Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part
Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process,
machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention further encompasses a non-transitory computer readable medium having programming instructions in claims 10-17, and is directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the
requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significant more. The
instant invention is broadly directed to "training of cellular site field technician trainees offered through cellular site field technician training modules. These cellular site field technician training modules (also referred to herein as "training modules" and "modules") may be experienced by trainees wearing XR headsets as games or other educational challenges. Also described herein are servers and methods for identifying and providing these training modules. Based on at least one of a location, an environment type, a cellular site technology, a minimum level or requirements, etc. a training server identifies a subset of cellular site field technician training modules. A trainee then uses the XR headset to participate in training offered through those training modules, and a result is reported to the training servers" ([0010]). Claim 10 recites the following abstract ideas:
Accessing a library of training modules
Receiving a request to identify applicable modules
Selecting a subset of modules based on associated environment data and
Updating the modules and selections based on new information
These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be categorized as certain methods of organizing human activity i.e. managing personal behavior (including following rules or instructions) – updating the modules and selections based on new information. Additionally in mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) – selecting a subset of modules based on associated environment and updating the modules and selections based on new information etc. are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere
instruction to implement on computers, or merely using computers as a tool to perform the
abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the
abstract idea to a technological environment for field of use is not considered integration into a
practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include the
additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computing device. These additional elements to carry out the rules and steps does not make the claim any less abstract. The claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. The computing device, non-transitory memory are directed to the components of a system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the abstract idea as presented.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more
than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to
"transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into
patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while
adding the words 'apply it." Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]." Id. (quoting Mayo, 132
S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-
understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which
include a computing device. These additional elements are merely used for insignificant extra-solution activity, in which these conventional machines and their ability to communicate are related to implementing rules and steps to provide a cellular site field technician training module for a trainee. Use of a machine or apparatus that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would weigh against eligibility. See Bilski, 138 S. Ct. at 3230 (citing Parker V. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, (1978)), and Cybersource V. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer.
When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an
abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 11-17 have also been analyzed for 101 eligibility and follows the same rationale as claim 10 above and not repeated here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 3/2/26, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered, claims 1-9 and 18-20 have been found persuasive in view of the amendment. Claims 10-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the amended language expressly requires execution of training applications, storage of executable XR training, generation of XR scene data, rendering of augmented reality, tracking of user position or orientation and automated control of subsequent training module. These limitations are not found in claims 10-17. Specifically claim 10 provides accessing library of training modules, receiving a request to identify applicable modules, selecting a subset of modules based on associated environment data, transmitting identifications of selected modules and updating the modules and selections based on new information. The claim fails to demonstrate that it amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea because, while the claim mentions “extended reality (XR) headset” and “XR training instructions”, these references are merely contextual labels applied to the data being filtered. The claim does not recite: actual executing or performing the XR training, using XR technology to deliver or implement training, any technical steps specific to XR functionality or hardware constraints and how the XR headset participates in the claimed operations. Therefore the 101 rejection for claims 10-17 are maintained.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner attempted to contact the applicant multiple times through phone calls and email to reach agreement on patentability, however no response was received.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANG HU whose telephone number is (571)270-1344. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 6:30-4:30.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
KANG HU
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights