prNotice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 9/12/2025. Claims 1-7 and 10-16 are pending in this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-7, 10, 12, and 14-16 is acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 8-9 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Based on Applicant’s amendments, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn (additionally see Remarks, claim objections).
In the Remarks, Applicant argues Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the previous 101 rejection. It is noted that the additional elements in claim 1 of “said access request is activated with the user’s (1) Digital Signature and Public Key and all data collected in the web platform are archived by BIL and remained available to the administrators” was found in previous claims 8-9 (now cancelled). These limitations do not overcome the 101 rejection as detailed in the updated 101 rejection below with respect to claim 1.
Applicant argues in remarks, 112 second/b and 112 first/a rejections (in view of the 112 sixth/f interpretation). Applicant argues that terms like “blockchain” and “web platforms” are linked to a “computer devise” in the specification. Further Applicant argues that web platforms are directly linked to server software and what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand with respect to Blockchain. Applicant argues that the specification discloses the structure.
The Examiner has reviewed the specification but does not see in the specification where blockchain and web platform are linked to a “computer devise” or “server software” (or possibly a computer device, if “computer devise” is a typo), as argued by Applicant. Examiner does not find the term, server, computer, or software in Applicant’s specification as filed. Applicant has not provided a citation with respect to where such a linkage is found. Therefore the Examiner finds this argument not persuasive. Further blockchain is not one of the identified generic placeholders in the claims interpreted under 112 sixth/f, rather those in the limitations below are of terms in applicant’s claims including web platform, web platform core, authorization form, role manager, application route, SOA, as found in the cited sections below. It is noted the web platform performs the function of communicating with the blockchain, e.g. the web platform is performing the function not the blockchain and therefore the generic placeholder in the limitation that recites blockchain below (under claim interpretation).
Further even if web platform should be constructed as software running on a server (either by Applicant’s specification or by what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as a web platform, which the Examiner does not contend based on the above), there would still be numerous limitations that would be unaddressed by such a finding (and therefore still rejected under 112 second/b and 112 first/a) including those related to web platform core, authorization form, role manager, application route, SOA, as found in the cited sections below.
With respect to the prior art and Applicant’s amendments, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of registering a user for access to information, authenticating a registered user for access to information, providing suggestions to users for information for training based on collected data like user history, constraints, and other preferences, and tracking a user’s completion of training to provide further suggestions of training based on collected data like user history, constraints, and other preferences.
The idea of registering a user for access to information, authenticating a registered user for access to information, providing suggestions to users for information for training based on collected data like user history, constraints, and other preferences, and tracking a user’s completion of training to provide further suggestions of training based on collected data like user history, constraints, and other preferences is subject matter of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings and following rules or instructions) which is certain methods of organizing human activities.
Certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations (additional elements) that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite: (1) 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)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite of registering a user for access to information, authenticating a registered user for access to information, providing suggestions to users for information for training based on collected data like user history, constraints, and other preferences, and tracking a user’s completion of training to provide further suggestions of training based on collected data like user history, constraints, and other preferences. These are limitations or activities a human operator could practically perform.
The fact that these limitations a human operator could perform like registering a user for access to information, authenticating a registered user for access to information, providing suggestions to users for information for training based on collected data like user history, constraints, and other preferences, and tracking a user’s completion of training to provide further suggestions of training based on collected data like user history, constraints, and other preferences are instead recited as being performed by different software modules operating on a web platform, through Artificial Intelligence, and Blockchain at such a high level of generality as recited in the claim result in no more than recitation of the computer or computer elements at the “apply it” level.
With respect to Artificial Intelligence, specifically here the claim merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here the claims merely recite using generic Artificial intelligence algorithms or AI to provide digital experiences customized to the user by continuous learning. Here there is no details about a particular artificial intelligence algorithm or how the algorithm operates to derive this information other than it is being used to determine that information by constantly learning. The Artificial intelligence algorithms or AI is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limitation on how the algorithm operates to derive that information. In additional the limitation recites only the idea of determining customized information without details on how this accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how using the artificial intelligence algorithm solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Further the claim invokes a generic Artificial intelligence algorithms or AI merely as a tool for making the recited calculation rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. Therefore this limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers (See USPTO July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples pages 20 and 27)
With respect to Blockchain, the claims recite creating, storing, and registering information of user interactions in records which can be later used to provide information, which are limitations or activities a human can perform. The fact that instead these limitations are recited at such a high level of being perform by generated blocks of a blockchain merely recites recitation of computer elements at the apply it level. Specifically here the claims invokes computers or other machine merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly, here the computer blockchain is recited at such a high level of merely receiving, storing, and transmitting data. This can be also viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of blockchain.
With respect to different software modules (including models and adapters) operating on a web platform, the claims recite registering a user for access to information, authenticating a registered user for access to information, providing suggestions to users for information for training based on collected data like user history, constraints, and other preferences, and tracking a user’s completion of training to provide further suggestions of training based on collected data like user history, constraints, and other preferences, and the fact that these activities that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recite as different software modules operating on a web platform so that a user can perform this training through a software interface web platform merely results in the recitation of the words “apply it” as the claims here invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply appending a general purpose computer or other computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
Further as to Applicant’s amendments in claim 1 of said access request is activated with the user’s (1) Digital Signature and Public Key administrators, this limitation was found in previous claim 8 (since cancelled). With respect to this limitation the claims recite an access request is activated with a digital signature and public key. These additional elements merely recites recitation of the computer elements at the apply it level. Here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, e.g. transmit information to access content. Specifically here there is no claimed improvement to a digital signature or a public key rather this information is just being used to receive, store, or transmit data to gain access to a system. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers
Further as to Applicant’s amendments in claim 1 of and all the data collected in the web platform are archived by BIL and remain available to the this limitation was found in previous claim 9 (since cancelled). With respect to this limitation the claim limitation recites collecting data and storing it and allowing it to be available to administrators. These are limitations again a human operator or operators could perform. The fact that these limitations recite the additional elements that the information is on a software web platform and blockchain used to store the data does not result in anything more than apply it and generally linking it to a judicial exception as discussed above in claim 1, when recited at such a high level of generality.
As per claim 2, the claims recite the idea of authenticating a user through for example user information and then providing them access to content when a user is not authenticated allowing the user to reattempt or provide that information to an administrator. These are limitations a human operator or operators could perform, the fact that this happens instead through different software modules operating on a web platform merely recites recitation of the words “apply it” as the claims here invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process as described above in claim 1. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers as described above in claim 1. The fact that the administrator that the information is sent is a blockchain administrator merely recites generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of blockchain, further there is no requirement for anything to be done with the information rather it is just provided to another party who happens to be associated with blockchain.
As per claim 3, the claims recite the idea of authenticating a user through for example user information and then providing them access to content and storing a user’s activity with content. Again here as in claim 1 the use of the additional elements of AI, blockchain, and software are recited at such a high level of generality it results to no more than apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers and blockchain as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, the claims recite the idea of registering a user, authenticating a user through for example user information and then providing them access to content when a user is not authenticated allowing the user to reattempt or provide that information to an administrator. These are limitations a human operator or operators could perform, the fact that this happens instead through different software modules operating on a web platform merely recites recitation of the words “apply it” as the claims here invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process as described above in claim 1. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers as described above in claim 1. The fact that the administrator that the information is sent is a blockchain administrator merely recites generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of blockchain, as there is no requirement for anything to be done with the information rather it is just provided to another party who happens to be associated with blockchain.
As per claim 5-7, the claims recite the idea of authenticating a user through for example user information and then providing them access to content and storing a user’s activity with content. Again here as in claim 1 the use of the additional elements of AI, blockchain, and software are recited at such a high level of generality it results to no more than apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers and blockchain as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 10, The claims recite extracting information and making suggestions. These are activities a human operator could again do. The fact that the claims instead recite a generic AI and computer modules merely results in nothing more than apply it and generally linking it to a judicial exception as discussed above in claim 1 with respect to AI and software when recited at such a high level of generality in the claims.
As per claim 11, The claims recite receiving training information from both an employer and outside companies and that this information is stored. These are activities a human operator could again do. The fact that the claims instead recite generally that this information is stored and maintained (guaranteed) by a blockchain merely recites nothing more than apply it and generally linking it to a judicial exception as discussed above in claim 1 with respect to blockchain.
As per claim 12, The claims recite allowing access (providing for display) information based on determined information from the user like having achieved KPIs where this information is stored. These are activities a human operator could again do. The fact that the claims instead recite generally that this information is stored and maintained (guaranteed) by a blockchain and uses a generic AI merely recites nothing more than apply it and generally linking it to a judicial exception as discussed above in claim 1 with respect to blockchain and AI.
As per claim 13, The claims recite receiving training information from both an employer and outside companies and that this information is stored. These are activities a human operator could again do. The fact that the claims instead recite generally that this information is stored and maintained (guaranteed) by a blockchain merely recites nothing more than apply it and generally linking it to a judicial exception as discussed above in claim 1 with respect to blockchain.
As per claim 14, The claims recite allowing access (providing for display) information based on determined information from the user like having achieved KPIs where this information is stored. These are activities a human operator could again do. The fact that the claims instead recite generally that this information is stored and maintained (guaranteed) by a blockchain and use of a generic AI merely recites nothing more than apply it and generally linking it to a judicial exception as discussed above in claim 1 with respect to blockchain and AI.
As per claim 15 the claims recite the idea of authenticating a user through for example user information and then providing them access to content and storing a user’s activity with content. Again here as in claim 1 the use of the additional elements of AI, blockchain, and software results to no more than apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, AI, and blockchain as discussed above in claim 1.
Additionally the claims recite activating a user’s request for access to content with a smart key. This merely recites recitation of the computer elements at the apply it level. Here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, e.g. transmitting information to receive content. Specifically here there is no claimed improvement to a smart key rather this information is just being used to receive, store, or transmit data to gain access to a system as claimed at such a high generic level. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As per claim 16, the claims recite automatically providing a user something upon a request for information, which is a function one human could perform to another. The claims here recite providing access to content with a smart key. This additional element of a smart key merely recites recitation of the computer elements at the apply it level. Here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Specifically here there is no claimed improvement to a smart key rather this information is just being used to receive, store, or transmit data to gain access to a system. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further the fact that the human activity of providing information to a user is instead performed by a web platform via software results and blockchain in no more than recitation of “apply it” or generally linking it to computers and blockchain as discussed above in claim 1
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) 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)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1-7 and 10-16, Examiner notes the following sections of the MPEP 2181 Identifying and Interpreting a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth paragraph Limitation [R-07.2022]
IV. DETERMINING WHETHER 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH SUPPORT EXISTS
A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim. The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right to exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, an inadequate disclosure may give rise to both an indefiniteness rejection for a means-plus-function limitation and a failure to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.
When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI. Examiners should further consider whether the disclosure contains sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention in compliance with the enablement requirement of section 112(a). See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection III, and MPEP § 2164.08.
The Federal Circuit has recognized the problem of providing a sufficient disclosure for functional claiming, particularly with generic claim language, explaining that "The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant [inventor] has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus." Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli & Lilly Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Thus, the means- (or step-) plus- function claim must still be analyzed to determine whether there exists corresponding adequate support for such claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph support for the claim limitation, the examiner must consider whether the specification describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail to establish that the inventor or joint inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention as of the application's filing date. Additionally, any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claim as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. This enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is separate and distinct from the written description requirement. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1342, 94 USPQ2d at 1165. The enablement requirement serves a different purpose than the written description requirement in that it ensures that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. See MPEP § 2164. In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112 , para. 1 support for the claim limitation, the examiner must consider not only the original disclosure contained in the summary and detailed description of the invention portions of the specification, but also the original claims, abstract, and drawings. See In re Mott, 539 F.2d 1291, 1299, 190 USPQ 536, 542–43 (CCPA 1976) (claims); In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1240, 176 USPQ 331, 333 (CCPA 1973) (claims); Hill-Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 209 F.3d 1337, 54 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (unpublished) (abstract); In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 678–79, 185 USPQ 152, 153–54 (CCPA 1975) (abstract); Anderson, 471 F.2d at 1240, 176 USPQ at 333 (abstract); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (drawings); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 955–57, 133 USPQ 537, 541– 43 (CCPA 1962) (drawings).
Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.
37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) provides, in part, that "the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." In the situation in which the written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the structure, materials, or acts corresponding to a means- (or step-) plus-function, and the examiner concludes that one skilled in the art would recognize what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus-function, the examiner should either: (A) have the applicant clarify the record by amending the written description such that it expressly recites what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in the claim element; or (B) state on the record what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation. Even if the disclosure implicitly sets forth the structure, materials, or acts corresponding to a means- (or step-) plus-function claim element in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, the USPTO may still require the applicant to amend the specification pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP § 608.01(o) to explicitly state, with reference to the terms and phrases of the claim element, what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in the claim element in a manner that does not add prohibited new matter to the specification. See 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph ("An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." (emphasis added)); see also B. Braun Medical, 124 F.3d at 1424, 43 USPQ2d at 1900 (holding that "pursuant to this provision [35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph], structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing 112, paragraph 6."); Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostic Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1218, 68 USPQ2d 1263, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although one of skill in the art would have been able to write a software program for digital to digital conversion, such software did not fall within the scope of "means for converting" images as claimed because nothing in the specification or prosecution history clearly linked or associated such software with the function of converting images into a selected format.); Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d at 955, 133 USPQ at 542 (just because the disclosure provides support for a claim element does not mean that the USPTO cannot enforce its requirement that the terms and phrases used in the claims find clear support or antecedent basis in the written description).
As detailed below, claim limitations invoke 112 sixth/f however the specification fails to provide the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function therefore resulting in a 112 b/second rejection. Therefore based on the above cited sections of the MPEP a corresponding 112 first/a rejection must be made. The following is the corresponding 112 first/a rejection.
The following Claim limitations invoke 112 sixth/f (additionally see corresponding claim interpretation section below)
In Claim 1:
- said SOA that, through a series of adapters, manages roles, criteria, resources, and an association among them
-said web platform being suitable for a control of - an initial module for a management of an entire training process dedicated to companies and bodies that permit or are under obligation for remote work on a web platform; - a second module that manages distance training (FAD) at companies and individual bodies; - a third module that manages corporate welfare;
- sorting by the application route (2) an access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and accepting the access request (3)
- initializing by the web platform communication with the blockchain, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining by the web platform’s core a requested information (7) and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
- identifying by the web platform’s core the requested form and process the request;
- registering the event by the core;
Claim 2:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and rejects the access request (4);
Claim 3:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication from the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and rejects the access request (3);
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining by the web platform’s core the requested information (7) and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
-registering the event by the core
Claim 4:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying the user (1) by the authorization form, through the RM and rejects the access request (4)
Claim 5:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- identifying the user (1) by the authorization form, through the RM and rejects the access request (3)
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform
-identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and process the request
- registering the event by the core
Claim 6:
- sorting the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- verifying the authentication from the user’s (1) data and processing the access request
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- identifying by the authorization from, through the RM, the user (1) and rejects the access request (3)
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
- identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and processes the request
- registering the event by the core
Claim 7:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication from;
- identifying by the authorization from, through the RM, the user (1) and accepts the access request (3);
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
-determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform
- identifying the requested form by the web platforms’ core and processes the request;
- registering the event by the core;
Claim 11:
-the second module that manages welfare services comprises both packages inside the company or employer of the user (1), and extra-core packages provided following contracts between the company or body with outside companies; said contracts are archived in the blockchain, of which the blockchain itself becomes guarantor.
Claim 15:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication from the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
-sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form (3);
-identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and accepts the access request (3)
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
- identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and process and request;
- registering the event by the core;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Examiner has looked through the specification for the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, however the Examiner finds no corresponding structure. Specifically the specification fails to mention any software and or hardware for performing the claimed function, in fact the specification is silent as to any structure like a machine or computer, software, instructions, processor, or medium rendering the claim indefinite. Therefore a corresponding 112 second/b and 112 first/a rejection must be made as discussed above in the cited MPEP sections, specifically “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a).” Therefore the corresponding claims above lack written description and are therefore rejected under 112 a/first.
Claims 10, 12-14 and 16 that depend off of the above rejected claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, based on their dependency as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-7 and 10-16 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.
The following Claim limitations invoke 112 sixth/f (additionally see corresponding claim interpretation section below)
In Claim 1:
- said SOA that, through a series of adapters, manages roles, criteria, resources, and an association among them
-said web platform being suitable for a control of - an initial module for a management of an entire training process dedicated to companies and bodies that permit or are under obligation for remote work on a web platform; - a second module that manages distance training (FAD) at companies and individual bodies; - a third module that manages corporate welfare;
- sorting by the application route (2) an access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and accepting the access request (3)
- initializing by the web platform communication with the blockchain, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining by the web platform’s core a requested information (7) and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
- identifying by the web platform’s core the requested form and process the request;
- registering the event by the core;
Claim 2:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and rejects the access request (4);
Claim 3:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication from the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and rejects the access request (3);
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining by the web platform’s core the requested information (7) and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
-registering the event by the core
Claim 4:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying the user (1) by the authorization form, through the RM and rejects the access request (4)
Claim 5:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- identifying the user (1) by the authorization form, through the RM and rejects the access request (3)
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform
-identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and process the request
- registering the event by the core
Claim 6:
- sorting the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- verifying the authentication from the user’s (1) data and processing the access request
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- identifying by the authorization from, through the RM, the user (1) and rejects the access request (3)
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
- identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and processes the request
- registering the event by the core
Claim 7:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication from;
- identifying by the authorization from, through the RM, the user (1) and accepts the access request (3);
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
-determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform
- identifying the requested form by the web platforms’ core and processes the request;
- registering the event by the core;
Claim 11:
-the second module that manages welfare services comprises both packages inside the company or employer of the user (1), and extra-core packages provided following contracts between the company or body with outside companies; said contracts are archived in the blockchain, of which the blockchain itself becomes guarantor.
Claim 15:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication from the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
-sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form (3);
-identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and accepts the access request (3)
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
- identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and process and request;
- registering the event by the core;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Examiner has looked through the specification for the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, however the Examiner finds no corresponding structure. Specifically the specification fails to mention any machine or computer like software and hardware for performing the claimed function, in fact the specification is silent as to any machine, computer, software, instructions, processor, or medium. Therefore are corresponding 112 second/b and 112 first/a rejection must be made.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 8, 12-14 and 16 that depend off of the above rejected claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency 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.
Further As per claim 1,
Applicant recites as amended, accessing by the user’s (1) to the web platform. There appears to be a word or words missing or out of order in this claim limitation specifically between “user’s” and “(1) to”. Therefore the appropriate metes and bounds cannot be ascertained. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: accessing by the user
As per claim 1,
Applicant recites interacting AI with the generated block; learning by AI’s continuous to recognize the user (1) and optimize her or her experience on the web platform. There appears to be a word or words missing or out of order in this claim limitation specifically between “interacting” and “AI” and again between “AI’s” and “continuous”. Therefore the appropriate metes and bounds cannot be ascertained. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows: interacting
It is noted that this additionally recited in claims 3, 5-7, and 15 and is accordingly rejected on the same grounds. Further claims 2-7 and 10-16 that depend on the above claims are rejected based on their dependency.
As per claim 12,
Applicant amends the claims to remove language of “for example” and “etc” however the amended claim language makes it unclear as to how the list of alternatives is to be interpreted, specifically are all limitations required, is only one limitation required, etc. For the purposes of this examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as follows: in which AI automatically unblocks only the welfare services that the user (1) has earned by having achieved KPIs, having accrued a certain amount of remote working hours, or having contributed to the company’s success, based on the information archived and validated by BIL.
As per claim 14,
Applicant amends the claims to remove language of “for example” and “etc” however the amended claim language makes it unclear as to how the list of alternatives is to be interpreted, specifically are all limitations required, is only one limitation required, etc. For the purposes of this examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as follows: in which AI automatically unblocks only the welfare services that the user (1) has earned by having achieved KPIs, having accrued a certain amount of remote working hours, or having contributed to the company’s success, based on the information archived and validated by BIL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In Claim 1:
- a model-based Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), including a role Manager (RM)
- said SOA that, through a series of adapters, manages roles, criteria, resources, and an association among them
-said web platform being suitable for a control of - an initial module for a management of an entire training process dedicated to companies and bodies that permit or are under obligation for remote work on a web platform; - a second module that manages distance training (FAD) at companies and individual bodies; - a third module that manages corporate welfare;
- sorting by the application route (2) an access request (3)
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and accepting the access request (3)
- initializing by the web platform communication with the blockchain, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining by the web platform’s core a requested information (70 and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
- identifying by the web platform’s core the requested form and process the request;
- registering the event by the core;
Claim 2:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and rejects the access request (4);
Claim 3:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication from the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and rejects the access request (3);
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining by the web platform’s core the requested information (7) and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
-registering the event by the core
Claim 4:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- identifying the user (1) by the authorization form, through the RM and rejects the access request (4)
Claim 5:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- identifying the user (1) by the authorization form, through the RM and rejects the access request (3)
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform
-identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and process the request
- registering the event by the core
Claim 6:
- sorting the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- verifying the authentication from the user’s (1) data and processing the access request
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form
- identifying by the authorization from, through the RM, the user (1) and rejects the access request (3)
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
- identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and processes the request
- registering the event by the core
Claim 7:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication from;
- identifying by the authorization from, through the RM, the user (1) and accepts the access request (3);
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
-determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform
- identifying the requested form by the web platforms’ core and processes the request;
- registering the event by the core;
Claim 11:
-the second module that manages welfare services comprises both packages inside the company or employer of the user (1), and extra-core packages provided following contracts between the company or body with outside companies; said contracts are archived in the blockchain, of which the blockchain itself becomes guarantor.
Claim 15:
- sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form;
- verifying by the authentication from the user’s (1) data and processing the access request;
-sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form (3);
-identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and accepts the access request (3)
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, which generates a permanent and unalterable block;
- determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform;
- identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and process and request;
- registering the event by the core;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Examiner has looked through the specification for the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, however the Examiner finds no corresponding structure. Specifically the specification fails to mention any machine like software and hardware for performing the claimed function, in fact the specification is silent as to any machine, computer, software, instructions, processor, or medium. Therefore are corresponding 112 second/b and 112 first/a rejection must be made (see above 112 sections for corresponding rejections).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brillinger (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0276777) further in view of Sridhar et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0127811) further in view of Sadayoshi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0084024).
Examiner’s note: the claims recite reference characters but presence or absence of such reference characters in the claims does not affect the scope of the claim, see MPEP 608.01(m) “Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.”
As per claim 1, Brillinger teaches Method for a traceability and certification of remote work, distance training (called FAD), and corporate welfare services on a web platform called the method (100), adapted to uses: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: method for providing access to a plurality of food safety related course, content, and resources. The invention uses blockchain technology to secure user records and certifications).
- a blockchain with Blockchain Integration Logic (BIL); (see paragraphs 0013 and 0026, Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology)
- a model-based Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), including a role Manager (RM) - said SOA that, through a series of adapters, manages roles, criteria, resources, and an association among them; said web platform being suitable for a control of (see paragraph 0028-0030, Examiner’s note: platform includes an analytics engine operable to use at last one algorithm to determine the most appropriate courses, content and resources for a particular end user based on user input and data retained or received from third party repositories. Further teaches this is a website platform that suggests information to users).
- an initial module (see paragraphs 0049-0050, Examiner’s note: teaches the system of Brillinger is stored running on a computer).
For a management of an entire training process dedicated to companies and bodies that permit or are under obligation for remote work on a web platform; (see paragraphs 0006, 0014, 0024-0025, and 0033, Examiner’s note: teaches providing a single point of access for training on a web platform in the food industry for compliance with regulations).
- a second module(see paragraphs 0049-0050, Examiner’s note: teaches the system of Brillinger is stored running on a computer).
that manages distance training (FAD) at companies and individual bodies; (see paragraphs 0028, 0030, and 0033, Examiner’s note: teaches providing a single point of access for training in the food industry for compliance with regulations, where this can take into account end user information and new regulations).
- a third module (see paragraphs 0049-0050, Examiner’s note: teaches the system of Brillinger is stored running on a computer).
that manages corporate welfare; (see paragraphs 0028, 0030, and 0033, Examiner’s note: teaches providing a single point of access for training in the food industry for compliance with regulations, where this can take into account end user information and new regulations).
therefore, a BIL, a SOA, a RM and Adapters define a web platform that registers operations carried out within it in the blockchain, by verified and validated transactions; (see paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0047, Examiner’s note: teaches securing user information on the system like what the user has accomplished or accessed by blockchain technology).
said web platform learns from the users' interactions by Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms, and develops digital experiences customized for each user (1); this method comprises the following steps: (see paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0018, and 0028, Examiner’s note: teaches using machine learning to provide suggestions of training to users).
- accessing by the user’s (1) to the web platform; - registering and login by the user (1) by providing his or her personal data; - sorting by the application route (2) an access request (3) to the web platform's authentication form; -verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request; - sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; identifying by the authorization form, through the RM the user (1) and accepting the access request (3); (see paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user can register (see paragraph 0035), teaches a user authenticating through a challenge and response protocol and being provided information based on this in the system of Brillinger).
- initializing by the web platform communication with the blockchain, (see paragraphs 0013 and 0026, Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology)
-selecting by the user (1) one from the first, second, and third modules; - determining by the web platform’s core a requested information (7) and defining whether it is present in the web platform; - identifying by the web platform’s core the requested form and processes the request; (see paragraphs 0032 and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user selecting a training suggested or of interest).
- interacting AI with the generated user training information; - learning by AI’s continuous to recognize the user (1) and optimize his or her experience on the web platform; - using of the data processed by Al, by other platform modules, the core, and the blockchain administrators; - registering the event by the core; - closing and archiving of the generated user training information (see paragraphs 0012-0014, 0026, 0028, and 0046, Examiner’s note: teaches storing user interactions in the system in blockchain to provide further recommendations (see paragraphs 0013, 0026, and 0046). Further teaches using machine learning to determine recommendations based on this stored information (see paragraphs 0012, 0014, and 0028)).
Said access request is activated with the user's (1) personal information like challenge and response (see paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user can register (see paragraph 0035), for teaches a user authenticating through a challenge and response protocol and being provided information based on this in the system of Brillinger).
And all the data collected in the web platform are archived by BIL and remain available to the administrators. (see paragraphs 0013, 0025-0026, and 0028 Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology (see paragraphs 0025-0026). Further teaches using this information in blockchain technology to provide recommendations to the user in the system (see paragraph 0028))
While Brillinger clearly teaches using blockchain technology to manage a training record for a user, Brillinger does not expressly teach the basics set up of how information is stored in blockchain of generating a block, including information in a block, and storing the block or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; interaction with the generated block, archiving of the generated block. Further while Brillinger clearly teaches above a user log’s in to a system, Brillinger does not expressly each (2) logging out by user’s (1). Further while Brillinger clearly teaches an access request is activated with the user's (1) personal information like challenge and response, Brillinger does not expressly teach (3) an access request is activated a user’s Digital Signature and Public Key.
However, Sridhar et al. which is in the art of management of audit logs using blockchain technology (see abstract) like logging in and logging out which can be used for questions on usage of any specific resources in digital systems (see paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches (1) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; interaction with the generated block, archiving of the generated block (see paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, and 0047-0059, Examiner’s note: here these sections show that the system of Sridhar et al can generate a block and include access information in it, can include additional records into a block, can store the block, and share the block).
And (2) logging out by user’s (1) (see paragraphs 0002, 0031, and 0047-0048, Examiner’s note: tracking system access events where those can include things like logging in and out where a user logs in with a user name and password).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger with the aforementioned teachings from Sridhar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to actually generate blocks to store user access information in blockchain technology for use (see Sridhar et al. paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, and 0047-0059) as well as providing another user online access event like logging out (see Sridhar et al. see paragraphs 0002, 0031, and 0047-0048), when using blockchain technology to track user access information (see Brillinger paragraphs 0013 and 0026) and a user logging in to the system (see Brillinger 0026-0027, and 0035) are both known.
Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al does not expressly (3) teach an access request is activated a user’s Digital Signature and Public Key.
However, Sadayoshi et al. which is in the art of authentication on a(blockchain (see abstract and paragraph 0023) teaches (3) an access request is activated a user’s Digital Signature and Public Key (see paragraph 0038, 0059, 0072, Examiner’s note: teaches accessing content with a digital signature and a public key).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sadayoshi et al. with the motivation of using a known technology that allows authentication of a user to access content (see Sadayoshi et al. paragraph 0038, 0059, 0072), when authenticating a user to access content is known (see Brillinger paragraphs 0026-0028 and 0035).
As per claim 2, Brillinger teaches
which comprises the following steps: - accessing by the user’s (1) to the web platform; - registering and login by the user (1) by providing his or her personal data; - sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request; - sorting by the application route (2) the access request (2) to the web platform’s authentication form; identifying by the authorization form, through the RM the user (1) (see paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user can register (see paragraph 0035), for teaches a user authenticating through a challenge and response protocol and being provided information based on this in the system of Brillinger).
While Brillinger clearly teaches registering and authenticating a user through a challenge and response protocol, Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. does not expressly teach a user request being rejected and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of rejects the access request (4); reattempting by the user (1) access or forwards the request for access credentials to the blockchain administrators.
However, Sadayoshi et al. which is in the art of authentication on a(blockchain (see abstract and paragraph 0023) teaches a user request being rejected and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of rejects the access request (4); reattempting by the user (1) access or forwards the request for access credentials to the blockchain administrators. (see paragraph 0031, Examiner’s note: a log of attempt failures and then reattempting an authentication option (see paragraph 0031) where the sign on authentications may happen based on block chain (see paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0038), it is noted only one of the options is actually required by the claims).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sadayoshi et al. with the motivation of providing a common way to allow a user a user to retry to log in order to gain access to information after a log in failure (see Sadayoshi et al. paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0038), when allowing a user to sign in according to protocols is known (see Brillinger paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035).
As per claim 3, Brillinger teaches
which comprises the following steps: - accessing by the user’s (1) to the web platform; - performing the registration by the user (1) not registered; -sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; - verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request; sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; - identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and accepts the access request (3); (see paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user can register (see paragraph 0035), teaches a user authenticating through a challenge and response protocol and being provided information based on this in the system of Brillinger).
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, (see paragraphs 0013 and 0026, Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology)
- selecting by the user (1) one from a first, second, and third forms; - determining by the web platform’s core the requested information (7) and defining whether it is present in the web platform; - identifying the requested from by the web platform’s core and process the request – (see paragraphs 0032 and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user selecting a training suggested or of interest).
Interacting AI with the generates user training information; - learning Ai’s continuous learning to recognize the user (1) and optimize his or her experience on the web platform; - using of the data processed by Al, by the other platform modules, the core, and the blockchain administrators; - registering the event by the core; - closing and archiving of the generated user training information (see paragraphs 0012-0014, 0026, 0028, and 0046, Examiner’s note: teaches storing user interactions in the system in blockchain to provide further recommendations (see paragraphs 0013, 0026, and 0046). Further teaches using machine learning to determine recommendations based on this stored information (see paragraphs 0012, 0014, and 0028)).
While Brillinger clearly teaches using blockchain technology to manage a training record for a user, Brillinger does not expressly teach the basics set up of how information is stored in blockchain of generating a block, including information in a block, and storing the block or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; interaction with the generated block, archiving of the generated block. Further while Brillinger clearly teaches above a user log’s in to a system, Brillinger does not expressly each (2) – logging out by the user’s (1). Additionally, Brillinger clearly teaches registering and authenticating a user through a challenge and response protocol, Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. does not expressly teach (3) a user request being rejected and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of rejects the access request
However, Sridhar et al. which is in the art of management of audit logs using blockchain technology (see abstract) like logging in and logging out which can be used for questions on usage of any specific resources in digital systems (see paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches (1) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; interaction with the generated block, archiving of the generated block (see paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, and 0047-0059, Examiner’s note: here these sections show that the system of Sridhar et al can generate a block and include access information in it, can include additional records into a block, can store the block, and share the block).
And (2) – logging out by the user’s (1) (see paragraphs 0002, 0031, 0047-0048, Examiner’s note: tracking system access events where those can include things like logging in and out where a user logs in with a user name and password).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sridhar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to actually generate blocks to store user access information in blockchain technology for use (see Sridhar et al. paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, and 0047-0059) as well as providing another user online access event like logging out (see Sridhar et al.. see paragraphs 0002, 0031, 0047-0048), when using blockchain technology to track user access information (see Brillinger paragraphs 0013 and 0026) and a user logging in to the system (see Brillinger 0026-0027, and 0035) are both known.
While Brillinger clearly teaches registering and authenticating a user through a challenge and response protocol, Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. does not expressly teach (3) a user request being rejected and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of rejects the access request.
However, Sadayoshi et al. which is in the art of authentication on a(blockchain (see abstract and paragraph 0023) teaches (3) a user request being rejected and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of rejects the access request (see paragraph 0031, Examiner’s note: a log of attempt failures and then reattempting an authentication option (see paragraph 0031) where the sign on authentications may happen based on block chain (see paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0038), it is noted only one of the options is actually required by the claims).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sadayoshi et al. with the motivation of providing a common way to allow a user a user to retry to log in order to gain access to information after a log in failure (see Sadayoshi et al. paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0038), when allowing a user to sign in according to protocols is known (see Brillinger paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035).
As per claim 4, Brillinger teaches
which comprises the following steps: - accessing by the user’s (1) to the web platform; - performing the registration by the user not registered; -sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; - verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request; - sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; -identifying the user (1) by the authorization form, through the RM, (see paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user can register (see paragraph 0035), for teaches a user authenticating through a challenge and response protocol and being provided information based on this in the system of Brillinger).
While Brillinger clearly teaches registering and authenticating a user through a challenge and response protocol, Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al does not expressly teach a user request being defined and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of and rejects the access request (4); reattempting access by the user (1) or forwards the request for access credentials to the blockchain administrators.
However, Sadayoshi et al. which is in the art of authentication on a(blockchain (see abstract and paragraph 0023) teaches a user request being rejected and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of and rejects the access request (4); reattempting access by the user (1) or forwards the request for access credentials to the blockchain administrators (see paragraph 0031, Examiner’s note: a log of attempt failures and then reattempting an authentication option (see paragraph 0031) where the sign on authentications may happen based on block chain (see paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0038), it is noted only one of the options is actually required by the claims).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sadayoshi et al. with the motivation of providing a common way to allow a user a user to retry to log in order to gain access to information after a log in failure (see Sadayoshi et al. paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0038), when allowing a user to sign in according to protocols is known (see Brillinger paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0035).
As per claim 5, Brillinger teaches
which comprises the following steps: - accessing by the user’s (1) the web platform; - registering and logging the user (1) is by providing his or her personal data; - sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; -verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request; sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform authentication form; identifying the user (1) by the authorization form, through the RM, and rejects the access request (3) (see paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user can register (see paragraph 0035), teaches a user authenticating through a challenge and response protocol and being provided information based on this in the system of Brillinger).
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, (see paragraphs 0013 and 0026, Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology)
- selecting by the user (1) the first module, which manages remote work- determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform; -identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and processes the request; (see paragraphs 0032 and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user selecting a training suggested or of interest).
- interacting AI with the generates user training information; - learning Al's continuous to recognize the user (1) and optimize his or her experience on the web platform; - using of the data processed by Al, by the other platform modules, the core, and the blockchain administrators; - registering the event by the core; - closing and archiving of the generated user training information. (see paragraphs 0012-0014, 0026, 0028, and 0046, Examiner’s note: teaches storing user interactions in the system in blockchain to provide further recommendations (see paragraphs 0013, 0026, and 0046). Further teaches using machine learning to determine recommendations based on this stored information (see paragraphs 0012, 0014, and 0028)).
While Brillinger clearly teaches using blockchain technology to manage a training record for a user, Brillinger does not expressly teach the basics set up of how information is stored in blockchain of generating a block, including information in a block, and storing the block or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; interaction with the generated block, archiving of the generated block. Further while Brillinger clearly teaches above a user log’s in to a system, Brillinger does not expressly each (2) – logging out by the user’s (1). Additionally Brillinger clearly teaches registering and authenticating a user through a challenge and response protocol, Brillinger does not expressly teach (3) a user request being rejected and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of rejects the access request.
However, Sridhar et al. which is in the art of management of audit logs using blockchain technology (see abstract) like logging in and logging out which can be used for questions on usage of any specific resources in digital systems (see paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches (1) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; interaction with the generated block, archiving of the generated block (see paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, and 0047-0059, Examiner’s note: here these sections show that the system of Sridhar et al can generate a block and include access information in it, can include additional records into a block, can store the block, and share the block).
And (2) – logging out by the user’s (1) (see paragraphs 0002, 0031, and 0047-0048, Examiner’s note: tracking system access events where those can include things like logging in and out where a user logs in with a user name and password).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger with the aforementioned teachings from Sridhar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to actually generate blocks to store user access information in blockchain technology for use (see Sridhar et al. paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, and 0047-0059) as well as providing another user online access event like logging out (see Sridhar et al. see paragraphs 0002, 0031, and 0047-0048), when using blockchain technology to track user access information (see Brillinger paragraphs 0013 and 0026) and a user logging in to the system (see Brillinger paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0035) are both known.
While Brillinger clearly teaches registering and authenticating a user through a challenge and response protocol, Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. does not expressly teach (3) a user request being rejected and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of rejects the access request.
However, Sadayoshi et al. which is in the art of authentication on a(blockchain (see abstract and paragraph 0023) teaches (3) a user request being rejected and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of rejects the access request (see paragraph 0031, Examiner’s note: a log of attempt failures and then reattempting an authentication option (see paragraph 0031) where the sign on authentications may happen based on block chain (see paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0038), it is noted only one of the options is actually required by the claims).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sadayoshi et al. with the motivation of providing a common way to allow a user a user to retry to log in order to gain access to information after a log in failure (see Sadayoshi et al. paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0038), when allowing a user to sign in according to protocols is known (see Brillinger paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035).
As per claim 6, Brillinger teaches
which comprises the following steps: - accessing by the user’s (1) to the web platform; - registering and logging the user (1) by providing his or her personal data; - sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request; - sorting by the application (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and accepts the access request (3) (see paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user can register (see paragraph 0035), teaches a user authenticating through a challenge and response protocol and being provided information based on this in the system of Brillinger).
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the platform, (see paragraphs 0013 and 0026, Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology)
- selecting by the user (1) the second module, which manages welfare services; determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform; -identifying the requested form by the web platform;s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform; (see paragraphs 0032 and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user selecting a training suggested or of interest).
- interacting AI with the generates user training information; - learning Al's continuous to recognize the user (1) and optimize his or her experience on the web platform; - using of the data processed by Al, by the other platform modules, the core, and the blockchain administrators; - registering the event by the core; - closing and archiving of the generated user training information. (see paragraphs 0012-0014, 0026, 0028, and 0046, Examiner’s note: teaches storing user interactions in the system in blockchain to provide further recommendations (see paragraphs 0013, 0026, and 0046). Further teaches using machine learning to determine recommendations based on this stored information (see paragraphs 0012, 0014, and 0028)).
While Brillinger clearly teaches using blockchain technology to manage a training record for a user, Brillinger does not expressly teach the basics set up of how information is stored in blockchain of generating a block, including information in a block, and storing the block or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; interaction with the generated block, archiving of the generated block and (2) logging out by the user’s (1). While Brillinger clearly teaches registering and authenticating a user through a challenge and response protocol, Brillinger does not expressly teach (3) a user request being defined and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of and rejects the access request.
However, Sridhar et al. which is in the art of management of audit logs using blockchain technology (see abstract) like logging in and logging out which can be used for questions on usage of any specific resources in digital systems (see paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches (1) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; interaction with the generated block, archiving of the generated block (see paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, 0047-0059, Examiner’s note: here these sections show that the system of Sridhar et al can generate a block and include access information in it, can include additional records into a block, can store the block, and share the block).
And (2) logging out by the user’s (1) (see paragraphs 0002, 0031, 0047-0048, Examiner’s note: tracking system access events where those can include things like logging in and out where a user logs in with a user name and password).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et in view of Sadayoshi et al. al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sridhar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to actually generate blocks to store user access information in blockchain technology for use (see Sridhar et al. paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, 0047-0059) as well as providing another user online access event like logging out (see Sridhar et al.. see paragraphs 0002, 0031, 0047-0048), when using blockchain technology to track user access information (see Brillinger paragraphs 0013 and 0026) and a user logging in to the system (see Brillinger paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0035) are both known.
While Brillinger clearly teaches registering and authenticating a user through a challenge and response protocol, Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al does not expressly teach (3) a user request being defined and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of and rejects the access request.
However, Sadayoshi et al. which is in the art of authentication on a(blockchain (see abstract and paragraph 0023) teaches (3) a user request being rejected and a user reattempting access to the system or more specifically as recited in the claims of and rejects the access request (see paragraph 0031, Examiner’s note: a log of attempt failures and then reattempting an authentication option (see paragraph 0031) where the sign on authentications may happen based on block chain (see paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0038), it is noted only one of the options is actually required by the claims).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sadayoshi et al. with the motivation of providing a common way to allow a user a user to retry to log in order to gain access to information after a log in failure (see Sadayoshi et al. paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, and 0038), when allowing a user to sign in according to protocols is known (see Brillinger paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0035).
As per claim 7, Brillinger teaches
which comprises the following steps: - accessing by the user’s (1) to the web platform; - registering and logging the user (1) by providing his or her personal data; - sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; verifying by the authentication form the user’s (1) data and processing the access request; sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; identifying by the authorization form through the RM then user (1) and accepts the access request (3); (see paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user can register (see paragraph 0035), teaches a user authenticating through a challenge and response protocol and being provided information based on this in the system of Brillinger).
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, (see paragraphs 0013 and 0026, Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology)
- selecting by the user (1) the third module, which manages distance training (FAD);- determining the requested information (7) by the web platforms’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform; -identifying the requested form by the web platform’s core and process the request (see paragraphs 0032 and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user selecting a training suggested or of interest).
- interacting Al with the generated user generated training information; - learning Al's continuous to recognize the user (1) and optimize his or her experience on the web platform; - using of the data processed by Al, by the other platform modules, the core, and the blockchain administrators; - registering the event by the core - closing and archiving of the generated user training information. (see paragraphs 0012-0014, 0026, 0028, and 0046, Examiner’s note: teaches storing user interactions in the system in blockchain to provide further recommendations (see paragraphs 0013, 0026, and 0046). Further teaches using machine learning to determine recommendations based on this stored information (see paragraphs 0012, 0014, and 0028)).
While Brillinger clearly teaches using blockchain technology to manage a training record for a user, Brillinger does not expressly teach the basics set up of how information is stored in blockchain of generating a block, including information in a block, and storing the block or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; interaction with the generated block, archiving of the generated block. Further while Brillinger clearly teaches above a user log’s in to a system, Brillinger does not expressly each (2) – logging out by the user’s (1).
However, Sridhar et al. which is in the art of management of audit logs using blockchain technology (see abstract) like logging in and logging out which can be used for questions on usage of any specific resources in digital systems (see paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches (1) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; interaction with the generated block, archiving of the generated block (see paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, 0047-0059, Examiner’s note: here these sections show that the system of Sridhar et al can generate a block and include access information in it, can include additional records into a block, can store the block, and share the block).
And (2) – logging out by the user’s (1)t (see paragraphs 0002, 0031, 0047-0048, Examiner’s note: tracking system access events where those can include things like logging in and out where a user logs in with a user name and password).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sridhar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to actually generate blocks to store user access information in blockchain technology for use (see Sridhar et al. paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, 0047-0059) as well as providing another user online access event like logging out (see Sridhar et al.. see paragraphs 0002, 0031, 0047-0048), when using blockchain technology to track user access information (see Brillinger paragraphs 0013 and 0026) and a user logging in to the system (see Brillinger paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0035) are both known.
As per claim 10, Brillinger teaches
in which Al monitors an actual operation of the user (1), and extracts Key Performance Indicator (KPI) based on workloads, processing times, and levels of competence achieved; depending on levels of success, Al suggests services present in the second and third modules (see paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0030, 0033, and 0035, Examiner’s note: here Brillinger teaches many different ways the system can provide a training suggestion for a user based on for example things like past training and whether or not the user passed or failed, based on new training and regulations and according to the user needs an user information).
As per claim 11, Brillinger teaches
in which the second module that manages welfare services comprises both packages inside the company or employer of the user (1), and extra-core packages provided following contracts between the company or body with outside companies; (see paragraphs 0015, 0036-0037, 0039-0040, Examiner’s note teaches information for training may be received from many different sources and content creators, where for example a company may have the ability to customize curricula for their employees also some training may be accessible from other sources for a fee).
said contracts are archived in the blockchain, of which the blockchain itself becomes guarantor. (see paragraphs 0013, 0025-0026, and 0028 Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology (see paragraphs 0025-0026). Further teaches using this information in blockchain technology to provide recommendations to the user in the system (see paragraph 0028))
As per claim 12, Brillinger teaches
in which Al automatically unblocks only the welfare services that the user (1) has earned, by having achieved KPIs, having accrued a certain amount of remote working hours, having contributed to the company's success, (see paragraphs 0028, Examiner’s note: teaches providing content based on a user having previously passed or failed a course).
based on the information archived and validated by BIL. (see paragraphs 0013, 0025-0026, and 0028 Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology (see paragraphs 0025-0026). Further teaches using this information in blockchain technology to provide recommendations to the user in the system (see paragraph 0028))
As per claim 13, Brillinger teaches
in which the FAD service comprises both training courses inside the company or the employer of the user (1), and extra-core training courses provided following contracts between the company or body with outside companies; (see paragraphs 0015, 0036-0037, and 0039-0040, Examiner’s note: teaches information for training may be received from many different sources and content creators, where for example a company may have the ability to customize curricula for their employees also some training may be accessible from other sources for a fee).
said contracts are archived in the blockchain, of which the blockchain itself becomes guarantor. (see paragraphs 0013, 0025-0026, and 0028 Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology (see paragraphs 0025-0026). Further teaches using this information in blockchain technology to provide recommendations to the user in the system (see paragraph 0028))
As per claim 14, Brillinger teaches
in which Al automatically unblocks only the welfare services that the user (1) has earned, by having achieved KPIs, having accrued a certain amount of remote working hours, having contributed to the company's success, (see paragraphs 0028, Examiner’s note: teaches providing content based on a user having previously passed or failed a course).
based on the information archived and validated by BIL. (see paragraphs 0013, 0025-0026, and 0028 Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology (see paragraphs 0025-0026). Further teaches using this information in blockchain technology to provide recommendations to the user in the system (see paragraph 0028))
20. Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brillinger (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0276777) further in view of Sridhar et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0127811) further in view of Sadayoshi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0084024) further in view of Saulpaugh et al. (United States Patent Number: US 7,716,492).
As per claim 15, Brillinger teaches
-validating by the user (1) his or her own digital identity; -sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; - verifying by the authentication form the user’s data and processing the access request; - sorting by the application route (2) the access request (3) to the web platform’s authentication form; identifying by the authorization form, through the RM, the user (1) and accepts the access request; (see paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user can register (see paragraph 0035), for teaches a user authenticating through a challenge and response protocol and being provided information based on this in the system of Brillinger).
- initializing communication with the blockchain by the web platform, (see paragraphs 0013 and 0026, Examiner’s note: discusses background of blockchain (see paragraph 0013) and that the record setting forth which course content a user has accessed and viewed and user certifications are maintained and secured in database using local or global blockchain technology)
-selecting by the user (1) one from first, second, and third forms; determining the requested information (7) by the web platform’s core and defining whether it is present in the web platform; identifying the requested from by the web platform’s core and processes the request (see paragraphs 0032 and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user selecting a training suggested or of interest).
- learning Al's continuous to recognize the user (1) and optimize his or her experience on the web platform; - using of the data processed by Al, by the other platform modules, the core, and the blockchain administrators; - registering the event by the core; - closing and archiving of the generated user training information. - monitoring of the user's operation on the computer, and real-time processing and archiving of the data in the web platform (see paragraphs 0012-0014, 0026, 0028, and 0046, Examiner’s note: teaches storing user interactions in the system in blockchain to provide further recommendations (see paragraphs 0013, 0026, and 0046). Further teaches using machine learning to determine recommendations based on this stored information (see paragraphs 0012, 0014, and 0028)).
While Brillinger clearly teaches authenticating to allow a user to login to a computer and access information, Brillinger does not expressly teach -in which the user (1) accesses the web platform with a Smart Key; this method with Smart Key access comprises the following steps: - associating the Smart Key with the user’s (1) personal details before initial user; - connecting by the user (1) the Smart Key to the computer; - accessing the web platform by the user (1) using the Smart Key credentials; ; - monitoring of the user’s operation on the computer, and real-time processing and archiving of the data in the web platform and on the Smart Key; - disconnecting the Smart Key from the computer by the user. While Brillinger clearly teaches using blockchain technology to manage a training record for a user, Brillinger does not expressly teach the basics set up of how information is stored in blockchain of generating a block, including information in a block, and storing the block or more specifically as recited in the claims of (2) which generates a permanent and unalterable block; archiving of the generated block. Further while Brillinger clearly teaches above a user log’s in to a system, Brillinger does not expressly each (3) -logging out by the user’s (1).
However, Sridhar et al. which is in the art of management of audit logs using blockchain technology (see abstract) like logging in and logging out which can be used for questions on usage of any specific resources in digital systems (see paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches (2) which generates a permanent and unalterable block, archiving of the generated block (see paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, 0047-0059, Examiner’s note: here these sections show that the system of Sridhar et al can generate a block and include access information in it, can include additional records into a block, can store the block, and share the block).
And (3) -logging out by the user’s (1) (see paragraphs 0002, 0031, 0047-0048, Examiner’s note: tracking system access events where those can include things like logging in and out where a user logs in with a user name and password).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. further in view of Sadayoshi et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sridhar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to actually generate blocks to store user access information in blockchain technology for use (see Sridhar et al. paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0048-0051, and 0047-0059) as well as providing another user online access event like logging out (see Sridhar et al. see paragraphs 0002, 0031, and 0047-0048), when using blockchain technology to track user access information (see Brillinger paragraphs 0013 and 0026) and a user logging in to the system (see Brillinger 0026-0027, and 0035) are both known.
Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. further in view of further in view of Sadayoshi et al. does not expressly teach -in which the user (1) accesses the web platform with a Smart Key; this method with Smart Key access comprises the following steps: - associating the Smart Key with the user’s (1) personal details before initial user; - connecting by the user (1) the Smart Key to the computer; - accessing the web platform by the user (1) using the Smart Key credentials; ; - monitoring of the user’s operation on the computer, and real-time processing and archiving of the data in the web platform and on the Smart Key; - disconnecting the Smart Key from the computer by the user.
However, Saulpaugh et al. which in the art of connecting various devices to allow for communication and sharing of resources (see column 2 lines 1-10) where authentication for such resources can include smart cards, challenge response or digital signatures(see column 81 lines 15-25, column 81 lines 58- column 82 lines 15) teaches -in which the user (1) accesses the web platform with a Smart Key; this method with Smart Key access comprises the following steps: - associating the Smart Key with the user’s (1) personal details before initial user; - connecting by the user (1) the Smart Key to the computer; - accessing the web platform by the user (1) using the Smart Key credentials; ; - monitoring of the user’s operation on the computer, and real-time processing and archiving of the data in the web platform and on the Smart Key; - disconnecting the Smart Key from the computer by the user. (see column 81 lines 15-25, column 81 lines 58- column 82 lines 15, Examiner’s note: smart card is one of the ways of a user may be identified and authenticated like challenge response (such as user ID and password) or digital signature (see column 81 lines 15-25), teaches inserting and removing a smart card for signing in and out, and storing or not storing information while a user is signed in with a smart card)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. further in view of Sadayoshi et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Saulpaugh et al with the motivation of using another known way to allow a user to sign in and use network resources (see Saulpaigh et al. column 81 lines 15-25, column 81 lines 58- column 82 lines 15), when Brillinger et al. clearly teaches signing in to a network thereby using network resources where sign in can include other alternatives mentioned in Saulpaigh et al. like challenger response (see Brillinger et al. paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0035) is known.
As per claim 16, Brillinger teaches
in which the user (1) accesses the web platform with information (see paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035, Examiner’s note: teaches a user can register (see paragraph 0035), for teaches a user authenticating through a challenge and response protocol and being provided information based on this in the system of Brillinger).
and performs an operative action with documents, without the need to access the platform via web and to search for the document area and perform a requested action;
this action is automatically integrated with the web platform and validated by the blockchain (see paragraphs 0028, 0014, and 0046, Examiner’s note: providing training and course information via blockchain).
While Brillinger clearly teaches authenticating to allow a user to login to a computer and access information, Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. further in view of further in view of Sadayoshi et al. does not expressly teach access with a Smart Key
However, Saulpaugh et al. which in the art of connecting various devices to allow for communication and sharing of resources (see column 2 lines 1-10) where authentication for such resources can include smart cards, challenge response or digital signatures(see column 81 lines 15-25, column 81 lines 58- column 82 lines 15) teaches access with a Smart Key (see column 81 lines 15-25, column 81 lines 58- column 82 lines 15, Examiner’s note: smart card is one of the ways of a user may be identified and authenticated like challenge response (such as user ID and password) or digital signature (see column 81 lines 15-25), teaches inserting and removing a smart card for signing in and out, and storing or not storing information while a user is signed in with a smart card)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brillinger in view of Sridhar et al. further in view of Sadayoshi et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Saulpaugh et al with the motivation of using another known way to allow a user to sign in and use network resources (see Saulpaigh et al. column 81 lines 15-25, column 81 lines 58- column 82 lines 15), when Brillinger et al. clearly teaches signing in to a network thereby using network resources where sign in can include other alternatives mentioned in Saulpaigh et al. like challenger response (see Brillinger et al. paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0035) is known.
Conclusion
21. 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.
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nelson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2005/0158697) teaches a system to track and verify online training of courses by trainees (see abstract)
Darnell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0315145) teaches a system for managing school system on a blockchain (see abstract)
Cheng et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0294032) teaches a system for tracking information on a blockchain (see abstract) including requiring a user to logout when the user no longer needs access to the blockchain (see paragraph 0063)
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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 on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626