readers are configured in such a way that they can detect a worker's RFID tag or Bluetooth beacon (or other trackable device) and the worker's direction of travel or otherwise confirmation of the presence of the worker on the site”; paragraph [0051] “each worker is assigned a unique RFID tag, […] that is placed in or on their assigned hard hat or on a badge or other wearable item specific to that worker.”)
Regarding claim 11, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the plurality of worker devices associated with workers are perimeter access proximity cards carried by the workers and detected by a proximity card reader at the site, wherein the worker detection and reporting device receives signals from the proximity card reader to determine the worker presence. (see at least paragraph [0051] “To accomplish this, each worker is assigned a unique RFID tag, Bluetooth beacon (or other tracking device) that is placed […] on a badge or other wearable item specific to that worker.”; Paragraph [0052] “RFID, Bluetooth (or other tracking technology) scanners or readers or, in general, a tracking assembly, are located at each point of entry/egress on a construction site. The RFID or Bluetooth scanner or readers are configured in such a way that they can detect a worker's RFID tag or Bluetooth beacon (or other trackable device) and the worker's direction of travel or otherwise confirmation of the presence of the worker on the site”)
Regarding claim 12, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device is a wireless communication device operated by a foreman at the site. (see at least Paragraph [0146] “Other tracking technologies such as […] on site (e.g., cell-phones).”; Fig. 3 shows an on-site prescient field admin with a device.)
Regarding claim 13, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device is a construction vehicle at the site. (Paragraph [0058] “dump trucks or other soil/debris removing vehicles have tracking technology affixed to them.”)
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20180039930 A1) in view of Qiao (see attached NPL) in further view of June (US 20150035644 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 2. Thomas in view of Qiao does not teach:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device also receives biometric data from the wearable sensors.
However, June teaches:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device also receives biometric data from the wearable sensors. (see at least paragraph [0015] “The method comprises receiving, by at least one wearable device, biometric information descriptive of at least one user”)
This operation of June is applicable to the system of Thomas as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using wearable devices to collect data regarding the wearer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Thomas to incorporate receiving biometric data from the wearable devices as taught by June. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Thomas in order to preset information in a way that precludes the information consumer from uniquely identifying the source individual of the information (see paragraph [0092] of June).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas in view of Qiao in further view of June teaches the system of claim 4. Thomas in view of Qiao does not teach:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device anonymizes the biometric data to provide anonymized biometric data to the server.
However, June teaches:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device anonymizes the biometric data to provide anonymized biometric data to the server. (see at least Paragraph [0015] “transmitting, by the at least one wearable device, anonymous biometric information using the biometric information.”; Paragraph [0052] “the server system 112 compiles the information received from one or more readers 108”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Thomas is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20180039930 A1) in view of Qiao (see attached NPL) in further view of Mathur (US 20160202227 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device (see at least Paragraph [0052] “The RFID or Bluetooth scanner or readers are configured in such a way that they can detect […] confirmation of the presence of the worker on the site. […] The computing device transmits this information on a periodic basis via the cellular network”)
Thomas in view of Qiao does not teach:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device is a robotic inspection vehicle having the cellular radiofrequency transceiver to transmit the shift report data.
However Mathur teaches:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device is a robotic inspection vehicle having the cellular radiofrequency transceiver to transmit the report data. (see at least Paragraph [0059] “FIG. 5 […] sensor devices 220-1 through 220-N may measure conditions on a farm. Sensor devices 220-1 through 220-N may include, […] imagery devices (shown as a satellite and a UAV).”; Paragraph [0036] “network 270 may include a cellular network”; Fig. 2 and 5 of Mathur)
This operation of Mathur is applicable to the system of Thomas as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using technology to track the progress of a site. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the worker detection and reporting device of Thomas to be a robot inspection vehicle as taught by Mathur. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Thomas in order to make decisions that benefit from thorough analysis of a large body of shared empirical data (see paragraph [0022] of Mathur).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas in view of Qiao in further view of Mathur teaches the system of claim 14. Thomas further teaches:
(see at least paragraph [0082] “the method involves providing images of workers to permit visual identification of on-site workers.”)
Thomas in view of Qiao does not teach:
wherein the robotic inspection vehicle is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) having a camera to capture images of project progress and vehicles parked at site to enable the server to infer worker presence.
However, Mathur teaches:
wherein the robotic inspection vehicle is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) having a camera to capture images of project progress and vehicles parked at site. (Paragraph [0048] “The imagery data may include, for example, satellite imagery […] aerial imagery (e.g., taken by planes, UAVs, etc.)” of Mathur)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Thomas is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Thomas in view of Qiao in further view of Mathur teaches the system of claim 14. Thomas further teaches:
transmits the weather state to the server to enable the server to estimate a construction delay due to the weather state. (see at least Paragraph [0095] “the server can provide a weather report. In a preferred embodiment, the server connects to online weather data services to show the weather at a construction site over a specified period of time.”; Paragraph [0095] “the server retains historical data [….] for use in settling disputed claims by subcontractors for additional time to complete a project allegedly required due to circumstances beyond its control such as weather”; Paragraph [0052] “The computing device transmits this information on a periodic basis via the cellular network”)
Thomas in view of Qiao does not teach:
wherein the robotic inspection vehicle comprises a weather sensor to sense a weather state at the site of the project, wherein the cellular radiofrequency transceiver of the robotic inspection vehicle transmits the weather state to the server to enable the server to estimate a construction delay due to the weather state.
However, Mathur teaches:
wherein the robotic inspection vehicle comprises a weather sensor to sense a weather state at the site of the project, wherein the cellular radiofrequency transceiver of the robotic inspection vehicle transmits the weather state to the server. (see at least Paragraph [0030] “sensor device 220 may include […] a sensor capable of detecting atmospheric pressure, a sensor capable of detecting temperature above ground, a sensor capable of detecting temperature at one or more depths below ground, a sensor capable of detecting wind direction, a sensor capable of detecting wind speed, a sensor capable of detecting rainfall, […] sensor device 220 may include or be attached to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), an item of farming equipment (e.g., a tractor, an irrigation system, or the like)”; Paragraph [0036] “network 270 may include a cellular network”; Fig. 2 of Mathur)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Thomas is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20180039930 A1) in view of Qiao (see attached NPL) in further view of Al-Shaikh (US 20190188931 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Thomas in view of Qiao teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further teaches:
wherein the server, in response to detecting that the shift report data does not comply with the contractual requirements or does not correlate to the expected progress on the project, transmits . (see at least Paragraph [0061]” the server is able to process certain elements of artificial intelligence through algorithms that can predict schedule delays and the duration of the delays, […] can learn and adjust trade resource requirements based on […] historical data from other projects of similar type and scale.”; Paragraph [0054] “the operator of the system translates each contract with a given specialty (e.g., plumbing) into “trade resources” (i.e., man hours and days for a given worker on the project) and tracks it.”; Paragraph [0063] “This delay can then be communicated via an alert”)
Thomas in view of Qiao does not teach:
wherein the server, in response to detecting that the shift report data does not comply with the contractual requirements or does not correlate to the expected progress on the project, transmits .
However Al-Shaikh teaches:
wherein the server, in response to detecting that the shift report data does not comply, transmits a query to the worker detection and reporting device. (see at least Paragraph [0045] “In response to determining that the mobile device 102 is located in an area of an attendance region 110 of the attendance region data 132 (block 226), the attendance application 134 may cause the mobile device 102 to determine whether the current time is within the attendance timeframe specified for the attendance region 110 (block 227). […] In response to determining that the person 108 has not previously checked-in at the attendance region 110 or the person 108 has not checked-in within the check-in interval for the attendance region 110, the attendance application 134 may cause the mobile device 102 to prompt the person 108 using the mobile device 102 to check-in (block 232).” Of Al-Shaikh)
This operation of Al-Shaikh is applicable to the system of Thomas as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking employee schedules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Thomas to incorporate transmitting a query to the worker detection and reporting device as taught by Al-Shaikh. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Thomas in order to verify attendance with mobile devices (see paragraph [0002] of Al-Shaikh).
Regarding claim 18, Thomas in view of Qiao in further view of Al-Shaikh teaches the system of claim 17. Thomas in view of Qiao does not teach:
wherein the detection and reporting device, in response to receiving the query, identifies the worker who is subject to the query and transmits a confirmation request to the mobile communication device of the worker to request worker confirmation to confirm or change the shift reporting data for the worker.
However, Al-Shaikh teaches:
wherein the detection and reporting device, in response to receiving the query, identifies the worker who is subject to the query and transmits a confirmation request to the mobile communication device of the worker to request worker confirmation to confirm or change the shift reporting data for the worker. (see at least Paragraph [0045] “In response to determining that the person 108 has not previously checked-in at the attendance region 110 or the person 108 has not checked-in within the check-in interval for the attendance region 110, the attendance application 134 may cause the mobile device 102 to prompt the person 108 using the mobile device 102 to check-in (block 232). Prompting the person 108 to check-in can include the mobile device 102 displaying a prompt requesting that the person 108 submit their biometric information, such as a displayed or audible prompt stating “Please scan your fingerprint to verify your attendance.”; Paragraph [0047] “In response to the attendance application 134 verifying an identity of the person 108 for which biometric data is received (and determining that communication with the attendance server 104 is available (block 238)), the attendance application 134 may cause the mobile device 102 to transmit corresponding attendance data 112 to the server 104 by way of the network 106 (block 240). The attendance data 112 may include a time, date, location […] or the geographic coordinates of the location of the mobile device 102 at the time the fingerprint is acquired” of Al-Shaikh)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Thomas is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Thomas in view of Qiao in view of Al-Shaikh teaches the system of claim 17. Thomas in view of Qiao does not teach:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device, in response to receiving the query, identifies the worker who is subject to the query and transmits a confirmation request to the mobile communication device of the worker to request time and location data from the mobile communication device of the worker, wherein the mobile communication device, in response to the confirmation request, generates time-stamped location data obtained from a GNSS cache stored in a memory of the mobile communication device to confirm that the worker was present at the site for a time indicated by the shift report data.
However, Al-Shaikh teaches:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device, in response to receiving the query, identifies the worker who is subject to the query and transmits a confirmation request to the mobile communication device of the worker to request time and location data from the mobile communication device of the worker, wherein the mobile communication device, in response to the confirmation request, generates time-stamped location data obtained from a GNSS cache stored in a memory of the mobile communication device to confirm that the worker was present at the site for a time indicated by the shift report data. (see at least Paragraph [0045] “In response to determining that the person 108 has not previously checked-in at the attendance region 110 or the person 108 has not checked-in within the check-in interval for the attendance region 110, the attendance application 134 may cause the mobile device 102 to prompt the person 108 using the mobile device 102 to check-in (block 232). Prompting the person 108 to check-in can include the mobile device 102 displaying a prompt requesting that the person 108 submit their biometric information, such as a displayed or audible prompt stating “Please scan your fingerprint to verify your attendance.”; Paragraph [0047] “In response to the attendance application 134 verifying an identity of the person 108 for which biometric data is received (and determining that communication with the attendance server 104 is available (block 238)), the attendance application 134 may cause the mobile device 102 to transmit corresponding attendance data 112 to the server 104 by way of the network 106 (block 240). The attendance data 112 may include a time, date, location […] or the geographic coordinates of the location of the mobile device 102 at the time the fingerprint is acquired” of Al-Shaikh)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Thomas is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, Thomas in view of Qiao in further view of Al-Shaikh teaches the system of claim 17. Thomas further teaches:
a vehicle being used as a tracking device. (Paragraph [0058] “dump trucks or other soil/debris removing vehicles have tracking technology affixed to them.”)
Thomas in view of Qiao does not teach:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device, in response to receiving the query, identifies the worker who is subject to the query, further identifies a vehicle associated with the worker, and transmits a confirmation request to the vehicle associated with the worker to request time and location data from the vehicle associated with the worker, wherein the vehicle associated with the vehicle, in response to the confirmation request, generates time-stamped location data obtained from a GNSS cache stored in a memory of the vehicle to confirm that the vehicle associated with the worker was present at the site for a time indicated by the shift report data.
However, Al-Shaikh teaches:
wherein the worker detection and reporting device, in response to receiving the query, identifies the worker who is subject to the query, further identifies a device associated with the worker, and transmits a confirmation request to the device associated with the worker to request time and location data from the device associated with the worker, wherein the device associated with the worker, in response to the confirmation request, generates time-stamped location data obtained from a GNSS cache stored in a memory of the vehicle to confirm that the device associated with the worker was present at the site for a time indicated by the shift report data. (see at least Paragraph [0045] “In response to determining that the person 108 has not previously checked-in at the attendance region 110 or the person 108 has not checked-in within the check-in interval for the attendance region 110, the attendance application 134 may cause the mobile device 102 to prompt the person 108 using the mobile device 102 to check-in (block 232). Prompting the person 108 to check-in can include the mobile device 102 displaying a prompt requesting that the person 108 submit their biometric information, such as a displayed or audible prompt stating “Please scan your fingerprint to verify your attendance.”; Paragraph [0047] “In response to the attendance application 134 verifying an identity of the person 108 for which biometric data is received (and determining that communication with the attendance server 104 is available (block 238)), the attendance application 134 may cause the mobile device 102 to transmit corresponding attendance data 112 to the server 104 by way of the network 106 (block 240). The attendance data 112 may include a time, date, location […] or the geographic coordinates of the location of the mobile device 102 at the time the fingerprint is acquired” of Al-Shaikh)
This operation of Al-Shaikh is applicable to the system of Thomas as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking employee schedules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle being used as a tracking device of Thomas to receive requests and generate time stamped location data as taught by Al-Shaikh. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Thomas in order to verify attendance with mobile devices (see paragraph [0002] of Al-Shaikh).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights