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 the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-23 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 7, 9, and 11 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 6, 16, 19 and 20 are amended.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-23 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed September 19, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objections, the objections are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Regarding the 112(a) rejections, the rejections are withdrawn because Applicant’s Remarks have demonstrated sufficient support for the amendments.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the newly amended limitations involving machine learning and real-time recommendations reflect a practical application. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the machine learning and real-time behavior is claimed too broadly and generally to be more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Second, Applicant asserts the machine learning is not a method of organizing human behavior. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the machine learning is only mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn because the previously cited references do no teach all the newly amended limitations. Please see below for the new rejections of the claims as amended.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claims six appears to be missing the word “and” and should be amended to read (emphasized) “…within the space; and adding the exposure to the user profile.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected because the claims recite “the group of users” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
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 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims are directed to a process; and claims would be directed to a machine if amended as suggested. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claim 1
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…providing a computer system; the computer system having computer implemented nodes connected in a network configured by programmed instructions stored in non-transitory memory units to form a distributed ledger, a cross-verification process for secure exchange of requests for and access to verified identity documents;
the computer system configured to train an exposure model to identify patterns between environmental conditions and a user profile via iterative execution of the exposure model on environmental data and a group of users;
identifying , from an application of a user device, a dataset of a space and a set of parameters of a space, wherein the dataset comprises dimensions forming a volume of the space and three-dimensional coordinates forming the volume of the space;
identifying, from the application of the user device, a set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space, wherein the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space each comprise a set of environmental factors comprising (i) a chemical task exposure feature (ii) a noise task exposure feature (iii) a heat task exposure feature (iv) a biological exposure feature (v)an ergonomic task exposure feature (vi) a radiation task exposure feature (vii) an illumination task feature, and (viii) a psychological task feature;
determining a real time task exposure risk assessment.
These limitations recites an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions) because capturing exposure information and performing risk assessments involves following rules or instructions (i.e., assessing risk based on existing laws, regulations, policies, etc.) to determine a task exposure risk assessment. Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people fall with the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…providing a computer system; the computer system having computer implemented nodes connected in a network configured by programmed instructions stored in non-transitory memory units to form a distributed ledger, a cross-verification process for secure exchange of requests for and access to verified identity documents;
the computer system configured to train an exposure model to identify patterns between environmental conditions and a user profile via iterative execution of the exposure model on environmental data and a group of users;
capturing, from an application of a user device, a dataset of a space and a set of parameters of a space, wherein the dataset comprises dimensions forming a volume of the space and three-dimensional coordinates forming the volume of the space;
capturing, from the application of the user device, a set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space, wherein the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space each comprise a set of environmental factors comprising (i) a chemical task exposure feature (ii) a noise task exposure feature (iii) a heat task exposure feature (iv) a biological exposure feature (v)an ergonomic task exposure feature (vi) a radiation task exposure feature (vii) an illumination task feature, and (viii) a psychological task feature;
determining a real time task exposure risk assessment.
The additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the computer system having computer implemented nodes connected in a network configured by programmed instructions stored in non-transitory memory units; standardized forms system; resource center; and dashboard, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer, a database storing standardized forms, a database storing resource information, and a generic user interface) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of forming a distributed ledger, a cross-verification process for secure exchange of requests for and access to verified identity documents, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (blockchain) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the additional elements of training an exposure model via iterative execution, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly and generally (i.e., as a generic use of machine learning) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Claim 1 is directed an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use or technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and a general link to a field of use or technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 6
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
… a computer system; the computer system comprising a database,
the computer system configured to maintain a user profile in the database;
the computer system configured to maintain a plurality of data tables;
the computer system configured to maintain a set of hazard information;
the computer system having computer implemented nodes connected in a network configured by programmed instructions stored in non-transitory memory units to form a distributed ledger, a cross-verification process for secure exchange of requests for and access to verified identity documents;
the computer system configured to train an exposure model to identify patterns between environmental conditions and a user profile via iterative execution of the exposure model on environmental data and a group of users;
a graphical user interface;
the graphical user interface having a standard forms page;
the graphical user interface having a resource center page;
the graphical user interface having a dashboard page and;
capturing, from an application of a user device, a dataset of a space and a set of parameters of a space, wherein the dataset comprises dimensions forming a volume of the space and three-dimensional coordinates forming the volume of the space; wherein the dataset and the set of parameters of a space are captured in a task exposure risk assessment builder;
capturing, from the application of the user device, a set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space, wherein the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space each comprise a set of environmental factors comprising (i) a chemical task exposure feature (ii) a noise task exposure feature (iii) a heat task exposure feature (iv) a biological exposure feature (v) an ergonomic task exposure feature (vi) a radiation task exposure feature (vii) an illumination task feature, and (viii) a psychological task feature; wherein the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space are captured in the task exposure risk assessment builder;
wherein each user profile comprises at least one characteristic of a user;
wherein each user profile accepts a plurality of inputs, in the form of a plurality of characteristics, toward creating the user profile;
wherein the computer system is configured to store data corresponding to a defined environment;
wherein the computer system is configured to store data corresponding to a user profile;
wherein the user profile accesses a graphical user interface to upload a set of information;
wherein the computer system stores the set of information associated with the defined environment; and
embedding a real time parameter with said set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space, wherein embedding the real time parameter is linking, via the computer system, the real time parameter, wherein the real time parameter is a date and time;
detecting the presence of the user in the space;
tracking an amount of time the user is present in the space;
determining the exposure of the user over the amount of time in the space; wherein the exposure of the user is determined from the set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space;
adding the exposure to the user profile.
This limitation recites an abstract idea because this limitation encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions). This limitation encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions) because capturing exposure information and performing risk assessment involves following rules or instructions (i.e., assessing risk based on existing laws, regulations, policies, etc.) to determine a task exposure risk assessment for a person. Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people fall with the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity". Claim 6 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 6 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 6 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…a computer system;
the computer system comprising a database,
the computer system configured to maintain a user profile in the database;
the computer system configured to maintain a plurality of data tables;
the computer system configured to maintain a set of hazard information;
the computer system having computer implemented nodes connected in a network configured by programmed instructions stored in non-transitory memory units to form a distributed ledger, a cross-verification process for secure exchange of requests for and access to verified identity documents;
the computer system configured to train an exposure model to identify patterns between environmental conditions and a user profile via iterative execution of the exposure model on environmental data and a group of users;
a graphical user interface;
the graphical user interface having a standard forms page;
the graphical user interface having a resource center page;
the graphical user interface having a dashboard page;
capturing, from an application of a user device, a dataset of a space and a set of parameters of a space, wherein the dataset comprises dimensions forming a volume of the space and three-dimensional coordinates forming the volume of the space; wherein the dataset and the set of parameters of a space are captured in a task exposure risk assessment builder;
capturing, from the application of the user device, a set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space, wherein the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space each comprise a set of environmental factors comprising (i) a chemical task exposure feature (ii) a noise task exposure feature (iii) a heat task exposure feature (iv) a biological exposure feature (v) an ergonomic task exposure feature (vi) a radiation task exposure feature (vii) an illumination task feature, and (viii) a phsychological task feature; wherein the set of parameters of the at lesat one hazard within the space are captured in the task exposure risk assessment builder;
wherein each user profile comprises at least one characteristic of a user;
wherein each user profile accepts a plurality of inputs, in the form of a plurality of characteristics, toward creating the user profile;
wherein the computer system is configured to store data corresponding to the defined environment;
wherein the computer system is configured to store data corresponding to a user profile;
wherein the user profile accesses a graphical user interface to upload a set of information;
wherein the computer system stores the set of information associated with the defined environment; and
embedding a real time parameter with said set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space, wherein embedding the real time parameter is linking, via the computer system, the real time parameter, wherein the real time parameter is a date and time;
detecting the presence of the user in the space;
tracking an amount of time the user is present in the space;
determining the exposure of the user over the amount of time in the space; wherein the exposure of the user is determined from the set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space;
adding the exposure to the user profile.
The additional elements of claim 6 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the computer system comprising a database, a graphical user interface, a processor for integrating; and having computer implemented nodes connected in a network configured by programmed instructions stored in non-transitory memory units, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of maintaining a user profile, a plurality of data tables, and a set of hazard information and embedding a real time parameter, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of storing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of forming a distributed ledger, a cross-verification process for secure exchange of requests for and access to verified identity documents, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (blockchain) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Fourth, the additional elements of training an exposure model via iterative execution, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly and generally (i.e., as a generic use of machine learning) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Fifth, the additional elements of the graphical user interface having a standard forms page, a resource center page, and a dashboard page, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of storing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Sixth, the additional elements of the user profile having a characteristic of a user, accepting inputs for creating the user profile, and accessing a user interface to upload a set of information, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving, storing, and transmitting data (i.e. receiving, storing, and sending user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Seventh, the additional elements of the computer system storing data corresponding to the defined environment, data corresponding to the user profile, and the set of information, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of storing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). Claim 6 is directed an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Claim 6 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use or technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and a general link to a field of use or technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 16
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 16 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…identifying, from an application of a user device, a dataset of a space and a set of parameters of a space, wherein the dataset comprises dimensions forming a volume of the space and three-dimensional coordinates forming the volume of the space;
identifying, from the application of the user device, a set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space;
generating a three-dimensional space with a volume;
extracting, via one or more processing circuits of a computing system, a characterization risk of occupational health hazards based on the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space;
recommending a set of control measures based on an exposure model;
training the exposure model to identify environmental conditions; control measures provided based on an evaluation of the extracted characterization risk of occupational health hazards based upon said environmental conditions;
linking said set of control measures to real-time information, wherein the real-time information is a time-stamp associated with the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space;
embedding a time and date with the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space;
evaluating risk of the space based on real-time information.
These limitations recites an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions) because performing a risk assessment involves following rules or instructions (i.e. assessing risk based on existing laws, regulations, policies, etc.) to determine recommendations (e.g., to mitigate or minimize the risks). Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people fall with the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity". Claim 16 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 16 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…identifying, from an application of a user device, a dataset of a space and a set of parameters of a space, wherein the dataset comprises dimensions forming a volume of the space and three-dimensional coordinates forming the volume of the space;
identifying, from the application of the user device, a set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space;
generating a three-dimensional space with a volume;
extracting, via one or more processing circuits of a computing system, a characterization risk of occupational health hazards based on the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space;
implementing a set of control measures based on a predetermined set of rules provided based on an evaluation of the extracted characterization risk of occupational health hazards;
recommending a set of control measures based on an exposure model;
training the exposure model to identify environmental conditions; control measures provided based on an evaluation of the extracted characterization risk of occupational health hazards based upon said environmental conditions;
linking said set of control measures to real-time information, wherein the real-time information is a time-stamp associated with the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space;
embedding a time and date with the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space;
evaluating risk of a the space based on real-time information.
The additional elements of claim 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the application of a user device, processing circuits, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of training an exposure model, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly and generally (i.e., as a generic use of machine learning) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Third, the additional elements of linking control measure and embedding a time a date, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving, and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). Claim 16 is directed an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Claim 16 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and a general link to a field of use or technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the following reasons.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13 and 17 all essentially recite the additional elements of various steps related to encrypting and storing data for users on a blockchain and controlling access to the data on the blockchain. First, the additional elements of encrypting and storing data for users on a blockchain, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (blockchain) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Second, the additional elements of controlling access to the data on the blockchain, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because restricting public access to content is only insignificant, extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) (discussing Ultramercial).
Claim 4 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because claim 4 recites evaluating parameters associated with a hazard which is a part of evaluating risk.
Claim 4 also recite the additional elements of maintaining a user profile and uploading parameters associated with a hazard. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of encoding the dataset with a private key and appending the dataset to a distributed ledger. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (blockchain) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 8 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because having a defined space and multiple hazard types is a part of evaluating risk.
Claim 8 also recites the additional elements of using a remote access point to enter data into the blockchain which, when considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the remote access point is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic smart phone) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of specifying what data is included in the verified identity documents. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e., receiving and storing user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 14 and 15 recite the additional elements of defining and displaying a standardized document page and a plurality of characteristics which, when considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because document page is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic user interface ) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Claim 18 recites various additional elements which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of storing a user profile having a set of parameters, a predetermined set of rules, and a plurality of regulations, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of storing data (i.e. storing user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, the additional elements of the processing circuits and processor, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements into a practical application because the processing circuits and processor are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Third, the additional elements of an objective database having various task exposure risk assessments, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these limitations encompass storing the claimed assessments, which is not more than a generic computer function, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 19 and 20 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the environmental factors, the combined risk exposure risk assessment and the generating a report with a reference are a part of evaluating risk.
Claim 20 further recites the additional elements of the processing circuits which, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the processing circuits are recited at a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Claims 21 and 22 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because recommending a behavior based on the various claimed parameters is a part of risk assessment (i.e., recommending mitigations or minimizations for the risk).
Claims 21 and 22 further recite the additional elements of executing the trained model. These additional elements, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited sufficiently broadly and generally (i.e., as a generic use of machine learning) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Claim 23 recites the additional elements of providing a set of standardized forms; resource center; and dashboard. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer and database storing standardized forms, a database storing resource information, and a generic user interface) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 12-15 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelo, US Pub. No. 2009/0234690, herein referred to as "Nikipelo" further in view of Casarez et al, US Pub. No. 2020/0141734, in view of Mercury et al, US Pub. 2019/0089701, herein referred to as “Mercury”, herein referred to as “Casarez”, further in view of Ramdas, PR. "Managing Industrial Hygiene Chemical Exposure Risks" Allana Management Journal of Research, Pune 2 (2012): 9-15, herein referred to as “Ramdas” in view of Aston et al, US Pub. 2020/0090089, herein referred to as “Aston”.
Regarding claim 1, Nikipelo teaches:
providing a computer system (processor and memory, e.g., ¶¶[0020], [0085] and Fig. 9);
the computer system having computer implemented nodes connected in a network configured (system is provided on a network, ¶[0080])
by programmed instructions stored in non-transitory memory units (memory and instructions, e.g., ¶¶[0020], [0085], [0087])
a cross-verification process for secure exchange of requests for and access to documents (various users log in, ¶¶[0039], [0067] and provides reports to supervisor based on supervisor requests, ¶[0078]);
identifying, from the application of the user device, a set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space, wherein the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space each comprise a set of environmental factors comprising (i) a chemical task exposure (v) an ergonomic task exposure feature (tracks chemical handling, ¶¶[0036], [0048], and assesses ergonomics, ¶[0069]);
determining a task exposure risk assessment (¶[0024]).
However, Nikipelo does not teach but Mercury does teach:
to form a distributed ledger (maintains badges and credentials in a blockchain, e.g., ¶¶[0184]-[0186]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0124], [0127], [0232] discussing workplace safety),
and access to verified identity documents (maintains badges and credentials in a blockchain, e.g., ¶¶[0184]-[0186]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0106], [0131], discussing badge information. Further, Examiner finds that the limitations specifying the particular data that is accessed is verified identity documents does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type of information being accessed does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling the information does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05);
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the blockchain based system of Mercury because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Nikipelo teaches recording worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. One of ordinary skill would have modified Nikipelo to store this information in blockchain for situations where using blockchain (i.e., as taught by Mercury) is advantageous (e.g., when increasing trust, security and transparency is appealing).
However the combination of Nikipelo and Mercury does not teach but Casarez does teach:
capturing, from an application of a user device, a dataset of a space and a set of parameters of a space, wherein the dataset comprises dimensions forming a volume of the space and three-dimensional coordinates forming the volume of the space (real-time visual map of environmental conditions is a 3D model of the area, ¶¶[0027], [0037]; see also ¶[0028] discussing user devices)
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance with the blockchain of Nikipelo and Mercury with the mapped environmental hazards of Casarez because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Nikipelo and Mercury would be interested in real-time three dimensional monitoring of environmental hazards to support industrial safety and accordingly would have modified Nikipelo and Mercury to utilize the mapped environmental hazards of Casarez.
However the combination of Nikipelo, Mercury and Casarez does not teach but Ramdas does teach:
(ii) a noise task exposure feature (iii) a heat task exposure feature (iv) a biological exposure feature (vi) a radiation task exposure feature (vii) an illumination task feature, and (viii) a psychological task feature (hazards including noise, heat, biological, radiation and psychological and tracks exposures thereof, pgs. 2-3).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance with the blockchain and mapped environmental hazards of Nikipelo, Mercury and Casarez with the industrial hygiene of Ramdas because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Nikipelo, Mercury and Casarez would be interested in complying with safety requirements, like the monitoring of hazards taught by Ramdas.
However the combination of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas does not teach but Aston does teach:
the computer system configured to train an exposure model to identify patterns between environmental conditions and a user profile (trains machine learning model, e.g., ¶¶[0059]-[0060], [0065] to determine assess environmental risk for user, ¶¶[0061]-[0062])
via iterative execution of the exposure model on environmental data and a group of users (system continuously trains itself, e.g., ¶¶[0038], [0044]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance with the blockchain and mapped environmental hazards with the industrial hygiene of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas with the machine learning of Aston because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the analysis of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas would likely be improved by a machine learning based analysis.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nikipelo, Aston, Casarez, Ramdas and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Mercury further teaches:
establishing a secure verification address of a first entity based on the distributed ledger for a digital user identifier or wallet or token of a first user to be associated with the verified identity documents of the first user to be stored at the first entity (uses the addresses of the node computer within the blockchain network to store an issued/earned badge onto the blockchain and it will be recorded as belonging to that particular node, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]);
receiving the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity on the distributed ledger (blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶[0189]);
receiving a request from a second user at a second entity on the distributed ledger for access to the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity (requests from various clients within the badging network to view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]);
authenticating the identity of the second user to receive permission to obtain the requested access (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
regulating, in response to an authenticated request of the second user, the access to the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity on the distributed ledger (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
issuing a grant or denial to the second user to the request for access to the verified identity documents of the first user (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
and providing the requested verified identity documents or withholding access to the verified identity documents (outputs badge data, ¶[0197]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the blockchain based system of Mercury because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Nikipelo teaches recording worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. One of ordinary skill would have modified Nikipelo to store this information in blockchain for situations where using blockchain (i.e., as taught by Mercury) is advantageous (e.g., when increasing trust, security and transparency is appealing).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nikipelo, Aston, Casarez, Ramdas and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Mercury further teaches:
establishing a secure verification address of a first entity based on the distributed ledger for a digital user identifier or wallet or token of a first user to be associated with the verified identity documents of the first user to be stored at the first entity (uses the addresses of the node computer within the blockchain network to store an issued/earned badge onto the blockchain and it will be recorded as belonging to that particular node, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]);
receiving the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity on the distributed ledger (blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶[0189]);
receiving a request from a second user at a second entity on the distributed ledger for access to the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity (requests from various clients within the badging network to view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]);
authenticating the identity of the second user to receive permission to obtain the requested access (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
regulating, in response to an authenticated request of the second user, the access to the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity on the distributed ledger (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
issuing a grant or denial to the second user to the request for access to the verified identity documents of the first user (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
and providing the requested verified identity documents or withholding access to the verified identity documents (outputs badge data, ¶[0197]).
receiving of the verified identity documents of the first user to be stored at the first entity is completed by performing the steps of: activating an interface configuration (interfaces, e.g., ¶¶[0063], [0199], [0211]-[0213] and Figs. 30A, 34)
to add or delete data related to the digital user identifier associated with the first user (add and tracks badges, ¶¶[0185], [0189]);
encrypting the digital user identifier associated with the verified identity documents of the first user using a private key and a public key (encrypts data using public and private keys, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]);
associating the encrypted digital user identifier with files in the distributed ledger containing the verified identity documents of the first user (blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶[0189]);
and storing the verification address of the encrypted digital user identifier with the associated verified identity documents of the first user in each node of the distributed ledger (public and private keys based on the addresses of the node computer and blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the blockchain based system of Mercury because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Nikipelo teaches recording worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. One of ordinary skill would have modified Nikipelo to store this information in blockchain for situations where using blockchain (i.e., as taught by Mercury) is advantageous (e.g., when increasing trust, security and transparency is appealing).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nikipelo, Aston, Casarez, Ramdas and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Nikipelo further teaches:
maintaining a user profile (tracks and records worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. Please note monitoring a worker would be maintaining a worker profile because the definition of profile includes a description of someone's work);
and uploading a set of parameters associated with at least one hazard (receives information on hazards, e.g., ¶[0020], monitors hazard assessments, e.g., ¶[0039], and tracks hazardous materials, ¶[0055]);
evaluating the set of parameters associated with at least one hazard (tracks and records worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nikipelo, Aston, Casarez, Ramdas and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Mercury further teaches:
encoding the dataset of the space and the set of parameters of the space; signing the encoded dataset to a private key corresponding to a digital wallet of a user (encrypts data using public and private keys, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]; see also ¶[0108] discussing digital wallets);
transmitting the dataset to a network of nodes of a distributed ledger; and appending an existing chain of blocks in the distributed ledger (public and private keys based on the addresses of the node computer and blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the blockchain based system of Mercury because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Nikipelo teaches recording worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. One of ordinary skill would have modified Nikipelo to store this information in blockchain for situations where using blockchain (i.e., as taught by Mercury) is advantageous (e.g., when increasing trust, security and transparency is appealing).
Regarding claim 6, Nikipelo teaches:
a computer system; the computer system comprising a database (processor and memory, e.g., ¶¶[0020], [0085] and Fig. 9),
the computer system configured to maintain a user profile in the database (tracks and records worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. Please note monitoring a worker would be maintaining a worker profile because the definition of profile includes a description of someone's work);
the computer system configured to maintain a plurality of data tables (includes various lists like vendors, resources, and assets,¶[0026]);
the computer system configured to maintain a set of hazard information (receives information on hazards, e.g., ¶[0020], monitors hazard assessments, e.g., ¶[0039], and tracks hazardous materials, ¶[0055]);
the computer system having computer implemented nodes connected in a network configured (system is provided on a network, ¶[0080])
by programmed instructions stored in non-transitory memory units (memory and instructions, e.g., ¶¶[0020], [0085], [0087])
a cross-verification process for secure exchange of requests for and access to documents (various users log in, ¶¶[0039], [0067] and provides reports to supervisor based on supervisor requests, ¶[0078]);
a graphical user interface (computing device includes display and input devices, ¶[0085] and Fig. 9; see also e.g., Figs. 5-8 showing examples of user interfaces);
the graphical user interface having a standard forms page (provides standard form for reporting, ¶[0073]; see also ¶[0042], discussing monitoring completion of sets of a standard form);
the graphical user interface having a resource center page (resource module identifies relevant municipal, provincial, state and federal legislation, ¶[0075]);
the graphical user interface having a dashboard page (provides reporting and statistical data at a management level, ¶[0075]);
capturing, from the application of a user device, a set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space, wherein the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space each comprise a set of environmental factors comprising (i) a chemical task exposure (v) an ergonomic task exposure feature (tracks chemical handling, ¶¶[0036], [0048], and assesses ergonomics, ¶[0069]).
wherein each user profile comprises at least one characteristic of a user (scores worker competency, e.g., ¶[0042]. Please note scoring a worker's competency would be a worker profile because the definition of profile includes a description of someone's work);
wherein each user profile accepts a plurality of inputs, in the form of a plurality of characteristics, toward creating the user profile (tracks and records worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. Please note monitoring a worker would be maintaining a worker profile because the definition of profile includes a description of someone's work);
wherein the computer system is configured to store data corresponding to the defined environment (assets associated with location are tracked and recorded, ¶[0037]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0054], [0079] discussing tracking locations);
wherein the computer system is configured to store data corresponding to a user profile (stores information on badge user, ¶[0222]);
wherein the user profile accesses a graphical user interface to upload a set of information (inputs updates on worker's activities, ¶[0033] and tracks and records worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]);
wherein the computer system stores the set of information associated with the defined environment (assets associated with location are tracked and recorded, ¶[0037]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0054], [0079] discussing tracking locations);
However, Nikipelo does not teach but Mercury does teach:
to form a distributed ledger (maintains badges and credentials in a blockchain, e.g., ¶¶[0184]-[0186]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0124], [0127], [0232] discussing workplace safety),
and access to verified identity documents (maintains badges and credentials in a blockchain, e.g., ¶¶[0184]-[0186]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0106], [0131], discussing badge information).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the blockchain based system of Mercury because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Nikipelo teaches recording worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. One of ordinary skill would have modified Nikipelo to store this information in blockchain for situations where using blockchain (i.e., as taught by Mercury) is advantageous (e.g., when increasing trust, security and transparency is appealing).
However the combination of Nikipelo and Mercury does not teach but Casarez does teach:
capturing, from an application of a user device, a dataset of a space and a set of parameters of a space, wherein the dataset comprises dimensions forming a volume of the space and three-dimensional coordinates forming the volume of the space (real-time visual map of environmental conditions is a 3D model of the area, ¶¶[0027], [0037]; see also ¶[0028] discussing user devices)
embedding a real time parameter with said set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space, wherein embedding the real time parameter is linking, via the computer system, the real time parameter, wherein the real time parameter is a date and time (environmental measurement and position data includes timestamp, ¶[0021]; see also ¶[0017] discussing monitoring hazard positions);
detecting the presence of the user in the space (tracks location of users, e.g., ¶¶[0018], [0025]);
tracking an amount of time the user is present in the space (measure user over time, ¶¶[0022], [0032]);
determining the exposure of the user over the amount of time in the space; wherein the exposure of the user is determined from the set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space (monitors dose rate and position data as a function of time, ¶[0032]);
adding the exposure to the user profile (stores measurement data, ¶[0045]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance with the blockchain of Nikipelo and Mercury with the mapped environmental hazards of Casarez because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Nikipelo and Mercury would be interested in real-time three dimensional monitoring of environmental hazards to support industrial safety and accordingly would have modified Nikipelo and Mercury to utilize the mapped environmental hazards of Casarez.
However the combination of Nikipelo, Mercury and Casarez does not teach but Ramdas does teach:
(ii) a noise task exposure feature (iii) a heat task exposure feature (iv) a biological exposure feature (vi) a radiation task exposure feature (vii) an illumination task feature, and (viii) a psychological task feature (hazards including noise, heat, biological, radiation and psychological and tracks exposures thereof, pgs. 2-3).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance with the blockchain and mapped environmental hazards of Nikipelo, Mercury and Casarez with the industrial hygiene of Ramdas because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Nikipelo, Mercury and Casarez would be interested in complying with safety requirements, like the monitoring of hazards taught by Ramdas.
However the combination of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas does not teach but Aston does teach:
the computer system configured to train an exposure model to identify patterns between environmental conditions and a user profile (trains machine learning model, e.g., ¶¶[0059]-[0060], [0065] to determine assess environmental risk for user, ¶¶[0061]-[0062])
via iterative execution of the exposure model on environmental data and a group of users (system continuously trains itself, e.g., ¶¶[0038], [0044]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance with the blockchain and mapped environmental hazards with the industrial hygiene of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas with the machine learning of Aston because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the analysis of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas would likely be improved by a machine learning based analysis.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez, Ramdas and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Nikipelo further teaches:
a geographic location; the geographic location having a defined space (assets associated with location are tracked and recorded, ¶[0037]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0054], [0059], [0079] discussing tracking locations);
and a plurality of hazard types (data includes event and hazard types, ¶[0024]).
However, Nikipelo does not teach but Mercury does teach:
having a remote access point (user devices includes smartphones and tablets, ¶[0054]);
wherein the remote access point is an access device which can connect to the network an ledger in the environment which the remote access point is located (authenticates via login credentials, ¶¶[0073], [0078], [0199]);
wherein the remote access point provides entry of information connected to a distributed ledger technology (allows user to add information to the blockchain, ¶¶[0179], [0183], [0185], [0211] and Fig. 34).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the blockchain based system using smartphones of Mercury because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Nikipelo teaches recording worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. One of ordinary skill would have modified Nikipelo to store this information in blockchain for situations where using blockchain (i.e., as taught by Mercury) is advantageous (e.g., when increasing trust, security and transparency is appealing).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Nikipelo further teaches:
wherein the verified identity documents include information related to a company (stores information on company records and employers, ¶¶[0196], [0222]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Mercury further teaches:
a secure verification address of a first entity based on the distributed ledger for a digital user identifier or wallet or token of a first user to be associated with the verified identity documents of the first user to be stored at the first entity (uses the addresses of the node computer within the blockchain network to store an issued/earned badge onto the blockchain and it will be recorded as belonging to that particular node, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]);
wherein the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity on the distributed ledger (blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶[0189]);
a request received from a second user at a second entity on the distributed ledger for access to the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity (requests from various clients within the badging network to view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]);
wherein the identity of the second user is authenticated to receive permission to obtain the requested access (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
wherein the response to an authenticated request of the second user, the access to the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity on the distributed ledger (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
wherein a grant or denial is issued to the second user to the request for access to the verified identity documents of the first user (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
and where the requested verified identity documents or withholding access to the verified identity documents are provided (outputs badge data, ¶[0197]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the blockchain based system of Mercury because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Nikipelo teaches recording worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. One of ordinary skill would have modified Nikipelo to store this information in blockchain for situations where using blockchain (i.e., as taught by Mercury) is advantageous (e.g., when increasing trust, security and transparency is appealing).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of the combination of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Mercury further teaches:
wherein the verified identity documents of the first user to be stored at the first entity, further comprising: an interface configuration (interfaces, e.g., ¶¶[0063], [0199], [0211]-[0213] and Figs. 30A, 34)
to add or delete data related to the digital user identifier associated with the first user (add and tracks badges, ¶¶[0185], [0189]);
where the digital user identifier associated is encrypted with the verified identity documents of the first user using a private key and a public key (encrypts data using public and private keys, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]);
where the encrypted digital user identifier is associated with files in the distributed ledger containing the verified identity documents of the first user (blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶[0189]);
and wherein the verification address of the encrypted digital user identifier is stored with the associated verified identity documents of the first user in each node of the distributed ledger (blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶[0189]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the blockchain based system of Mercury because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Nikipelo teaches recording worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. One of ordinary skill would have modified Nikipelo to store this information in blockchain for situations where using blockchain (i.e., as taught by Mercury) is advantageous (e.g., when increasing trust, security and transparency is appealing).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Nikipelo further teaches:
wherein the computer system is configured to define a standardized document page (provides standard form for reporting, ¶[0073]; see also ¶[0042], discussing monitoring completion of sets of a standard form),
wherein the standardized document page displays a plurality of documents associated with the information related to the set of hazard information (provides standard form for reporting incidents resulting in property damage or injury, ¶[0073]; see also ¶[0042], discussing monitoring completion of sets of a standard form).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Nikipelo further teaches:
a plurality of hazard information (data includes event and hazard types, ¶[0024]),
wherein the computer system is further configured to define a plurality of characteristics that are to be displayed in the graphical user interface in response to a user input (displays various user interfaces, e.g., ¶¶[0081]-[0084] and Figs. 5-8; see also ¶[0085] discussing user input devices).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Nikipelo, Aston, Casarez, Ramdas and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Aston further teaches:
recommending a real-time behavior for the user based on the group of users via execution of the trained exposure model and the set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space and a set of characteristics of a user profile, where the trained exposure model receives the set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space and the set of characteristics of the user profile; and determines a recommended real-time behavior based on patterns identified by the trained exposure model (recommend tasks to lower risk, ¶[0041]; see also e.g., ¶[0056] discussing environmental data and e.g., ¶[0065] discussing user data).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the mapped environmental hazards of Casarez because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Nikipelo would be interested in real-time three dimensional monitoring of environmental hazards to support industrial safety and accordingly would have modified Nikipelo and Mercury to utilize the mapped environmental hazards of Casarez.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Nikipelo, Aston, Casarez, Ramdas and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Aston further teaches:
recommending a real-time behavior for the user based on the group of users via execution of the trained exposure model and the set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space and a set of characteristics of a user profile, where the trained exposure model receives the set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space and the set of characteristics of the user profile; and determines a recommended real-time behavior based on patterns identified by the trained exposure model (recommend tasks to lower risk, ¶[0041]; see also e.g., ¶[0056] discussing environmental data and e.g., ¶[0065] discussing user data).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the mapped environmental hazards of Casarez because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Nikipelo would be interested in real-time three dimensional monitoring of environmental hazards to support industrial safety and accordingly would have modified Nikipelo and Mercury to utilize the mapped environmental hazards of Casarez.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Nikipelo, Aston, Casarez, Ramdas and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Nikipelo further teaches:
providing a set of standardized forms (provides standard form for reporting, ¶[0073]; see also ¶[0042], discussing monitoring completion of sets of a standard form);
providing a resource center (resource module identifies relevant municipal, provincial, state and federal legislation, ¶[0075]);
providing a dashboard (provides reporting and statistical data at a management level, ¶[0075]);
Claim(s) 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelo in view of Casarez.
Regarding claim 16, Nikipelo teaches:
extracting, via one or more processing circuits of a computing system, a characterization risk of occupational health hazards based on the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space (identifies hazards, e.g., ¶¶[0044], [0068]; see also ¶[0057] discussing different levels of hazards);
recommending a set of control measures based on an exposure model control; measures provided based on an evaluation of the extracted characterization risk of occupational health hazards; based upon said environmental conditions; (performs hazard and risk assessments, ¶[0024]; and identifies corrective actions, ¶¶[0068], [0072]);
evaluating risk of a the space based on real-time information (performs hazard and risk assessments, ¶[0024]).
However Nikipelo does not teach but Casarez does teach
identifying, from an application of a user device, a dataset of a space and a set of parameters of a space, wherein the dataset comprises dimensions forming a volume of the space and three-dimensional coordinates forming the volume of the space (real-time visual map of environmental conditions is a 3D model of the area, ¶¶[0027], [0037]; see also ¶[0028] discussing user devices);
identifying, from the application of the user device, a set of parameters of at least one hazard within the space (tracks environmental measurement and position data, ¶[0021]; see also ¶[0017] discussing monitoring hazard positions);
generating a three-dimensional space with a volume (real-time visual map of environmental conditions is a 3D model of the area, ¶¶[0027], [0037);
linking said set of control measures to real-time information, wherein the real-time information is a time-stamp associated with the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space (environmental measurement and position data includes timestamp, ¶[0021]; see also ¶[0017] discussing monitoring hazard positions)
embedding a time and date with the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space (environmental measurement and position data includes timestamp, ¶[0021]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance of Nikipelo with the mapped environmental hazards of Casarez because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Nikipelo would be interested in real-time three dimensional monitoring of environmental hazards to support industrial safety and accordingly would have modified Nikipelo and Mercury to utilize the mapped environmental hazards of Casarez.
However the combination of Nikipelo and Casarez does not teach but Aston does teach:
training the exposure model to identify environmental conditions (trains machine learning model, e.g., ¶¶[0059]-[0060], [0065] to determine assess environmental risk for user, ¶¶[0061]-[0062])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance with the blockchain and mapped environmental hazards with the industrial hygiene of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas with the machine learning of Aston because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the analysis of Nikipelo, Mercury, Casarez and Ramdas would likely be improved by a machine learning based analysis.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nikipelo, Casarez and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and Nikipelo further teaches:
generating an output based on an input of the parameters associated with each of the plurality of hazards (tracks violations of policy, ¶[0023]; see also ¶[0041] discussing tracking requirements based on regulations);
storing by one or more processing circuits, a plurality of worker profiles; the plurality of worker profiles each having a set of parameters (tracks and records worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]; see also e.g., ¶[0020] discussing processors. Please note monitoring a worker would be maintaining a worker profile because the definition of profile includes a description of someone's work);
a predetermined set of rules for generating an output based on an input of the parameters associated with each of the plurality of worker profiles (tracks violations of policy, ¶[0023]; see also ¶[0041] discussing tracking requirements based on regulations).
storing by one or more processing circuits, a plurality of regulations; the plurality of regulations associated with a set of rules (requirements are based on regulations, ¶[0041]);
storing by one or more processing circuits a plurality of standards (allows implementation of safety standards, ¶[0019]);
integrating the plurality of regulations, via one or more processors (system checks contractors meet requirements are based on regulations, ¶[0041]);
an objective database (memory, ¶[0085] and Fig. 9);
the objective database having at least one of: the objective database having a chemical task exposure risk assessment; the objective database having a noise task exposure risk assessment; the objective database having a heat task exposure risk assessment; the objective database having a biological task exposure risk assessment; the objective database having a radiation task exposure risk assessment; the objective database having an ergonomic task exposure risk assessment; and the objective database having an illumination task exposure risk assessment; the objective database having a psychological task exposure risk assessment (tracks chemical handling, ¶¶[0036], [0048], and assess ergonomics, ¶[0069]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination Nikipelo, Casarez and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and Nikipelo further teaches:
generating a combined task exposure risk assessment; via one or more processing circuits, wherein the combined task exposure risk assessment combines a plurality of parameters from a plurality of task exposure risk assessments based on a predetermined set of rules (tracks violations of errors of safety policy, ¶[0025]; see also e.g., ¶[0020] discussing processors)
generating, via one or more processing circuits, a report; wherein the report indicates a set of risks based on a combination of a plurality of hazards (provides reporting and statistical data at a management level, ¶[0075]);
and at least one reference (various regulations, e.g., ¶[0030]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelo, Casarez and Aston, further in view of Mercury.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Nikipelo, Casarez and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and does not teach but Mercury does teach:
a secure verification address of a first entity based on the distributed ledger for a digital user identifier or wallet or token of a first user to be associated with the verified identity documents of the first user to be stored at the first entity (uses the addresses of the node computer within the blockchain network to store an issued/earned badge onto the blockchain and it will be recorded as belonging to that particular node, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]);
wherein the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity on the distributed ledger (blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶[0189]);
a request received from a second user at a second entity on the distributed ledger for access to the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity (requests from various clients within the badging network to view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]);
wherein the identity of the second user is authenticated to receive permission to obtain the requested access (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
wherein the response to an authenticated request of the second user, the access to the verified identity documents of the first user at the verification address of the first entity on the distributed ledger (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
wherein a grant or denial is issued to the second user to the request for access to the verified identity documents of the first user (user authorizes others retrieve and view the user's current badges and badge status, ¶[0194]; see also ¶[0155] discussing authorization process);
and wherein the requested verified identity documents or withholding access to the verified identity documents are provided (outputs badge data, ¶[0197]);
wherein the verified identity documents of the first user to be stored at the first entity, further comprising: an interface configuration (interfaces, e.g., ¶¶[0063], [0199], [0211]-[0213] and Figs. 30A, 34)
to add or delete data related to the digital user identifier associated with the first user (add and tracks badges, ¶¶[0185], [0189]);
where the digital user identifier associated is encrypted with the verified identity documents of the first user using a private key and a public key (encrypts data using public and private keys, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]);
where the encrypted digital user identifier is associated with files in the distributed ledger containing the verified identity documents of the first user (blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶[0189]);
and wherein the verification address of the encrypted digital user identifier is stored with the associated verified identity documents of the first user in each node of the distributed ledger (public and private keys based on the addresses of the node computer and blockchain network records the existence of a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner, ¶¶[0188]-[0189]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance with the mapped environmental hazards of Nikipelo, Casarez and Aston with the blockchain based system of Mercury because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Nikipelo teaches recording worker's regulatory compliance, ¶¶[0039], [0042]. One of ordinary skill would have modified Nikipelo to store this information in blockchain for situations where using blockchain (i.e., as taught by Mercury) is advantageous (e.g., when increasing trust, security and transparency is appealing).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelo, Casarez and Aston, further in view of Ramdas.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Nikipelo, Casarez and Aston teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and Nikipelo further teaches:
wherein the set of parameters of the at least one hazard within the space each comprise a set of environmental factors comprising (i) a chemical task exposure (v) an ergonomic task exposure feature (tracks chemical handling, ¶¶[0036], [0048], and assesses ergonomics, ¶[0069]).
However the combination of Nikipelo, Casarez and Aston does teach but Ramdas does teach
(ii) a noise task exposure feature (iii) a heat task exposure feature (iv) a biological exposure feature (vi) a radiation task exposure feature (vii) an illumination task feature, and (viii) a psychological task feature (hazards including noise, heat, biological, radiation and psychological and tracks exposures thereof, pgs. 2-3).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the regulatory compliance and mapped environmental hazards of Nikipelo, Casarez and Aston with the industrial hygiene of Ramdas because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Nikipelo and Casarez would be interested in complying with safety requirements, like the monitoring of hazards taught by Ramdas.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626