DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/316,139 filed on 05/11/2023. Claims 1-27 are pending in this application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 18/316,139 filed 05/11/2023 claims Priority from Provisional Application 63/340,506, filed 05/11/2022.
Response to Amendment
4. In the response filed September 03, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, 14-16, and 20-21 and did not cancel any claims. No new claims were presented for examination.
5. Applicant's amendments to claims 1/11/12 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
6. Applicant's amendments to claims 10 and 21 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
7. Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 11, and 12 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed September 03, 2025, have been fully considered.
9. Applicant submits “Independent claim 1 is amended to recite, inter alia, “receiving, from a local database and a plurality of remote databases, initial requirements for a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, the initial requirements including testing conditions that are different for at least some of the plurality of devices and performance expectations for each device of the plurality of devices,” and “reporting performance of one or more participants and the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices.” Driscoll and Clampitt, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the combination of features recited in claim 1.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 09/03/2025, page 10]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Independent claim 1 is amended to recite, inter alia, “receiving, from a local database and a plurality of remote databases, initial requirements for a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, the initial requirements including testing conditions that are different for at least some of the plurality of devices and performance expectations for each device of the plurality of devices,” and “reporting performance of one or more participants and the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices.” Driscoll and Clampitt, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the combination of features recited in claim 1,” it is noted that this argument is a mere allegation of patentability by the Applicant with no supporting rationale or explanation. Merely stating that the claims do not teach a feature does not offer any insight as to why the specific sections of the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fail to disclose the claimed features. Applicant's arguments 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. Moreover, the Examiner notes the limitations being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 09/03/2025, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and citations to address the amended limitations in claim 1 and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
10. Applicant submits “Driscoll fails to disclose that eth warnings include performance of the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 09/03/2025, page 11]
In response to applicant's argument that Driscoll fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., warnings) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Driscoll does not teach “reporting performance of the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices,” the Examiner notes the limitations being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 09/03/2025, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and citations to address the amended limitations in claim 1 and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
11. Applicant submits “Clampitt does not disclose “reporting performance of one or more participants and the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 09/03/2025, page ]
In response to Applicant’s argument that Clampitt does not disclose “reporting performance of one or more participants and the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices,” the Examiner notes the limitations being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 09/03/2025, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates new reference and citations to address the amended limitations in claim 1 and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
12. Applicant submits “that the independent claims do not correspond to organizing human activity and cannot be carried out in the human mind.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 09/03/2025, page 11]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that the claim limitations “receiving initial requirements for a plurality of devices, the initial requirements including testing conditions that are different for at least some of the plurality of devices and performance expectations for each device of the plurality of devices; performing analysis and administration phase based on the received initial requirements to determine one or more detailed requirements; performing task organization and technical development phase comprising receiving information about a plurality of role players, responsibilities of the plurality of role players, and locations for the plurality of role players; based on the testing conditions, performing operational execution of exercises and/or training for a plurality of participants based on the initial requirements, the detailed requirements, and the information received from the role players; and reporting performance of one or more participants and the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices,” when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One, are part of the abstract idea itself, i.e., are steps within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106. The claim is directed to a method for providing training, exercising, and/or scenarios for conjuring technical targeting operations. The claim, when considered as whole, recites an abstract ideas of organizing and managing training exercises and device usage, which is a from or organizing human activity and mental process. Specifically, the analysis and administration of requirements can be performed as a mental process or with the aid of pen and paper. Organizing role players, responsibilities, and locations constitutes an organization/management activity (i.e., human activity). Planning and executing exercise/training based on requirements and role-player information is conceptually the same as coordinating human participants in a scenario, which falls within the grouping of organizing human activity. Last, receiving and reporting data merely provide inputs and outputs for the abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claims have been shown to recite an abstract idea via limitations falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106 via limitations that set forth steps for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions, and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
13. Applicant submits “even assuming the pending claims are abstract idea, the pending claims are sufficient to amount to significantly more than abstract idea by including the feature “reporting performance of one or more participants and the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices,” as recited in the independent claims.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 09/03/2025, page 12]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that the claimed reporting steps merely collects and presents information regarding participant and device performance. The claim does not recite any specific technological improvement. Merely reporting performance data without more, is routine and conventional data handling and does not transform the underlying abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2B. Therefore, the reporting step does not provide “significantly more.” Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no database, device, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information about performance of one or more participants and the plurality of devices, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that an improvement was achieved, improving the process of reporting performance, at most, seems to provide an improvement to a business process using generic computing elements, such that any incidental improvement achieved by automating the claim steps would come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself, which does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) (cited in the Federal Circuit's FairWarning decision). Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
14. Applicant's remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
15. Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect status identifier. The current status of all of the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given. Status is indicated in a parenthetical expression following the claim number by one of the following status identifiers: (original), (currently amended), (previously presented), (canceled), (withdrawn), (new), or (not entered). The status identifier (withdrawn - currently amended) is also acceptable for a withdrawn claim that is being currently amended. Claim 22 shows the following status identifier: Currently Amended. However, claim 22 does not include any amendment. Claim 22 should be identified as “Previously presented”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
18. Claims 1, 11, and 12 were each amended to recite the limitation “performing analysis and administration phase based on the received initial requirements to determine one or more detailed requirements” and subsequently recite the phrase “the detailed requirements.” The phrases “one or more detailed requirements” and “the detailed requirements” render the scope of claims 1, 11, and 12 ambiguous because the claims shift from singular “one or more detailed requirements” to plural “the detailed requirements.” Furthermore, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the detailed requirements.” in the claims, which renders claims 1, 11, and 12 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
19. Claims 3 and 14 were each amended to recite “wherein the testing conditions include one or more conflicting devices configured to conflict with the one or more plurality of devices.” The term “the one or more plurality of devices” lacks antecedent basis, making it unclear whether “the one or more plurality of device” refers to “the one or more of the plurality of devices” introduced in claims 1 and 12 or to different “one or more plurality of devices.” This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite. As a result, the claim does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
20. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and fail to cure the §112(b) deficiency noted above, and are therefore rendered indefinite based on dependency. Claims 13-27 depend from claim 12 and fail to cure the §112(b) deficiency noted above, and are therefore rendered indefinite based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
21. 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.
22. Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
23. Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-10), non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 11), and system (claim 12-27) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, article of manufacture, and machine respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-27 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for gathering and processing user information to generate a performance report, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: receiving, from a local database and a plurality of remote databases, initial requirements for a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, the initial requirements including testing conditions that are different for at least some of the plurality of devices and performance expectations for each device of the plurality of devices; performing analysis and administration phase based on the received initial requirements to determine one or more detailed requirements; performing task organization and technical development phase comprising receiving information about a plurality of role players, responsibilities of the plurality of role players, and locations for the plurality of role players; during operation of the plurality of devices based on the testing conditions, performing operational execution of exercises and/or training for a plurality of participants based on the initial requirements, the detailed requirements, and the information received from the role players; and reporting performance of one or more participants and the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices. These steps describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions since the information is related to a plurality of role players, responsibilities of the plurality of role players, and locations for the plurality of role players. These steps also encompass mental processes that may be accomplished by human judgment or evaluation, such as with the aid of pen and paper.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Claims 11 and 12 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and are therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recite: a local database and a plurality of remote databases, a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, and during operation of the plurality of devices (claim 1), a non-transitory computer readable storage medium tangibly storing a program, a computing system including at least one processor, a local database and a plurality of remote databases, a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, and during operation of the plurality of devices (claim 11), a memory, at least one processor coupled to the memory, a local database and a plurality of remote databases, a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, and during operation of the plurality of devices (claim 12). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the “receiving” step is evaluated as an additional element, this step amounts at most to insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recite: a local database and a plurality of remote databases, a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, and during operation of the plurality of devices (claim 1), a non-transitory computer readable storage medium tangibly storing a program, a computing system including at least one processor, a local database and a plurality of remote databases, a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, and during operation of the plurality of devices (claim 11), a memory, at least one processor coupled to the memory, a local database and a plurality of remote databases, a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, and during operation of the plurality of devices (claim 12). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes generic computing devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (See, e.g., Spec. at paragraphs 0074). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
With respect to the receiving step, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), nor add significantly more because such activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-27 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, claims 2-10 and 13-27 recite “wherein the initial requirements are retrieved,” “wherein the testing conditions include one or more conflicting devices configured to conflict with the one or more plurality of devices,” “wherein the initial requirements include timing requirements for the plurality of devices,” “wherein the testing conditions and the timing requirements are different for each device,” “wherein one or more additional requirements are determined based on the initial requirements, capabilities of the one or more devices and training objectives,” “wherein performing the analysis and administration phase includes outputting finalized requirements including the initial requirements and the detailed requirements,” “wherein performing the task organization and technical development phase includes determination whether to approve or deny requested changes based on pre-stored criteria, information about the changes, capabilities of the role players, information about a testing environment, and information about available devices,” “wherein further comprising, during the operational execution of exercises and/or training, receiving operations performed on devices associated with the plurality of participants,” “wherein reporting the performance of one or more participants includes identifying gaps in the performance of the one or more participants,” “wherein the initial requirements are retrieved,” “wherein the testing conditions include one or more conflicting devices configured to conflict with the one or more plurality of devices,” “wherein the initial requirements include timing requirements for the plurality of devices,” “wherein the testing conditions and the timing requirements are different for each device,” “wherein one or more additional requirements are determined based on the initial requirements, capabilities of the one or more devices and training objectives,” “wherein performing the analysis and administration phase includes outputting finalized requirements including the initial requirements and the detailed requirements,” “wherein performing the task organization and technical development phase includes determination whether to approve or deny requested changes based on pre-stored criteria, information about the changes, capabilities of the role players, information about a testing environment, and information about available devices,” “during the operational execution of exercises and/or training, receiving operations performed on devices associated with the plurality of participants,” “wherein reporting the performance of one or more participants includes identifying gaps in the performance of the one or more participants,” “transmit, during the operational execution of exercises and/or training to the plurality of mobile devices, information about relation of exercise participants and mobile and static targets within a scenario of the exercises and/or training,” “transmit to one or more of the plurality of mobile devices, during the operational execution of exercises and/or training, information about relation of exercise participants and mobile and static targets within a scenario of the exercises and/or training,” “transmit to one or more of the devices, during the operational execution of exercises and/or training, information about visualization of locations mapped in the scenario for viewing and situation awareness throughout the scenario,” “generate common stop analysis charts based on role player tracking activity within the system,” “generate relational activity and engagement between target sites, role players, and/or exercise participants throughout the scenario,” “generate common stop reports in relation to role players and their pattern of life movements throughout the scenario”, however these limitations are part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings. Dependent claims 2, 13, and 22-25 recite additional elements of one or more remote databases, communication circuitry configured to communicate with a plurality of mobile devices, communication circuitry configured to communicate with a plurality of devices, and the system. However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements are in the form of a generic computer or software to tie the invention to a particular technological environment which, as noted above, is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more to the claims and is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
24. 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 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.
25. 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 of this title, 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.
26. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
27. Claims 1-7, 9-18, 20-21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driscoll et al., Pub. No.: US 2008/0208779 A1, [hereinafter Driscoll], in view of Clampitt III et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0319925 A1, [hereinafter Clampitt], in further view of Daniali, Pub. No.: US 2021/0311844 A1, [hereinafter Daniali].
As per claim 1, Driscoll teaches a method for providing training, exercises and/or scenarios for conjuring technical targeting operations (paragraphs 0001, 0016), the method (paragraphs 0001, 0016) comprising:
receiving, from a local database and a plurality of remote databases, initial requirements (paragraph 0004, discussing that parties to an agreement are able to take individual work sites to the next level. The embodiments implement more efficient processes to achieve better operational results. Certification and regular inspections are provided on an ongoing basis to determine whether the site continues to meet certification standards (which can be some of the many requirements of the agreements); paragraph 0005, discussing a method and system for administering requirements relating to services using an automated system and process…The embodiments begin by being supplied with input of at least two parties. From this, the embodiments automatically generate a contract between the parties…The contract can be any form of contract or agreement that is made between parties. The agreement has a plurality of requirements of employees of the service provider; paragraph 0025, discussing an automated agreement, training, and testing generator that generates the contract/agreement (that includes many requirements), generates the automated self-training program, and generates the automated self-testing program; paragraph 0026, discussing that the generator has access to a database of previously created and stored contractual clauses, self-training modules, and self-testing modules);
performing analysis and administration phase based on the received initial requirements to determine one or more detailed requirements (paragraph 0017, discussing that the automatic generation of the agreement and the training/testing programs is driven by the requirements to which the parties have agreed; paragraph 0026, discussing that the generator 200 has access to a database of previously created and stored contractual clauses, self-training modules, and self-testing modules. The generator matches ones of the previously created, standardized clauses to the parties' requirements and combines such standardized clauses into a contract. For example, the parties can be given a list of standard requirements from which they can select their requirements; paragraph 0034, discussing that the embodiments also provide a comprehensive understanding of the requirements for every job, documented work processes that are carefully followed, technology to monitor operations and improve performance, consistent site certification standards and regular inspections...);
performing task organization and technical development phase comprising receiving information about a plurality of role players, responsibilities of the plurality of role players, and locations for the plurality of role players (paragraph 0004, discussing that parties to an agreement are able to take individual work sites to the next level. The embodiments implement more efficient processes to achieve better operational results. Certification and regular inspections are provided with embodiments herein on an ongoing basis to determine whether the site continues to meet certification standards. These tests provide feedback to become a world-class operation. With the training and resources provided, the skills of the service provider's employees are regularly updated, for example, to meet certification standards; paragraph 0006, discussing that the employees are grouped according to corresponding specific physical geographical locations, if the service recipient has different physical geographic locations that the agreement(s) may cover; paragraph 0009, discussing that embodiments periodically report the status of employees' knowledge to all of the parties to the service agreement based exclusively on the computerized self-testing program; paragraph 0010, discussing a process of logging every service transaction performed by the employees of the service provider required by the service agreement. These logs can be maintained and reported to each of the parties to the service agreement; paragraph 0029, discussing that the employees of the service provider can be in one physical location or can be located at different physical geographic locations; paragraph 0036, discussing that the disclosed embodiments provide all the resources needed to ensure a site team operates at peak performance. The testing programs described provide an information management system to log the details of every service transaction performed. This helps the site team meet not only deadlines, but every requirement of every job. The information management system can capture the details of every service transaction to help red flag issues before they turn into problems. This also generates detailed, performance-based reports to help fine-tune the processes, optimize resource usage, and facilitate good decision-making; paragraph 0007);
during operation of the plurality of devices based on the testing conditions, performing operational execution of exercises and/or training for a plurality of participants based on the initial requirements, the detailed requirements, and information received from the role players; (paragraph 0007, discussing that the embodiments cause the employees of the service provider to perform computerized self-training programs directed toward a first phase of the requirements; paragraph 0017, discussing that the embodiments generate the agreement and self-training/self-testing programs by matching standardized contractual clauses and standardized training/testing modules to the parties' requirements. Each of the standardized clauses that matches one or more of parties requirements is included within the agreement and corresponding training and testing modules are added to the self-training and self-testing programs. Therefore, the automatic generation of the agreement and the training/testing programs is driven by the requirements to which the parties have agreed; paragraph 0021, discussing that once all training/testing has been completed for all requirements the embodiments can periodically perform refresher retraining and retesting in item or new requirements can be added for training/testing; paragraph 0035); and
reporting performance of one or more participants (paragraph 0009, discussing that the embodiments can provide warnings to all of the parties to the service agreement if the employees of the service provider do not progress through the phases of the requirements within pre-established time limits. This process reports the results of the self-testing to the parties; paragraph 0036, discussing that the embodiments provide all the resources needed to ensure a site team operates at peak performance. The testing programs described herein provide an information management system to log the details of every service transaction performed. This helps the site team meet not only deadlines, but every requirement of every job. The information management system can capture the details of every service transaction to help red flag issues before they turn into problems. This also generates detailed, performance-based reports to help fine-tune the processes, optimize resource usage, and facilitate good decision-making.).
While Driscoll receiving, from a local database, initial requirements it does not explicitly teach receiving, from a plurality of remote databases, initial requirements for a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, the initial requirements including testing conditions that are different for at least some of the plurality of devices and performance expectations for each device of the plurality of devices; and reporting performance of the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices. Clampitt in the analogous art of testing systems teaches:
receiving, from a plurality of remote databases, initial requirements for a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols (paragraph 0002, discussing systems, apparatuses, methods, and computer-readable media associated with consolidated device infrastructure systems for rapid service delivery; paragraph 0073, discussing that the logic tier may provide a business logic layer with a common autonomous interface to the underlying infrastructure, allowing remote view and access to a pool of target devices selected from available devices dispersed at diverse geographic areas for the purpose of testing, debugging, development, configuration, experimentation, and examination by test infrastructure and automation. The logic tier may facilitate the proper identification of the suitable devices for the purpose of the testing, debugging, development, experimentation, configuration, etc. Additionally, embodiments allow for access to tooling and test equipment for the manipulation and analysis of target devices selected from available devices. The logic tier may also extend and expand the presentation layer and automation interface to provide an abstraction layer enabling the infrastructure to be program agnostic while allowing various components and/or devices to be added or removed as new opportunities arise while meeting existing customer requirements; paragraph 0077, discussing that the reservation module may be configured to check for existence of computing resources available in the ecosystem and then either reserve/schedule the resources immediately for use and/or remove them from being oversubscribed…The reservation module may obtain the capability and/or functionality information on a static basis (e.g., obtaining the capability and/or functionality information from a metadata repository), a dynamic basis (e.g., communicating with DMS (device management servers) 506 and/or devices to obtain a current status on the fly), and/or a semi-static (e.g., obtaining capability information from an intermediary device, or from both the repository 523 and by polling the DMS 506 or devices) In embodiments, the capability information may define the various attributes and/or parameters of the devices D1-DN…; paragraph 0078, discussing content from local or remote repositories; paragraph 0082, discussing that the provisioning module may be configured to create service coupling between the user of the resource and the resource itself. In embodiments, there may be three types of service couplings between the user of the resource and the resource. The first coupling type may be a tight coupling, which indicates a relatively strong relationship between the requirement and the device and/or resource. The tight coupling may be permanent and/or repeatable. Additionally, the tight coupling used when the requirement can only be met by specific resources or devices with specific capabilities or functionalities. The second coupling type may be a loosely coupling, which indicates that there is greater reusability and less interdependence between the features of the device/resource and the user/requirement when compared to the first coupling type…; paragraph 0097, discussing that a query may be made from the BLL (business logic layer) server to the DMS (device management servers) for available devices to operate as device test equipment or Devices Under Test (DUTs)).
Driscoll is directed towards a method and system for training and testing. Clampitt describes a system and method for testing. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards training and testing systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Driscoll with Clampitt because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for training and testing, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (system and method for configuring and conducting scenarios for training and testing), and because modifying Driscoll to include Clampitt’s feature for including receiving, from a plurality of remote databases, initial requirements for a plurality of devices configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of improving the data integrity, quality, and assurance (Clampitt at paragraph 0045); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Driscoll-Clampitt combination does not explicitly teach the initial requirements including testing conditions that are different for at least some of the plurality of devices and performance expectations for each device of the plurality of devices; and reporting performance of the plurality of devices during the execution of exercises and/or training, wherein the reported performance of the plurality of devices provides certification for one or more of the plurality of devices. However, Daniali in the analogous art of validation and testing systems teaches these concepts. Daniali teaches:
the initial requirements including testing conditions that are different for at least some of the plurality of devices and performance expectations for each device of the plurality of devices (paragraph 0002, discoing that equipment manufacturers must validate their equipment against various applications, network performance, and user behavior diversity. A device validation process and testing generally measure the user experience of the device and the results of the test may be analyzed to improve the device and address potential issues. In one example, user experience or performance of an application using a selection of augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR)/mixed reality (MR), or collectively, extended reality (XR) capable user devices may be analyzed. When these devices are produced by different manufacturers according to their own specifications, a given function or feature in the test application may operate differently in different devices; paragraph 0013, discussing that the testing system may receive a request, from the testing entity, to perform one or more validation tests for the XR application executing on an XR capable device. The request may at least specify usage of the one or more software modules and include testing specifications corresponding to an XR capable device, wherein the testing specifications may specify which validation tests to apply. In some examples, the validation tests may include performance tests, comfort, and usability tests, and input tests, and/or so forth. The testing specifications may also include information relating to the operating system, file system, hardware, and/or other software systems of an XR capable device that executes the XR application; paragraph 0014, discussing that the testing system may perform different validation tests on different extended reality (XR) c