DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introduction
The following is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 3/23/2026. Currently claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1, 14, 20 are independent. Claims 1, 14, 20 have been amended from the original claim set dated 5/30/2023. No claims have been added or cancelled. Priority to provisional application 63/347,490 fled 5/31/2022 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged and necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this Office Action. In light of the amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn because none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach the claimed invention as detailed in the independent claims, wherein the novelty of the claimed invention is in the combination of limitations and not in any single limitation. Specifically, none of the prior art discloses an employee tracking and accident detection system based on smart walkie talkies where the walkie talkies require each employee to login into the device and also where the devices automatically communicate with each other device (as opposed to a central server) in order to track both worker-worker interactions and worker-equipment interactions which are used for the creation of accident evidence logs.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2025 and 12/11/2025 appear to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-20, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-13) are directed to a statutory category, namely a method. Claim 14 and its dependent claims (claims 15-19) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 20 is directed to a statutory category, namely an article of manufacture.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1, 14, 20, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, or more particularly, “Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to manage and track information related to an accident at a manufacturing facility (either between people or between person/machine). To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that a safety manager might perform at a stamping plant. The abstract elements of claims 1, 14, 20, recite in part “Obtain locations…Detect interactions based on locations…Detect accident…Identify adjacent interaction…Assign interaction… Generate evidentiary data log…”. Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Data includes a timeline…Provide visualization…Associate data with various persistence levels…Enable access to data…Restrict access to data…Data includes a risk metric…Increment risk metric…Generate format for data…Publish data…Include experience level data…Training data sets include…Obtain tab location…Triangulate position…Estimate equipment locations…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 14, 20.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1, 14, 20, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Cloud computing system…Processors…Memory…Non-transitory computer readable medium…Sensor devices…Smart walkie talkie…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 9, 10, 11, 19 add the additional element which recites in part “ML model…” and dependent claim 12 adds the additional element which recites in part “tag device…” All of these items again merely limit the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is again insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-8, 13, 15-18 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 14, 20, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Cloud computing system…Processors…Memory…Non-transitory computer readable medium…Sensor devices…Smart walkie talkie…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (manage and track information related to an accident at a manufacturing facility (either between people or between person/machine)) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0275] – “In embodiments, the computer system 2300 shares a similar computer processor architecture as that of a desktop computer, tablet computer…”
Dependent claims 9, 10, 11, 12, and 19 include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination and in view of their respective independent claims, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, dependent claims 9, 10, 11, 19 include the additional element which recites in part “ML model…” and claim 12 includes “tag device.” These are similar additional elements to those that are addressed above in claims 1, 14, 20, and are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (manage and track information related to an accident at a manufacturing facility (either between people or between person/machine)) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-8, 13, 15-18 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejections addressed above.
Regarding the arguments related to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, as addressed above according to the USPTO guidance for 35 USC § 101 rejections contained within MPEP 2106, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is an abstract idea, without significantly more, and not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant first argues that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it is not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner does not find this persuasive because the claimed invention is interpreted as a method of managing and tracking information related to an accident at a manufacturing facility (either between people or between person/machine). This clearly falls into the abstract idea bucket of “organizing human activity” because it is managing the interaction between people.
The Applicant also makes numerous arguments as to how the claimed invention is further integrated into a practical application by addressing the walkie-talkie aspects. While this walkie-talkie aspect might be an improvement to the business process of facility safety management, and as such, have practical applicability, this practical applicability is not synonymous with USPTO guidance. Specifically, the claimed invention needs have significant additional elements as to where the claimed invention is effectively integrated into those additional elements. The abstract idea is interpreted as being integrated into these walkie-talkies. Rather, these walkie talkies (in addition to the other identified additional elements) limit the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As identified above, and in light of the amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn because none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach the claimed invention as detailed in the independent claims, wherein the novelty of the claimed invention is in the combination of limitations and not in any single limitation. Specifically, none of the prior art discloses an employee tracking and accident detection system based on smart walkie talkies where the walkie talkies require each employee to login into the device and also where the devices automatically communicate with each other device (as opposed to a central server) in order to track both worker-worker interactions and worker-equipment interactions which are used for the creation of accident evidence logs.
The closest prior art includes:
- Kim (KR 20210105476 A)
- Lake (WO 2016179377 A1)
- Decrop et al. (US 20230179983 A1)
- Pandya et al. (US 12411212 B1)
- Shuck (US 20170185721 A1)
- Barak et al. (US 20200202472 A1)
- Glynn et al. (US 20210264764 A1)
and
D. Prabha, et al. “IoT application for Safety and Health Monitoring System for Construction Workers," 2021 5th International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics (ICOEI), Tirunelveli, India, 2021, pp. 453-457 [online], [retrieved on 2025-09-19]. Retrieved from the Internet <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9452911?source=IQplus>
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights