\\
`.l_
`
`
`9
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.goV
`
`14/024,944
`
`09/12/2013
`
`John W. McElr0y
`
`13073300107
`
`3683
`
`BLANK ROME LLP
`
`Eye Street
`WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5403
`
`HATCHER, DEIRDRE D
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3683
`
`PAPER NUNIBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/30/2016
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on aboVe—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`Belay @blankr0me.c0m
`Washingt0nD0cketing @blankr0me.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 1
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 1
`
`

`
`Application No.
`14/024,944
`
`App|icant(s)
`MCELROY ET AL.
`
`0ffiCe ACtiOn Summary
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`iltgtus
`3683
`DEIRDRE HATCHER
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE § MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`—
`— Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)|Z| Responsive to communication(s) filed on 5/5/16.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)I:I This action is non—final.
`2a)IXI This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)|X| Claim(s)1-:16is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) j is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)|:I Claim(s) j is/are allowed.
`7)|Z| Claim(s)1-:16is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s) j is/are objected to.
`
`9)lXI Claim(s) 7-_16are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`
`h/indexfis or send an inquiry to PPl-ifeedbackf,<‘Bus§tc.Gov.
`
`://www.us:>to. ow atents/init events/
`
`htt
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)IXl The drawing(s) filed on 9/12/13 is/are: a)IXl accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)|:l All
`
`b)|:| Some** c)|:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:| Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. j
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`3) D jme,-View summary (PTQ.413)
`_
`_
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. j
`2) E Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 4) D other: H‘ .
`
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20161122
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 2
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 2
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the submission filed on
`
`5/5/2016.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
`
`Claims 1-4 were previously examined in the action mailed on 11/5/15.
`
`Claims 1-4 have been amended. Claims 6-16 have been added. Claims 1-16 are now
`
`presented.
`
`Election/Restrictions
`
`5.
`
`Newly submitted claims 7-16 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the
`
`invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The newly added claims are drawn to flagging and
`
`tracking sponsored work orders.
`
`Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this
`
`invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits.
`
`Accordingly, claims 7-16 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected
`
`invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 3
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 3
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 3
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
`
`non-statutory subject matter.
`
`8.
`
`When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether
`
`the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine,
`
`manufacture, or composition of matter.
`
`If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must
`
`then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural
`
`phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a
`
`patent-eligible application of the exception.
`
`If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or
`
`combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly
`
`more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices;
`
`certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas.
`
`A/ice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S.
`
`(2014).
`
`9.
`
`In the Instant case Claims 1-6 are directed toward systems for planning and scheduling. As such
`
`all of the claims fall within one of the four statutory classes of invention.
`
`10.
`
`In the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank International, et al. the
`
`court outlined several examples of abstract ideas including fundamental economic practices, certain
`
`methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical relationships. As per part 2A
`
`of the eligibility analysis, the examiner understands the invention of Claim 1 to be directed toward the
`
`abstract idea of planning and scheduling in an enterprise. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the
`
`Abstract idea include:
`
`wherein the work orders can be moved from one work week section to another work week
`
`section, from unscheduled to scheduled, to short notice outage, to planned outage, and to
`
`backlog, wherein the work orders comprise work elements that are linked as predecessors and
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 4
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 4
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 4
`
`successors, and wherein the computing device controls the user interface to display linkages
`
`between the predecessors and the successor; and
`
`wherein one or more real-time performance indicators and metrics are calculated and displayed
`
`through the user interface, and wherein user selection of one or more of the real-
`
`time performance indicators and metrics displays one or more graphical representations of said
`
`one or more real—time performance indicators and metrics.
`
`11.
`
`The Claims are similar to Abstract ideas that have been held ineligible by the courts. Namely, the
`
`claimed invention can be considered an idea of itself. Page 4 of the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter
`
`Eligibility states "The phrase “an idea ‘of itself,”’ is used to describe an idea standing alone such as an
`
`uninstantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in
`
`the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” In the instant case the moving or work orders to
`
`different categories can be performed by a human.
`
`12.
`
`Further, the calculating of real-time performance indicators is recited at a high level of generality
`
`and given the broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed in the human mind, or by a human
`
`using a pen and paper. Further, in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) the Federal Circuit found that “Here, the claims are clearly focused on the
`
`combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of
`
`gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any
`
`particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to
`
`an abstract idea.” In the instant case, the claims are similarly drawn to gathering data regarding
`
`performance indicators and metrics and analyzing information and then displaying the results of the
`
`analysis.
`
`13.
`
`As per part 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claim as a whole is then analyzed to determine
`
`whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
`
`significantly more than the exception. The claim recites the additional elements of:
`
`A planning and scheduling system running on a computing device, the system comprising;
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 5
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 5
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 5
`
`a user interface, wherein said user interface provides a first screen format for schedulers and
`
`planners and a second screen format for maintenance supervisors; and
`
`a computing device in communication with said user interface, said computing device being
`
`programmed to implement:
`
`work week sections;
`
`a scheduled job section;
`
`an unscheduled job section;
`
`a short notice outage section;
`
`a planned outage section; and
`
`dragging and dropping the work orders
`
`14.
`
`However, the computer elements are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions.
`
`15.
`
`Further, dragging and dropping is a conventional and well-known means for a user to
`
`interact with an interface, and not a technical improvement. As such, the claims merely amounts to
`
`the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, and is considered to amount to
`
`nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. a generic processor) to merely carry out the
`
`abstract idea itself. As such, the claims when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the
`
`instruction to implement the abstract idea in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional
`
`technological environment.
`
`16.
`
`Further Claims 2, 5 further limit that Abstract idea but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent
`
`claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
`
`17.
`
`Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 2, 5 that
`
`transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
`
`18.
`
`Further, Claim 3, 4, and 6 recite similar limitations and are rejected for similar reasons.
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 6
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 6
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 6
`
`19.
`
`The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of
`
`claim 1 othenlvise styled as a method or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the
`
`same analysis.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`20.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness
`
`rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or
`described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`21.
`
`Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalantar US
`
`2003/0088534 A1 in view of Scheer US 7,313,534 B2 in view or Clarke US 2002/0007297 A1.
`
`22.
`
`As per Claim 1 Kalantar teaches a planning and scheduling system running on a computing
`
`device, the system comprising:
`
`a user interface wherein said user interface provides a first screen format for schedulers and planners
`
`and a second screen format for maintenance supervisors; and (see at least Kalantar Figure 6, item 152.
`
`Further, para. 171 teaches upon a successful authentication of the second user, at step 1508, the central
`
`management server 130 generates a work status report for the second user based on a hierarchy level
`
`associated with the second user. For example, if the second user, according to the user records stored in
`
`the database 140, manages other users, then the work status report generated on the central
`
`management server 130 includes task status data associated with the work schedules for the four other
`
`users and the supervisory user. The examiner considers this to be a screen format for maintenance
`
`supervisors. Further, para. 157 teaches referring to FIG. 22, at step 1302, the central management
`
`server 130 receives a first set of information defining tasks to be performed and scheduled at the first
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 7
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 7
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 7
`
`facility 110. In one embodiment, a user, such as a supervisory user, may place a work order including the
`
`first set of information by accessing a web page associated with the central management server 130. In
`
`an alternative embodiment, the user may place the work order at a call center. A call center staff member
`
`may then access the central management server 130 to place a work order request using the web—based
`
`interface such as illustrated in reference to FIG. 18. The examiner considers this to be a screen format
`
`for schedulers and planners).
`
`a computing device in communication with said user interface, said computing device being programmed
`
`to implement: (see at least Kalantar Figure 6)
`
`
`work week sections‘ (see at least Kalantar Figure 19)
`
`a scheduled [ob section; (see at least Kalantar Figure 19 that discloses scheduled jobs)
`
`an unscheduled [ob section; (see at least Kalantar para. 79 that discloses task status identifiers employed
`
`on the central management server 130 to mark task records may indicate a variety of states. For
`
`example, status indicator values may include a task pending approval identifier, a new task request
`
`approved identifier, a new task request rejected identifier, a task unscheduled identifier, a task scheduled
`
`identifier, a task due identifier, a task not completed identifier, a task completed identifier, a task closed
`
`identifier, a task rescheduled identifier, a task cancelled identifier, a task approved identifier, a task
`
`rejected identifier, or a task forcefully approved identifier.)
`
`a planned outage section; (see at least Kalantar para. 153 the central management server 130 may
`
`provide preventive maintenance services to customers having one or more facilities managed by the
`
`central management server 130.
`
`In one embodiment, the preventive maintenance may include scheduling
`
`regular inspections for a facility to pinpoint problems before they occur. For example, the management
`
`server 130 may schedule making repairs on a planned basis to avoid unexpected breakdowns)
`
`Kalantar teaches tasks, wherein the tasks can be moved from one work week section to another work
`
`
`week section (see at least para. 67 that teaches tasks can be rescheduled) from unscheduled to
`
`
`scheduled (see at least para. 79 that teaches a task can be moved from unscheduled to scheduled)fl
`
`planned outage; (see at least para. 154 that teaches moving tasks to preventative maintenance which the
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 8
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 8
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 8
`
`examiner considers to be a planned outage) and to backlog (see at least para. 79 that teaches a task can
`
`be moved to new task rejected which the examiner considers to be a backlog)
`
`and wherein one or more real-time performance indicators and metrics are calculated and displayed
`
`through the user interface, and wherein user selection of one or more of the real-time performance
`
`indicators and metrics disglazs one or more graphical representations of said one or more real-time
`
`performance indicators and metrics. Kalantar para. 78 teaches each task record stored in the database
`
`140 may be marked with a task status identifier, and the central management server 130 may be
`
`configured to monitor and update a status of each task stored in the database 140. Further, Fig. 19
`
`discloses displaying the status (closed or late). The examiner considers the status to be a real-time
`
`performance indicators and metrics. Further, para. 179 teaches a second user, such as a supervisory
`
`user, may send a request for a work status report involving the first user's tasks in order to perform an
`
`inspection stage. The second user may have a predetermined hierarchy level (such as a supervisory
`
`access level) that allows the second user to receive the work status report. According to an exemplary
`
`embodiment, the second user may request the work status report via the EMI unit 112. In such an
`
`embodiment, the second user may login to the system using a user's identification number and selecting
`
`the "Check—Out" selection icon 404. At step 1608, server 130 receives the request for a work status
`
`report. In such an embodiment, when the central management server 130 successfully authenticates the
`
`second user as a supervisory user at the first facility 110, the central management server 130 retrieves
`
`work status records based on the hierarchy level of the second user. For example, if the second user
`
`supervises three users, the central management server 130 retrieves the status for tasks associated with
`
`the three users as well as the supervisory user, and compiles the retrieved records into a work status
`
`report that is sent to the EMI unit 112. The examiner considers a supervisor requesting a work status
`
`report to be a user selection of one or more of the real-time performance indicators)
`
`Kalantar does not teach a short notice outage section or moving tasks to a short notice outage section;
`
`However, Scheer column 45, lines 15-25 teaches a customer's condition monitoring system that detects a
`
`deterioration of the widget on equipment XYZ and determines that maintenance should be scheduled.
`
`The condition monitoring system interacts with the CMMS system 16 so that the CMMS system 16
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 9
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 9
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 9
`
`schedules a maintenance task to be done in eight days. The examiner considers maintenance that is
`
`required within a short timeframe (8 days) to repair a deteriorating condition to be a short notice outage
`
`section. Both Kalantar and Scheer are drawn to scheduling tasks. Therefore, itwould have been obvious
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention to modify the teachings
`
`of Kalantar to include a short notice outage section as taught by Scheer to schedule maintenance and
`
`repair in response to detected conditions to perform repairs prior to failure. The added benefit is a more
`
`robust system.
`
`Kalantar does not teach and work orders, wherein the work orders can be moved by dragging and
`
`dropping the work orders, However, Clarke teaches a user selects what-if button 710 to turn the what-if
`
`function on. Then, the user highlights one or more work cards to be rescheduled and, using a mouse or
`
`similar device, drags the task bars representing the work cards and then shifts the work cards back in
`
`time (dragging the task bars to the right) or forward in time (dragging the task bars to the left). This
`
`reschedules the work cards and the work order. Work cards that are linked are moved together (see
`
`Clarke para. 67). Both Kalantar and Clarke are drawn to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention to modify the
`
`teachings of Kalantar to include work orders, wherein the work orders can be moved from one work week
`
`section to another work week section, from unscheduled to scheduled, to short notice outage, to planned
`
`outage, and to backlog, by dragging and dropping the work orders as taught by Clarke to provide an easy
`
`an intuitive interface for managing a schedule.
`
`Kalantar does not teach wherein the work orders comprise work elements that are linked as predecessors
`
`and successors, and wherein the computing device controls the user interface to display linkages
`
`between the predecessors and the successors. However, Clarke para. 46 teaches work orders may be
`
`linked together based on dependency. Further, Fig. 10 teaches displaying linkages. Both Kalantar and
`
`Clarke are drawn to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention to modify the teachings of Kalantar to include
`
`wherein the work orders comprise work elements that are linked as predecessors and successors, and
`
`wherein the computing device controls the user interface to display linkages between the predecessors
`
`CiM EX. 1005 Page 10
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 10
`
`and the successors as taught by Clarke to provide an easy an intuitive interface for managing a schedule
`
`and viewed related tasks.
`
`23.
`
`As per Claim 5 Kalantar teaches the planning and scheduling system of claim 1, wherein the
`
`second screen format is used to assign resources to the work within the work week.
`
`(Kalantar para.123 teaches the work order request icon 1016 enables a user to enter new work orders
`
`including tasks to be performed at a predetermined facility. For example, a supervisory user may add a
`
`task to a facility record and to a user record in order to schedule the task for completion by the user
`
`corresponding to the user record. Other embodiments may permit the supervisory user to identify the task
`
`as a one-time only task or a recurring task that is regularly scheduled by processes in server 130)
`
`24.
`
`Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalantar US
`
`2003/0088534 A1 in view of Scheer US 7,313,534 B2 in view or Clarke US 2002/0007297 A1 as
`
`applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Schweitzer US 2004/0078257 A1.
`
`25.
`
`As per Claim 2 Kalantar does not teach the planning and scheduling tool system of claim 1,
`
`wherein the computing device permits a user to drag and drop resources onto the work elements through
`
`the user interface. However, Schweitzer teaches user can drag and drop assignments to specific
`
`employees. Both Kalantar and Schweitzer are drawn to scheduling tasks. Therefore, it would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention to modify the
`
`teachings of Kalantar to include wherein the computing device permits a user to drag and resources onto
`
`the work elements through the user interface as taught by Schweitzer to provide an easy an intuitive
`
`interface for managing and assigning tasks.
`
`CiM EX. 1005 Page 11
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 11
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 11
`
`26.
`
`Claims 3, 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Kalantar US 2003/0088534 A1 in view of Scheer US 7,313,534 B2 in view of Kall US 2003/0149608
`
`A1.
`
`27.
`
`As per Claim 3 Kalantar teaches a planning and scheduling system running on a computing
`
`device, the system comprising:
`
`a user interface; a user interface wherein said user interface provides a first screen format for schedulers
`
`and planners and a second screen format for maintenance supervisors; and (see at least Kalantar Figure
`
`6, item 152. Further, para. 171 teaches upon a successful authentication of the second user, at step
`
`1508, the central management server 130 generates a work status report for the second user based on a
`
`hierarchy level associated with the second user. For example, if the second user, according to the user
`
`records stored in the database 140, manages other users, then the work status report generated on the
`
`central management server 130 includes task status data associated with the work schedules for the four
`
`other users and the supervisory user. The examiner considers this to be a screen format for maintenance
`
`supervisors. Further, para. 157 teaches referring to FIG. 22, at step 1302, the central management
`
`server 130 receives a first set of information defining tasks to be performed and scheduled at the first
`
`facility 110. In one embodiment, a user, such as a supervisory user, may place a work order including the
`
`first set of information by accessing a web page associated with the central management server 130. In
`
`an alternative embodiment, the user may place the work order at a call center. A call center staff member
`
`may then access the central management server 130 to place a work order request using the web—based
`
`interface such as illustrated in reference to FIG. 18. The examiner considers this to be a screen format
`
`for schedulers and planners).
`
`fi(see at least Kalantar Figure 6, item 152)
`
`a computing device in communication with said user interface, said computing device being programmed
`
`to implement: (see at least Kalantar Figure 6)
`
`
`work week sections‘ (see at least Kalantar Figure 19)
`
`a scheduled [ob section; (see at least Kalantar Figure 19 that discloses scheduled jobs)
`
`CiM EX. 1005 Page 12
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 12
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 12
`
`an unscheduled job section; (see at least Kalantar para. 79 that discloses task status identifiers employed
`
`on the central management server 130 to mark task records may indicate a variety of states. For
`
`example, status indicator values may include a task pending approval identifier, a new task request
`
`approved identifier, a new task request rejected identifier, a task unscheduled identifier, a task scheduled
`
`identifier, a task due identifier, a task not completed identifier, a task completed identifier, a task closed
`
`identifier, a task rescheduled identifier, a task cancelled identifier, a task approved identifier, a task
`
`rejected identifier, or a task forcefully approved identifier.)
`
`a planned outage section; (see at least Kalantar para. 153 the central management server 130 may
`
`provide preventive maintenance services to customers having one or more facilities managed by the
`
`central management server 130.
`
`In one embodiment, the preventive maintenance may include scheduling
`
`regular inspections for a facility to pinpoint problems before they occur. For example, the management
`
`server 130 may schedule making repairs on a planned basis to avoid unexpected breakdowns)
`
`Kalantar teaches tasks, wherein the tasks can be moved from one work week section to another work
`
`
`week section (see at least para. 67 that teaches tasks can be rescheduled) from unscheduled to
`
`
`scheduled (see at least para. 79 that teaches a task can be moved from unscheduled to scheduled)fl
`
`planned outage, (see at least para. 154 that teaches moving tasks to preventative maintenance which the
`
`examiner considers to be a planned outage) and to backlog (see at least para. 79 that teaches a task can
`
`be moved to new task rejected which the examiner considers to be a backlog)
`
`wherein one or more real-time performance indicators and metrics are calculated and displayed through
`
`the user interface, and wherein user selection of one or more of the real-time performance indicators and
`
`metrics displays one or more graphical representations of said one or more real-time performance
`
`indicators and metrics. Kalantar para. 78 teaches each task record stored in the database 140 may be
`
`marked with a task status identifier, and the central management server 130 may be configured to
`
`monitor and update a status of each task stored in the database 140. Further, Fig. 19 discloses
`
`displaying the status (closed or late). Further, para. 150 teaches the central management server 130
`
`may dynamically generate work status ranking and trend records based on a user's selection of a facility
`
`level. The examiner considers the dynamic status to be a real-time performance indicators and metrics.
`
`CiM EX. 1005 Page 13
`
`CiM Ex. 1005 Page 13
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 14/024,944
`
`Art Unit: 3683
`
`Page 13
`
`Further, para. 179 teaches a second user, such as a supervisory user, may send a request for a work
`
`status report involving the first user's tasks in order to perform an inspection stage. The second user may
`
`have a predetermined hierarchy level (such as a supervisory access level) that allows the second user to
`
`receive the work status report. According to an exemplary embodiment, the second user may request the
`
`work status report via the EMI unit 112. In such an embodiment, the second user may login to the system
`
`using a user's identification number and selecting the "Check—Out" selection icon 404. At step 1608,
`
`server 130 receives the request for a work status report. In such an embodiment, when the central
`
`management server 130 successfully authenticates the second user as a supervisory user at the first
`
`facility 110, the central management server 130 retrieves work status records based on the hierarchy
`
`level of the second user. For example, if the second user supervises three users, the central
`
`management server 130 retrieves the status for tasks associated with the three users as well as the
`
`supervisory user, and compiles the retrieved records into a work status report that is sent to the EMI unit
`
`112. The examiner considers a supervisor requesting a work status report to be a user selection of one
`
`or more of the real—time performance indicators)
`
`Kalantar does not teach a short notice outage section or moving tasks to a short notice outage section
`
`However, Scheer column 45, lines 15-25 teaches a customer's condition monitoring system that detects a
`
`deterioration of the widget on equipment XYZ and determines that maintenance should be scheduled.
`
`The condition monitoring system interacts with the CMMS system 16 so that the CMMS system 16
`
`schedules a maintenance task to be done in eight days. The examiner considers maintenance that is
`
`required within a short timeframe (8 days) to repair a deteriorating condition to be a short notice outage
`
`section. Both Kalantar and Scheer are drawn to scheduling tasks. Therefore, itwould have been obvious
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention to modify the teachings
`
`of Kalantar to include a short notice outage section