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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 02/20/2026. Presently, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10/24/2025. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 is maintained as presented below.
Applicant’s representative alleges the following:
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “These features are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, and are expressly tied to the recited devices and components. Moreover these features, particularly the distinction between virtual environment and physical environments, have no meaning in the abstract, in the absence of the recited technology and devices, for a decentralized environment for physical environment component deployment. In light of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully asserts that the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea. In contrast with the alleged abstract idea identified by the Office, the idea underlying the claims is inherently technology centric and non-abstract” (Page 9-10 of Remarks).
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, “Kwizera, singularly or in combination with Yakubenkov, fails to teach or suggest the following recitations of independent Claims 1, 8, and 15: (1) tailoring the plurality of modules for a user of the plurality of modules, wherein tailoring each of the plurality of modules further comprises: analyzing a user activity history associated with the user; identifying past user actions associated with one or more steps associated with each of the plurality of modules; and modifying each of the plurality of modules to remove the one or more steps associated with the past user actions such that the module commences with additional steps not associated with the past user actions. Kwizera, singularly or in combination with Yakubenkov and Jonsen, further fails to teach or suggest the feature of (2) transmitting, from the upstream user at the upstream virtual environment, one or more additional product modules to the virtual environment of the user, as recited by independent Claims 1, 8, and 15” (Page 12 of Remarks).
Regarding point (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s representative argues that “The claims recite specific operatively connected components in a communication network comprising (1) a plurality of modules for deployment from a decentralized platform with operative communications and transmissions across several virtual and physical environments such as, a virtual environment (314) of a user and an associated physical environment (312) of the user, as well as an upstream virtual environment (318) of an upstream user with an associated upstream physical layer (310), e.g., as depicted in Figure 3B of the application, as filed: (insert Fig 3B of the application as filed). The claims further recite the features of (2) tailoring the plurality of modules for a user of the plurality of modules, wherein tailoring each of the plurality of modules further comprises: analyzing a user activity history associated with the user; identifying past user actions associated with one or more steps associated with each of the plurality of modules; and modifying each of the plurality of modules to remove the one or more steps associated with the past user actions such that the module commences with additional steps not associated with the past user actions. The claims further recite (3) 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. The claims further recite (4) triggering a cross module implementation from the virtual environment to a physical environment for physical environment implementation of the product or software associated with the first module; and (5) transmitting, from the upstream user at the upstream virtual environment, one or more additional product modules to the virtual environment of the user. These features are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, and are expressly tied to the recited devices and components. Moreover these features, particularly the distinction between virtual environment and physical environments, have no meaning in the abstract, in the absence of the recited technology and devices, for a decentralized environment for physical environment component deployment.” (Page 8-9 of Remarks).
In response to the arguments above, for (1), modules are comprised of code and code being executed in a decentralized or centralized virtual environment is the core principle/purpose for these environments, which also goes hand in hand with the Standard Software Development Life Cycle. In regards to (2), these are quoting the abstract idea, such as analyzing user activity history or identifying past user actions that can be performed in the mind, and applicant is simply using common elements of a computer used in a virtual environment to execute these steps. In regards to (3), establishing a communication channel between the virtual environment and an upstream virtual environment is just what happens during the Standard Software Development Life Cycle because a communication channel must be created in order to integrate the software from a development environment to a testing environment and then to a production environment for physical deployment. In regards to (4), this is directly related to the Standard Software Development Life Cycle because the software will go from the testing environment to a production environment for physical deployment. In regards to (5), this is still focusing on executing code inside the virtual environment, which is a core principle/purpose for these environments. In conclusion, these features are routine and conventional for the Standard Software Development Life Cycle, which is implemented through common computing elements. (See 103 Rejection below)
Regarding point (2), the examiner agrees.
Applicant’s representative argues that “Kwizera, singularly or in combination with Yakubenkov, fails to teach or suggest the following recitations of independent Claims 1, 8, and 15: (1) tailoring the plurality of modules for a user of the plurality of modules, wherein tailoring each of the plurality of modules further comprises: analyzing a user activity history associated with the user; identifying past user actions associated with one or more steps associated with each of the plurality of modules; and modifying each of the plurality of modules to remove the one or more steps associated with the past user actions such that the module commences with additional steps not associated with the past user actions. Kwizera, singularly or in combination with Yakubenkov and Jonsen, further fails to teach or suggest the feature of (2) transmitting, from the upstream user at the upstream virtual environment, one or more additional product modules to the virtual environment of the user, as recited by independent Claims 1, 8, and 15” (Page 12 of Remarks).
In response to the arguments above, the newly amended limitations and arguments are convincing, and thus rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn.
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 comprising a plurality of steps associated with a process of the product or software; tailor the plurality of modules for a user of the plurality of modules, wherein tailoring each of the plurality of modules further comprises :analyzing a user activity history associated with the user; identifying past user actions associated with one or more steps associated with each of the plurality of modules; and modifying each of the plurality of modules to remove the one or more steps associated with the past user actions such that the module commences with additional steps not associated with the past user actions; based on the user activity history associated with the 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; 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 the product or software associated with the first module; and transmit, from the upstream user at the upstream virtual environment, one or more additional product modules to the virtual environment of the user.
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., “analyzing a user activity history associated with the user, identifying past user actions, 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, in order to be eligible the claims would require structure that is beyond generic. 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). Furthermore, the elements to test code/software and implement from a testing environment and then to a production environment for physical deployment is part of the Standard Software Development Life Cycle as evidenced by Webisoft (Dev vs Prod: Key Differences in Software Environments; hereinafter Webisoft).
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.
Conclusion
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
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights