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to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.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to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.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) capable devices. For instance, the testing system may perform, via a first testing device, a first validation test on a first XR capable device, and perform, via a second testing device, a second validation test on a second XR capable device…The first testing device and the second testing device may be the same or different devices; paragraph 0023, discussing that the testing and evaluation process monitoring server is configured to provide testing configurations to the testing system based at least on the testing specifications. In some aspects, the testing and evaluation process monitoring server may store validation criteria (e.g., acceptance level, the threshold for the number of defects identified, expected result) corresponding to various validation tests. The testing and evaluation process monitoring server may also include product requirements (e.g., implementation requirements, performance targets, service requirements, functions and features, quality requirements, customer experience/requirements, operations requirements, other technical requirements). The testing configurations may also be based at least on product requirements and the validation criteria. The testing and evaluation process monitoring server may also instruct the testing system which validation tests to apply and the pre-requisite for each test; throughput scheme; paragraph 0034, discussing that the request may include identifying information corresponding to a unique XR capable device and corresponding to a unique testing specification associated with the XR capable device. Additionally, the request may specify one or more validation tests to perform; paragraph 0029); 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 (paragraph 0023, discussing that the testing and evaluation process monitoring server is configured to provide testing configurations to the testing system based at least on the testing specifications. In some aspects, the testing and evaluation process monitoring server may store validation criteria (e.g., acceptance level, the threshold for the number of defects identified, expected result) corresponding to various validation tests. The testing and evaluation process monitoring server may also include product requirements (e.g., implementation requirements, performance targets, service requirements, functions and features, quality requirements, customer experience/requirements, operations requirements, other technical requirements). The testing configurations may also be based at least on product requirements and the validation criteria. The testing and evaluation process monitoring server may also instruct the testing system which validation tests to apply and the pre-requisite for each test; throughput scheme; paragraph 0067, discussing that the validation module may include one or more instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors direct the testing system to perform operations related to generating a validation report and transmit the validation report to a testing log. In some aspects, the validation module may analyze test results generated by one or more testing devices that execute one or more validation tests to determine whether the XR application is validated. The validation module may analyze test results as individual validation tests are completed. Accordingly, the validation module may instruct the testing and evaluation module to terminate testing if one or more test results indicate that the XR application is not validated. Conversely, the validation module may analyze test results when all validation tests are completed. In some aspects, the validation module may analyze the test results in accordance with product requirements and evaluation criteria. Accordingly, the validation module may indicate in the validation report whether the XR application is validated; paragraph 0071, discussing that the testing device may output the results of the validation tests in an output queue…A validation module of the testing system may report test results from the validation tests to a testing log. In some aspects, the validation module may analyze the test results to determine whether the XR application is validated based at least on one or more validation criteria (e.g., acceptance level, threshold value, expected result, etc.)).
The Driscoll-Clampitt combination describes features related to training and testing. Daniali describes a validation and testing system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt combination with Daniali because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for testing, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (system and method for configuring and conducting scenarios for training and testing), and because modifying the Driscoll-Clampitt combination to include Daniali’s features for including 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, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of improve the device and addressing potential issues (Daniali at paragraph 0002); 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.
As per claim 2, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the method of claim 1. Driscoll further teaches wherein the initial requirements are retrieved from one or more remote databases (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 200 matches ones of the previously created, standardized clauses to the parties' requirements and combines such standardized clauses into a contract (or adds such clauses to a shell contract in, for example, a merge document). For example, the parties can be given a list of standard requirements from which they can select their requirements).
As per claim 3, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Driscoll, Clampitt in the analogous art of testing systems teaches wherein the testing conditions include one or more conflicting devices configured to conflict with the one or more plurality of devices (paragraph 0189, discussing that the second format may be a format that is compatible with the connected devices. In this case the parameters may indicate I/O operations, commands, etc. to be relayed to one or more devices, which may be in a first format that is not executable or is otherwise incompatible with the devices…The processor may implement the relay module to send a second message including the parameters in the second format to the one or more devices. The relay module may also identify the intended recipient devices based on address or other identification information the first message, or using stored address/identification information; paragraph 0190, discussing that in the second example, the second format may be a format that is compatible with the higher layer entities. In this case the parameters may indicate results of operations, tasks, actions of a workload and/or state information to be relayed to the higher layer entity, which may be in a first format that is not executable or is otherwise incompatible with the higher layer entity…The processor may implement the relay module to send a second message including the parameters in the second format to the higher layer entity. The relay module may also identify the intended recipient entity based on address or other identification information the first message, or using stored address/identification information).
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 wherein the testing conditions include one or more conflicting devices configured to conflict with the one or more plurality of devices, 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.
As per claim 4, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Driscoll, Clampitt in the analogous art of testing systems teaches wherein the initial requirements include timing requirements of for the plurality of devices (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. The third coupling type may be an ad-hoc coupling, which may be used when the requirement can be met by virtually any or all resources or devices; paragraph 0097, discussing that the query may indicate required attributes for the devices D1-DN (e.g., device or component type/model, device or component attributes, silicon stepping or stepping level, platform architecture, operating system type and/or version, hardware and/or software system requirements, etc.). Additionally, the query may indicate required workload requirements (e.g., throughput capabilities, benchmark capabilities, performance capabilities, response time capabilities, etc.), operations-based requirements, or time-based requirements; paragraph 0087).
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 wherein the initial requirements include timing requirements of for the plurality of devices, 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.
As per claim 5, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the method of claim 4. Although not explicitly taught by Driscoll, Clampitt in the analogous art of testing systems teaches wherein the timing requirements are different for each device (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. The third coupling type may be an ad-hoc coupling, which may be used when the requirement can be met by virtually any or all resources or devices; paragraph 0097, discussing that the query may indicate required attributes for the devices D1-DN (e.g., device or component type/model, device or component attributes, silicon stepping or stepping level, platform architecture, operating system type and/or version, hardware and/or software system requirements, etc.). Additionally, the query may indicate required workload requirements (e.g., throughput capabilities, benchmark capabilities, performance capabilities, response time capabilities, etc.), operations-based requirements, or time-based requirements).
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 wherein the timing requirements are different for each device, 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 wherein the testing conditions are different for each device. However, Daniali in the analogous art of validation and testing systems teaches these concepts. Daniali teaches:
wherein the testing conditions are different for each device (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) capable devices. For instance, the testing system may perform, via a first testing device, a first validation test on a first XR capable device, and perform, via a second testing device, a second validation test on a second XR capable device…The first testing device and the second testing device may be the same or different devices; paragraph 0023, discussing that the testing and evaluation process monitoring server is configured to provide testing configurations to the testing system based at least on the testing specifications. In some aspects, the testing and evaluation process monitoring server may store validation criteria (e.g., acceptance level, the threshold for the number of defects identified, expected result) corresponding to various validation tests. The testing and evaluation process monitoring server may also include product requirements (e.g., implementation requirements, performance targets, service requirements, functions and features, quality requirements, customer experience/requirements, operations requirements, other technical requirements). The testing configurations may also be based at least on product requirements and the validation criteria. The testing and evaluation process monitoring server may also instruct the testing system which validation tests to apply and the pre-requisite for each test; throughput scheme; paragraph 0034, discussing that the request may include identifying information corresponding to a unique XR capable device and corresponding to a unique testing specification associated with the XR capable device. Additionally, the request may specify one or more validation tests to perform).
The Driscoll-Clampitt combination describes features related to training and testing. Daniali describes a validation and testing system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt combination with Daniali because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for testing, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (system and method for configuring and conducting scenarios for training and testing), and because modifying the Driscoll-Clampitt combination to include Daniali’s feature for including wherein the testing conditions are different for each device, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of improve the device and addressing potential issues (Daniali at paragraph 0002); 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.
As per claim 6, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the method of claim 1. Driscoll further teaches wherein one or more additional requirements are determined based on the initial requirements and training objectives (paragraph 0020 when all employees in the group have passed the testing (if there are more requirements, as determined by decision box 114) processing proceeds to item 116 which performs the computerized self-training 106 and self-testing 108 on the next requirement (e.g., second or subsequent requirements); paragraph 0031, discussing that the embodiments repeat the computerized self-training program 204 and the computerized self-testing program 206 for subsequent phases of the requirements.).
Although not taught by Driscoll, Clampitt in the analogous art of testing systems teaches wherein one or more additional requirements are determined based on capabilities of the one or more devices (paragraph 0077, discussing that the reservation module may be configured to check for existence of computing resources available in the ecosystem (e.g., resources provided by one or more devices D1-DN) and then either reserve/schedule the resources immediately for use and/or remove them from being oversubscribed. Any type of known scheduling, retention and/or intelligent placement algorithm may be used to schedule the resources. During an initialization phase of the CDI system 500, the reservation module may obtain capability and/or functionality information, which may be updated during provisioning/de-provisioning of the container, partitions, or VM. 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 metadata repository), a dynamic basis (e.g., communicating with DMS 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 such as device or component type/model, device or component attributes, silicon stepping or stepping level, platform architecture, operating system type and/or version, currently installed software applications, available memory, desired amount of computing or network resources that may be used for testing purposes, attached devices/peripheral devices, communications capabilities (e.g., wireless and/or wired network capabilities, as well as supported communications protocols), etc. The functionality information may refine the capability information based on past behavior(s), precision, confidence in the capability, and/or reduction in features and/or functions based on anomalies or temporary or intermittent failures. The functionality information can be used to refine the specificity of the resource and/or device that is identified and allocated to a project; paragraph 0082, disusing 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.).
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 wherein one or more additional requirements are determined based on capabilities of the one or more devices, 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.
As per claim 7, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the method of claim 1. Driscoll further teaches wherein performing the analysis and administration phase includes outputting finalized requirements including the initial requirements and the detailed requirements (paragraph 0021, discussing that the embodiments repeat the computerized self-training program and the computerized self-testing program for subsequent phases of the requirements as shown by the self-testing; 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 250. The generator 200 matches ones of the previously created, standardized clauses to the parties' requirements and combines such standardized clauses into a contract (or adds such clauses to a shell contract in, for example, a merge document). For example, the parties can be given a list of standard requirements from which they can select their requirements).
As per claim 9, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the method of claim 1, Driscoll further teaches wherein further comprising, during the operational execution of exercises and/or training, receiving operations performed on devices associated with the plurality of participants (paragraph 0009, discussing that periodically reporting the status of employees' knowledge to all of the parties to the service agreement based exclusively on the computerized self-testing program. In addition, 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. Further, independent testing of the employees of the service provider, separate from the self-testing program can be performed; paragraph 0022, discussing that periodically report the status of employees' knowledge to all of the parties to the copying and printing service agreement based exclusively on the computerized self-testing program, as shown in item 122. In addition, the reporting 122 can provide warnings to all of the parties to the copying and printing service agreement if the employees of the service provider do not progress through the phases of the requirements within pre-established time limits).
As per claim 10, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the method of claim 1. Driscoll further teaches wherein reporting performance of one or more participants includes identifying gaps in the performance of the 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 0020, discussing that if all the employees of the group have not passed the testing, processing proceeds to item 112 which returns the employees to the current (e.g., first) requirement and repeats the computerized self-training 106 and self-testing 108 on the current requirement; 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.).
Claims 11 and 12 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 11 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium tangibly storing a program for providing training, exercises and/or scenarios for conjuring technical targeting operations, the program, when executed by a computing system including at least one processor, performing one or more of the functionalities (Driscoll, paragraph 0038). As per claim 12, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches a computing system for providing training, exercises and/or scenarios for conjuring technical targeting operations, the computing system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Driscoll, paragraph 0038 and Clampitt, paragraph 0027).
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 2, as discussed above.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 3, as discussed above.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 4, as discussed above.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 5, as discussed above.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 6, as discussed above.
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 7, as discussed above.
Claim 20 recites 9 substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim , as discussed above.
Claim 21 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 10, as discussed above.
As per claim 26, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the system of claim 12. Driscoll further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate relational activity and engagement between target sites, role players, and/or exercise participants throughout the scenario (paragraph 0020, discussing that if all the employees of the group have not passed the testing, processing proceeds to item 112 which returns the employees to the current (e.g., first) requirement and repeats the computerized self-training 106 and self-testing 108 on the current requirement. To the contrary, when all employees in the group have passed the testing (if there are more requirements, as determined by decision box 114) processing proceeds to item 116 which performs the computerized self-training 106 and self-testing 108 on the next requirement (e.g., second or subsequent requirements); paragraph 0030, discussing that the computerized self-training programs 204 directed toward a first phase of the requirements. The embodiments herein also use the computerized self-testing program 206 to determine whether all of the employees 211-213 of the service provider within a specific group have acquired knowledge that exceeds the first phase of the requirements).
28. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driscoll in view of Clampitt, in view of Daniali, in view of Robin et al., Pub. No.: US 2005/0114829 A1, [hereinafter Robin], in further view of Rantala et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0141782 A1, [hereinafter Rantala].
As per claim 8, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Driscoll-Clampitt combination, Robin in the analogous art of change management systems teaches 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, and information about a testing environment (paragraph 0352, discussing that configuration management is often confused with project change control, which is discussed below. The two are interrelated, but not the same. Configuration management is the tracking of the state of project deliverables and documents. Change control is the process used to review and approve changes. Configuration management provides the baseline data that the team needs in order to make effective change control decisions; paragraph 0377, discussing specifying individuals (including the customer, program management, and some combination of stakeholders and other team members) to serve on a change control board to authorize changes. Such a group can take many forms, as long as it is authorized to approve changes to cost, schedule, and functionality; paragraph 0441, discussing that after the team defines a baseline, it is placed under change control. This does not mean that all decisions reached in the planning phase are final. But it does mean that as work progresses in the developing phase, the team should review and approve any suggested changes to the baseline; paragraph 1375, discussing that an individual should be given ownership of a specific risk classification area and responsibility for approving changes; paragraph 1870, discussing processes to request configuration changes (steps, approval levels); paragraph 1875, discussing that the Change Management Approach field describes how the project's scope will be maintained through structured procedures for submitting, approving, implementing, and reviewing change requests. The change management process is responsible for providing prompt and efficient handling of any request for change).
The Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination describes features related to training and testing. Robin describes a system and method for facilitating the process of designing and developing a project. 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination with Robin 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination to include Robin’s feature for including 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, and information about a testing environment, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing organizations to derive better results for their business (Robin at paragraph 0072); 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-Daniali-Robin combination does not explicitly teach determination whether to approve or deny requested changes based on information about available devices. However, Rantala in the analogous art of device management systems teaches this concept. Rantala teaches:
determination whether to approve or deny requested changes based on information about available devices (paragraph 0050, discussing that examples of embodiments also include a method for a network equipment to change a device (e.g. a UE) from communicating with a first data communication system to communicating with a second data communication system. The method comprises receiving an update request from the device, determining that the update request comprises information indicating a change in the device's capabilities relative to the device's stored context, and determining which additional action is required. In some embodiments, the method comprises determining to detach the device from the first data communication system due to the change in capabilities, sending a detach request to the device, and removing the device's stored context. In some embodiments, the method comprises determining that the update request must be rejected due to the change in capabilities, sending a rejection to the device indicating the cause as the change in capabilities, receiving a detach request from the device, and removing the device's stored context; paragraph 0006).
The Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali-Robin combination describes features related to training and testing. Rantala describes a system and method for device management. 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali-Robin combination with Robin 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali-Robin combination to include Rantala’s feature for including determination whether to approve or deny requested changes based on information about available devices, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of increasing capacity (Rantala at paragraph 0005); 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.
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 8, as discussed above.
29. Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driscoll in view of Clampitt, in view of Daniali, in further view of Elliott et al., Pub. No.: US 2015/0382208 A1, [hereinafter Elliott].
As per claim 22, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the system of claim 12. While the Driscoll-Clampitt combination teaches communicating with devices to obtain a current status on the fly (Clampitt, paragraph 0077), the Driscoll-Clampitt combination does not explicitly teach further comprising communication circuitry configured to communicate with a plurality of mobile devices, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: 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. However, Elliott in the analogous art of performance measurement systems teaches this concept (paragraph 0013, discussing embodiments of a management portal server that provides operator access to performance statistics by monitoring the wireless quality of service during events at large venues to ensure that a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) is functioning correctly or as desired. In one or more embodiments, the management portal server can monitor and control a BOT remote wireless coverage surveillance system that utilizes one or more of a group of probe devices for collecting test data for communication services at the venue; paragraph 0044, discussing that the probe device agent can have a command handler. The probe device agent can process various commands such as via the command handler (e.g., commands received from the management portal server): stop probe device service—stops the probe device agent from executing any test and the probe device then goes into IDLE state; start probe device service—starts the probe device agent and places the probe device in an ACTIVE state; start monitor—this command instructs the probe device agent to send the test results after each test execution is completed and this command is sent by the management portal server when a user is viewing the dynamic status of the probe device; stop monitor—this command instructs the probe device agent that the probe device's status is no longer being viewed dynamically so the probe device agent should stop sending the test results at end of each test execution; stream software update—updates the application on the Android handset; stream reboot—reboots the Android handset connected to the probe device; stream start application—starts the application on the Android handset; stream stop application—stops the application on the Android handset; stream power cycle—power cycles the Android handset via the probe device agent initiating a GPIO to power cycle the optional handset; status post—posts the current status of the probe device (Active/Idle) to the database server; result post—posts the test results to the database server; and/or log post—posts the debug logs to the database server for troubleshooting; paragraph 0065, discussing that a determination can be made as to whether a connection to a network server exists. For example, each probe device can have a single hardwire interface enabling an Ethernet connection via SIAD to the network server. If the connection does not exist or is otherwise determined to be unavailable for use by the probe device, the probe device can locally store the performance data and continue to perform tests on the various communication services at the venue. Once the connection with the network server is restored, the performance data (or a portion thereof) can be transmitted for storage by the database server; paragraph 0073, discussing that active testing at the manufacturing and acceptance test phase for each production probe device can ensure that the highest quality and latest versions of the probe devices are available in the venues to monitor the DAS. The use of a test server system enables: remotely manage probe devices; since the portal is web based, any user having proper privileges in the portal and access to the network can access the portal from a PC, tablet, cell phone, or other connected mobile device and is not access platform dependent; able to perform automated testing around the clock to keep the new production probe device's quality standards high; analyze the test results in a graphical manner based on which technology is being monitored; create and edit custom test suites for expanded testing of the probe devices before delivery; download the use-case test suites to the probe devices remotely; update the probe device software remotely; probe device tests can be monitored in near real-time).
The Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination describes features related to training and testing. Elliott relates to performance measurement systems. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination with Elliott 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination to include Elliott’s feature for including transmitting, 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, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating performance of operations (Elliott at paragraph 0021); 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.
As per claim 23, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the system of claim 12. Although not explicitly taught by the Driscoll-Clampitt combination, Elliott in the analogous art of performance measurement systems teaches further comprising communication circuitry configured to communicate with a plurality of mobile devices, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: 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 (paragraph 0013, discussing embodiments of a management portal server that provides operator access to performance statistics by monitoring the wireless quality of service during events at large venues to ensure that a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) is functioning correctly or as desired. In one or more embodiments, the management portal server can monitor and control a BOT remote wireless coverage surveillance system that utilizes one or more of a group of probe devices for collecting test data for communication services at the venue; paragraph 0044, discussing that the probe device agent can have a command handler. The probe device agent can process various commands such as via the command handler (e.g., commands received from the management portal server): stop probe device service—stops the probe device agent from executing any test and the probe device then goes into IDLE state; start probe device service—starts the probe device agent and places the probe device in an ACTIVE state; start monitor—this command instructs the probe device agent to send the test results after each test execution is completed and this command is sent by the management portal server when a user is viewing the dynamic status of the probe device; stop monitor—this command instructs the probe device agent that the probe device's status is no longer being viewed dynamically so the probe device agent should stop sending the test results at end of each test execution; stream software update—updates the application on the Android handset; stream reboot—reboots the Android handset connected to the probe device; stream start application—starts the application on the Android handset; stream stop application—stops the application on the Android handset; stream power cycle—power cycles the Android handset via the probe device agent initiating a GPIO to power cycle the optional handset; status post—posts the current status of the probe device (Active/Idle) to the database server; result post—posts the test results to the database server; and/or log post—posts the debug logs to the database server for troubleshooting; paragraph 0065, discussing that a determination can be made as to whether a connection to a network server exists. For example, each probe device can have a single hardwire interface enabling an Ethernet connection via SIAD to the network server. If the connection does not exist or is otherwise determined to be unavailable for use by the probe device, the probe device can locally store the performance data and continue to perform tests on the various communication services at the venue. Once the connection with the network server is restored, the performance data (or a portion thereof) can be transmitted for storage by the database server; paragraph 0073, discussing that active testing at the manufacturing and acceptance test phase for each production probe device can ensure that the highest quality and latest versions of the probe devices are available in the venues to monitor the DAS. The use of a test server system enables: remotely manage probe devices; since the portal is web based, any user having proper privileges in the portal and access to the network can access the portal from a PC, tablet, cell phone, or other connected mobile device and is not access platform dependent; able to perform automated testing around the clock to keep the new production probe device's quality standards high; analyze the test results in a graphical manner based on which technology is being monitored; create and edit custom test suites for expanded testing of the probe devices before delivery; download the use-case test suites to the probe devices remotely; update the probe device software remotely; probe device tests can be monitored in near real-time).
The Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination describes features related to training and testing. Elliott relates to performance measurement systems. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination with Elliott 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination to include Elliott’s feature for including transmitting, 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, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating performance of operations (Elliott at paragraph 0021); 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.
As per claim 24, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the system of claim 12. Although not explicitly taught by the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination, Elliott in the analogous art of performance measurement systems teaches further comprising communication circuitry configured to communicate with a plurality of devices, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: 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 (paragraph 0025, discussing a method including receiving, by a system including a processor, performance data from a probe device, where the performance data is for first and second groups of communication sessions initiated by the probe device, where the performance data is measured according to testing criteria, where the first group of communication sessions is established via a local area wireless access technology utilizing a distributed antenna system, and where the second group of communication sessions is established via a second radio access technology utilizing the distributed antenna system. The method can include analyzing, by the system, the performance data. The method can include adjusting, by the system, the distributed antenna system, a network providing communication services to a location where the probe device is positioned, or a combination thereof. The adjusting can be based on the analyzing of the performance data; paragraph 0044, discussing that the probe device agent can have a command handler. The probe device agent can process various commands such as via the command handler (e.g., commands received from the management portal server): stop probe device service—stops the probe device agent from executing any test and the probe device then goes into IDLE state; start probe device service—starts the probe device agent and places the probe device in an ACTIVE state; start monitor—this command instructs the probe device agent to send the test results after each test execution is completed and this command is sent by the management portal server when a user is viewing the dynamic status of the probe device; stop monitor—this command instructs the probe device agent that the probe device's status is no longer being viewed dynamically so the probe device agent should stop sending the test results at end of each test execution; stream software update—updates the application on the Android handset; stream reboot—reboots the Android handset connected to the probe device; stream start application—starts the application on the Android handset; stream stop application—stops the application on the Android handset; stream power cycle—power cycles the Android handset via the probe device agent initiating a GPIO to power cycle the optional handset; status post—posts the current status of the probe device (Active/Idle) to the database server; result post—posts the test results to the database server; and/or log post—posts the debug logs to the database server for troubleshooting; paragraph 0065, discussing that a determination can be made as to whether a connection to a network server exists. For example, each probe device can have a single hardwire interface enabling an Ethernet connection via SIAD to the network server. If the connection does not exist or is otherwise determined to be unavailable for use by the probe device, the probe device can locally store the performance data and continue to perform tests on the various communication services at the venue. Once the connection with the network server is restored, the performance data (or a portion thereof) can be transmitted for storage by the database server; paragraph 0050, discussing that other portal functions include generating and rendering a Graphical User Interface (GUI) which is a control panel illustrated in FIG. 7 that enables an operator to search on a wide range of parameters in the database. For example, using the following search criteria in the summary panel on the left side of the screen provides data on the probe devices including: collection—collection represents groups of probe devices or a group of collections to manage the probe devices with respect to their status, locations, and so forth. There can be different types of collections: system collections that are a read-only location based collection that displays the probe devices from all locations. It can automatically bind all the newly added probe devices to the system collection; paragraph 0073, discussing that active testing at the manufacturing and acceptance test phase for each production probe device can ensure that the highest quality and latest versions of the probe devices are available in the venues to monitor the DAS. The use of a test server system enables: remotely manage probe devices; since the portal is web based, any user having proper privileges in the portal and access to the network can access the portal from a PC, tablet, cell phone, or other connected mobile device and is not access platform dependent; able to perform automated testing around the clock to keep the new production probe device's quality standards high; analyze the test results in a graphical manner based on which technology is being monitored; create and edit custom test suites for expanded testing of the probe devices before delivery; download the use-case test suites to the probe devices remotely; update the probe device software remotely; probe device tests can be monitored in near real-time).
The Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination describes features related to training and testing. Elliott relates to performance measurement systems. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination with Elliott 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination to include Elliott’s feature for including transmitting 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, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating performance of operations (Elliott at paragraph 0021); 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.
30. Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driscoll in view of Clampitt, in view of Daniali, in further view of Turner et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0334637 A1, [hereinafter Turner].
As per claim 25, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the system of claim 12. Although not explicitly taught by the Driscoll-Clampitt combination, Turner in the analogous art of analysis systems teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate common stop analysis charts based on role player tracking activity within the system (paragraph 0071, discussing a diagram showing how the delivery system can combine overlapping sets of stops from data from the two GPS devices to generate a consensus stop. The diagram shows that, as time passes, GPS stops reported by the first GPS device 805 (top set of lines 502) and GPS stops reported by the second GPS device 810 (middle set of lines 504) can be reconciled (for example, determined to be a common stop or overlapping, if applicable). The bottom set of lines 504 shows a proposed reconciliation for the GPS stops from the first and second GPS devices 805 and 810, respectively. In each case, a common stop is constructed from a maximal set of stops that are connected by overlapping in time. Each common stop is determined by averaging the earliest arrival times from each GPS device 805 and 810, and the latest departure times from each GPS device, and the latitudes and the longitudes of stops used to build each common stop; paragraph 0073).
The Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination describes features related to training and testing. Turner describes a planning system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination with Turner 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination to include Turner’s feature for including wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate common stop analysis charts based on role player tracking activity within the system, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of identifying and improving efficiencies (Turner at paragraph 0003); 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.
As per claim 27, the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination teaches the system of claim 12. Although not explicitly taught by the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination, Turner in the analogous art of analysis systems teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate common stop reports in relation to role players and their pattern of life movements throughout the scenario (paragraph 0071, discussing a diagram showing how the delivery system can combine overlapping sets of stops from data from the two GPS devices to generate a consensus stop. The diagram shows that, as time passes, GPS stops reported by the first GPS device 805 (top set of lines 502) and GPS stops reported by the second GPS device 810 (middle set of lines 504) can be reconciled (for example, determined to be a common stop or overlapping, if applicable). The bottom set of lines 504 shows a proposed reconciliation for the GPS stops from the first and second GPS devices 805 and 810, respectively. In each case, a common stop is constructed from a maximal set of stops that are connected by overlapping in time. Each common stop is determined by averaging the earliest arrival times from each GPS device 805 and 810, and the latest departure times from each GPS device, and the latitudes and the longitudes of stops used to build each common stop; paragraph 0073).
The Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination describes features related to training and testing. Turner describes a planning system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination with Turner 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 the Driscoll-Clampitt-Daniali combination to include Turner’s feature for including wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate common stop reports in relation to role players and their pattern of life movements throughout the scenario, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of identifying and improving efficiencies (Turner at paragraph 0003); 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Storm, Pub. No.: US 2014/0142881 A1 – describes a system and method to test and certify equipment for regulatory compliance.
Mehta et al., Pub. No.: US 2021/0080982 A1 – describes that for a given set of known parameters (sensed conditions), a machine learning model can determine an IoT device's expected performance at those conditions.
Pueblas, Pub. No.: US 2019/0260663 A1 – describes that a test profile is generated for validating a network device under test proposed to be installed within the target network environment based on any or a combination of the performance related parameters, the data associated with the performance related parameters, the security and network telemetry information and a set of capabilities of the network device under test.
Halter, Pub. No.: US 2017/0363392 A1 – describes that the running of one test may conflict with the running of another test. For example, one test may need another test to complete before the first test may be run. As another example, one test may need the device under test to be in one mode, while another test may need the device to be in a different mode. As such, a device under test may need to be placed in a particular mode for running a particular test.
Steimle, Markus, Nico Weber, and Markus Maurer. "Toward generating sufficiently valid test case results: A method for systematically assigning test cases to test bench configurations in a scenario-based test approach for automated vehicles." IEEE Access 10 (2022): 6260-6285 – describes scenario-based test approaches.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights