DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 11/04/2025. Presently, claims 1-20 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, the rejection of claim 1-20 is maintained as presented below. Moreover, in light of the amendments to the claims, new rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant’s representative alleges the following:
In regards to 35 U.S.C. § 101, the claims are not directed to a mental process at least because the claims recite activity that falls outside the enumerated sub-groupings of methods that may be performed mentally, a person forming a judgment, performing a mental process that requires a generic computer, performing a mental process in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.
In regards to 35 U.S.C. § 101, by monitoring execution of a module associated with a project or software in a virtual environment, and deploying the module into a physical environment only after monitoring a completion status of the module, the claimed invention provides a specific improvement over existing deployment systems and allows for a more seamless translation of experience for a user.
In regards to 35 U.S.C. § 103, none of the cited references anticipate, teach, or suggest the following amended claim limitation: based on monitoring a completion status of the first module, triggering a cross module implementation from the virtual environment to a physical environment for physical environment implementation of a product or software associated with the first module.
Regarding point (1), the examiner notes that the claims are directed to a mental process.
Applicant’s representative argues that the subject matter of the claims embraces establishing a plurality of modules for deployment from a decentralized platform in a virtual environment, wherein each module comprises code for executing a virtual session within the virtual environment, wherein the virtual session is a training session associated with a product or software, based on a user history associated with a user, generating a tolerance level associated with the user for each of the plurality of modules, presenting one or more modules of the plurality of modules to the user in the virtual environment, wherein the presented one or more modules are selected based on the user history and one or more upstream user inputs associated with an upstream user, based on monitoring the virtual environment, detecting an execution of a first module by the user and establishing a communication channel between the virtual environment and an upstream virtual environment associated with the upstream user, and based on monitoring a completion status of the first module, triggering a cross module implementation from the virtual environment to a physical environment for physical environment implementation of a product or software associated with the first module. Such activities do not fall within the enumerated sub-groupings of methods that may be performed mentally, a person forming a judgment, performing a mental process that requires a generic computer, performing a mental process in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.
In response to the arguments above, applicant is citing multiple steps capable of being performed in the mind and using generic computer components to implement them or the implementation of a virtual environment through a computer. For example: “associating training session based on a user history associated with a user, generating a tolerance level, detecting execution of a first module” are all processes which can be performed in the mind. Applicant is simply using a virtual environment through a computer to process this type of information. Furthermore, computers are designed, in software and hardware features, to implement virtual environments. This capability is known as virtualization and is a fundamental aspect of modern computing.
Regarding point (2), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s representative argues that by monitoring execution of a module associated with a project or software in a virtual environment, and deploying the module into a physical environment only after monitoring a completion status of the module, the claimed invention provides a specific improvement over existing deployment systems and allows for a more seamless translation of experience for a user.
In response to the arguments above, computers are designed, in software and hardware features, to implement virtual environments. This capability is known as virtualization and is a fundamental aspect of modern computing. Furthermore, testing software is frequently done in a virtual environment to create isolated, reproducible, and scalable setups for a wide variety of tests. Applicant quotes paragraphs [0027]-[0028] of the specification of the present invention but these paragraphs do not disclose any improvement to the implementation of a computer or a virtual environment, just a description of how a centralized/decentralized system works or the various components of such a system (like databases, servers, etc.).
Regarding point (3), the examiner notes that these limitations are disclosed in Kwizera.
Applicant’s representative argues that Kwizera teaches only that an "interface module" is configured to send a data file to either a simulated environment or to a real world environment depending on a provider's selection. At no point does Kwizera teach or suggest triggering a cross module implementation from the virtual environment to a physical environment for physical environment implementation of a product or software associated with the first module based on monitoring a completion status of the first module.
In response to the arguments above, Kwizera discloses how when a product succeeds in the testing phase (completion of the testing phase), it will move from simulated environment to the real environment in ¶70 of the present invention. Basically, the simulated/virtual environment serves as a test bed for new products in ¶77 of the present invention. Furthermore, testing software in a virtual environment before deployment to real environment is part of certain software testing methods, such as Environment-Based Testing or Cloud Testing. These methods leverage virtual machines or containers, then the software is deployed and tested within these virtual environments, and once the software has been thoroughly tested and validated, it will be deployed to a real-world setting. Additionally, deployment of software is an inherent step of the software development life cycle (SDLC) and always follows after completion of testing.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, since they recite similar features to claim 1, they will be rejected as stated above. Therefore, the rejection is maintained as present below.
Applicant’s representative argues that since the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest the suggested features of claim 1 and so, allowance of all pending claims are respectfully requested. However, in light of the remarks and standing rejection below, the examiner asserts the prior art of record teaches all the elements as claimed and these elements satisfy all structural, functional, operational, and spatial limitations currently in the claims. Therefore, the standing rejections are proper and maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 23, “a product or software” should read “the product or software”.
Claim 8, line 21, “a product or software” should read “the product or software”.
Claim 11, line 2, “the user module deployment” should read “a user module deployment”.
Claim 15, line 20, “a product or software” should read “the product or software”.
Claim 18, line 1, “the user module deployment” should read “a user module deployment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 8 and 15, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
A system for a decentralized environment for physical environment component deployment, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: establish a plurality of modules for deployment from a decentralized platform in a virtual environment, wherein each module comprises code for executing a virtual session within the virtual environment, wherein the virtual session is a training session associated with a product or software; based on a user history associated with a user, generate a tolerance level associated with the user for each of the plurality of modules; present one or more modules of the plurality of modules to the user in the virtual environment, wherein the presented one or more modules are selected based on the user history and one or more upstream user inputs associated with an upstream user; based on monitoring the virtual environment, detect an execution of a first module by the user and establish a communication channel between the virtual environment and an upstream virtual environment associated with the upstream user; and based on monitoring a completion status of the first module, trigger a cross module implementation from the virtual environment to a physical environment for physical environment implementation of a product or software associated with the first module.
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 8 and 15) recites an abstract idea included in the groupings of mental processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a computer, a processor, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
D. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “generating a tolerance level based on a user history associated with a user, detect an execution of a first module by the user, monitoring a completion status of the first module”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to steps/concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, and 16, 18-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are 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(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a computer, a processor”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement reviewing data or generating a tolerance level (threshold) as evidence by CHOI et al. (US20190066158 A1; hereinafter Choi). Choi discloses in paragraph 0147 that a conventional processor comprises a recognizing data selector to be used in detection of data by the processor. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KWIZERA et al. (US 20190018546 A1; hereinafter Kwizera) in view of Yakubenkov et al. (US 20200342411 A1; hereinafter Yakubenkov).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Kwizera discloses a system for a decentralized environment for physical environment component deployment, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device (¶67); and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device (¶67), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: establish a plurality of modules for deployment from a decentralized platform in a virtual environment (simulated environment as a test bed; ¶52), wherein each module comprises code for executing a virtual session within the virtual environment (software is inherently made up of code), wherein the virtual session is a training session associated with a product or software (test bed for products; ¶52); based on a user history associated with a user (information about user activities and previous interactions; ¶55), generate a tolerance level associated with the user for each of the plurality of modules (tolerance level is based on user experience as mentioned in specification of the current invention; ¶57); present one or more modules of the plurality of modules to the user in the virtual environment (simulated environment for users; ¶52), wherein the presented one or more modules are selected based on the user history (improving presentation of products through GUI based on user history; ¶55); based on monitoring the virtual environment, detect an execution of a first module by the user (a virtual environment in a virtual machine inherently detects execution of software or code) and establish a communication channel between the virtual environment and an upstream virtual environment associated with the upstream user (this is inherent because if the upstream user wants to execute code or a module, it will need to be in communication with the virtual environment to do so); and based on monitoring a completion status of the first module (completion of successful testing; ¶70), trigger a cross module implementation from the virtual environment to a physical environment for physical environment implementation of a product or software associated with the first module (moving from simulated environment to real environment). Kwizera does not explicitly disclose establishing modules for deployment from a decentralized platform in a virtual environment and presenting modules to the user is also based on one of more upstream user inputs associated with an upstream user.
.
However, Yakubenkov focuses on training and testing a user in reality-based simulated environments which relates to Kwizera because Kwizera also does testing in a simulated environment. Yakubenkov teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: establish modules for deployment from a decentralized platform (virtual simulated environment can be implemented in a decentralized peer-to-peer network; ¶55) in a virtual environment presenting modules to the user is also based on upstream user inputs (requests sent by employer or client; ¶18).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwizera to implement the teachings of Yakubenkov for the benefit of implementing a monitoring system of the user training or testing software by an employer or client in a virtual environment.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Kwizera discloses wherein the cross module implementation further comprises deployment of the product or the software associated with the module in the physical environment for physical use of the product or the software (¶56).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Kwizera discloses wherein the tolerance level for user module deployment in the virtual environment is based on a user experience with the product or software (tolerance level is disclosed by user experience and feedback from software testing; ¶55 and ¶57).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Kwizera does not explicitly disclose wherein the upstream user is linked to the user in the decentralized platform for the upstream user to review module completion and user interaction on the virtual environment.
However, Yakubenkov focuses on training and testing a user in reality-based simulated environments which relates to Kwizera because Kwizera also does testing in a simulated environment. Yakubenkov teaches wherein the upstream user is linked to the user in the decentralized platform (peer 2 peer; ¶55) for the upstream user to review module completion and user interaction on the virtual environment (users training and testing in a simulated environment in ¶17 and platform also receiving input from an employer who wants to test the user in ¶18).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwizera to implement the teachings of Yakubenkov for the benefit of implementing a monitoring system of the user training or testing software by an employer or client in a virtual environment.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Kwizera discloses wherein the virtual environment of the user and the virtual environment of the upstream user are linked and shared for module transitioning between one another (this is inherent because if the virtual environment is receiving input from the upstream user, then they must be linked and shared).
Regarding claims 7, and 14, Kwizera does not explicitly disclose wherein the upstream user is a manager or guardian of the user.
However, Yakubenkov focuses on training and testing a user in reality-based simulated environments which relates to Kwizera because Kwizera also does testing in a simulated environment. Yakubenkov teaches wherein the upstream user is a manager or guardian of the user (employer of the user; ¶18).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwizera to implement the teachings of Yakubenkov for the benefit of implementing a monitoring system of the user training or testing software by a manager or guardian in a virtual environment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights