DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
[2] A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 August 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 28 August 2026. Claims 2-6 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 27 have been amended. Claims 28-29 are newly added. Claims 1 and 7-29 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 7-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 21-29 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1 and 21-27 (now claims 1 and 21-29 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
[5] Claim(s) 1 and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creditor et al., (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0172312 hereinafter ‘Creditor’) in view of Suryanarayana et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0368214 hereinafter ‘Suryanarayana’) and further in view of in view of Ekins (United States Patent No. 11,675,503 hereinafter ‘Ekins’).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 1, Creditor discloses a training and contract compliance validation system for managing at least one contract, the system comprising: at least one microprocessor executing software instructions that are stored in a memory unit and are implemented as a plurality of modules (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0200]-[0205] [0279]; See at least processors and executable instructions comprising program modules), the system further comprising: at least one peripheral or external device connected to the microprocessor via a dedicated input/output bus used exclusively for communication between the microprocessor and device (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0201]-[0206] [0207]; See at least communications between devices and processors); the plurality of modules separated into one or more presentation layers on a frontend of the system and one or more data access-management layers on a backend of the system (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0201]-[0207]; See at least modules presented on device of dedicated portals having a subset of application modules. The portals are reasonably a form of presentation layers and the data exchange is reasonably data access on the backend of the system); the database of table resources accessible to a subgroup of the plurality of modules via the microprocessor, the subgroup comprising at least: a reporting module for generating all pre-processed and pre-formatted reports tailored for each persona (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0135]-[0138] [0203]-[0205]; See at least reporting dashboards specific to personas. See further specific reporting modules format reports for specific persona portals); an automation module for automating tasks to conduct automated updates, additions, and verification of data to and from one or more modules in the system (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0094] [0152] [0189] [0207]; See at least automated workflows implementing data updates and notifications among stakeholders and system modules); a data analysis module for determining at least an ROI indicator of the system (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0148] [0205] [0207]; See at least data analytics module and apprenticeship progress reporting. Reporting of certifications and skill gained reported to the sponsor and/or employer are reasonably measures of return on investment); a cloud stored-mobile module for handling all file synchronization, storage, and backup services in the system (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0193] [0202] [0234] [0235]; See at least mobile app, logbook modules, cloud data storage including data storage, transmission, and backup policies); and a contract compliance module for handling and managing at least a return-on-investment performance, an apprenticeship training performance, and a project compliance associated with the at least one contract (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0153]-[0156] [0174]-[0175] [0203]-[0205]; See at least training agreement and apprenticeship contracts. See further apprenticeship hours and training requirements and employment conditions, See further monitoring apprentice progress including fulfilling at least hours requirements and certifications, i.e., “compliance” with the agreement/contract).
With respect to automated functions via the disclosed modules and persona-specific portals, Creditor discloses automated workflow processes which update both systems and users with newly acquired progress data via the logbook module and further implements rules to automatically notify or update stakeholders. While it is reasonably assumed that these event-triggered data updates and notifications to users and modules employs command syntax, Creditor fails to specify that these functions are implemented and controlled “via predefined syntax commands”.
However, as evidenced by Suryanarayana, it is well-known in the art to automate data exchange and other workflow processes using user defined command syntax (Suryanarayana et al.; paragraphs [0041] [0065] [0114]; See at least automating data handling functions associated with employee and organizational compliance rules including generating computer-executable commands using defined syntax. See further visual notification to programmer/users highlighting specified syntax for written commands).
Claim 1 has been amended with respect to the previously recited schema to further specify “…a schema of table resources used by the microprocessor, the schema of table resources having unique field identifiers for storing object data relating at least to participant training, certifications, contract compliance, and return-on-investment (ROI) metrics, the schema of table resources including a migration-lock table comprising an index field and a lock-status field…”
Claim 1 as amended further specifies “…wherein, upon completion of each of the multiple batch operations, the microprocessor computes, based on a reconciliation of contract standards against a pool of resource input data stored across the schema of table resources, the ROI indicator and a contract validation indicator for the at least one contract…”.
With respect to these elements, Creditor discloses evaluations of training and apprenticeship performance that are reasonably forms of return on investment metrics and contract compliance metrics across multiple apprenticeships, i.e., multiple batch operations, absent further clarification. Creditor further discloses transmission and storage of apprenticeship events and data in an open common data model and databases that are accessible across the system/modules, i.e., “a pool of resource data” (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0110]-[0115] [0180] [0207] [0209]; See at least apprenticeship logging of events. See databases and open data models).
Creditor fails to specify that the database and common data model utilize a specified relational structure or schema table of data resources and further fails to disclose lock/unlocking of access to resources via lock and unlock status assigned to resources.
However, as evidenced by Elkins, it is well-known in role-based data access systems to utilize a database schema of dataset resources accessible via application program interfaces including tracking and conveying through interface tables locked and unlock status for accessible resources associated with data set replication and migration processes (Ekins; col. 57, lines 40-67, col. 58, lines 1-32, col. 65, lines 4-30 and col. 66, lines 4-45; See at least database schema having specified accessible dataset/resources in a role-based access system. See further status including locked and unlocked datasets viewable via GUI (table) and preventing dataset replication/migration in locked status, i.e., prevent multiple batch operations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the automated data exchanges and updates of Creditor by further including defined command syntax for automating data handling processes as taught by Suryanarayana. The instant invention is directed to a system and method for automating processes for monitoring compliance associated with employment programs. As Creditor discloses the use of automated data exchanges and updates in the context of a system and method for automating processes for monitoring compliance associated with employment programs and Suryanarayana similarly discloses the utility well-known command syntax for automating data handling processes in the context of a system and method for automating processes for monitoring compliance associated with employment programs, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of leveraging well-known automation programming to improve the speed, effectiveness, and ease with which managers and employers can be made aware of compliance infractions and take appropriate corrective actions to reduce costs and improve safety across an organization (Suryanarayana et al.; paragraph [0004]).
Regarding the combination that further includes Ekins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the role-based open data access to data objects/resources associated with compliance monitoring of contractual programs of Creditor by further utilizing additional well-known database structures and functionality to control access to data in a role-based system including locking and unlocking or resources as taught by Ekins. The instant invention is directed to a system and method for automating processes for role-based data access in association with monitoring compliance associated with employment programs. As Creditor discloses the use of role-based data access in association with monitoring compliance associated with employment programs and Ekins discloses the utility of well-known data/resource access including a database schema and dataset locking and unlocking mechanisms applicable to storage and access of any desired data resources, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of leveraging well-known role-based data access mechanisms and structures to improve the speed, effectiveness, and reliability with which designated actors are able to selectively access and control any user-designated data resource, such as data resources of utility to monitoring educational programs.
With respect to claim 21, Creditor discloses a system wherein the plurality of modules further comprising: a personas module for defining user roles, privileges, and security level clearances to manage, create, and operate features, functions, and tasks offered by the system (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0079] [0088] [0092]-[0096] [0207] Figs. 2 and 11; See at least system maintains user profiles associated with personas. See further personas include defined roles having specific portals including role-based activities/tasks and data access permissions. See identity module); a web interface module serving as a primary portal through which personas may access apprenticeship resources and services facilitated by the system (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0200]-[0205]; See at least apprentice system includes distinct portals for defined personas); an API module for executing one or more requests in the system (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0206] [0207]; See at least function/persona-specific modules, portals, and associated APIs)
With respect to claim 22, Creditor discloses a system wherein the personas module includes at least an Apprentice, a Reviewer, a Validator, a Program Coordinator, a Certifier, and an Analyst (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0136]-[0138] [0206]-[0207]; See at least personas including specific portals and functionality directed to at least Apprentice, Employer, Training Delivery Agent, Ministry, and Sponsor. The designated functions and personas are reasonably forms of Apprentice, Reviewer, Coordinator, Certifier, and Analyst).
With respect to claim 23, Creditor discloses a system wherein the API module includes at least Reviewer API, a User API, a Certification API, a Task API, a Time Entry API, a Step API, an Step Instance API, a Session API, a Session Attendance API, a Task Instance API, a User Profile API, a User Payment API, a User Pay Rate API, a Reporting API, a Contracts API, a Project API, an Automation API, and a Data Analysis API (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0206] [0207]; See at least each persona-specific portal implements functions via an API management subsystem and persona-specific APIs. The functions implemented via the APIs include apprenticeship steps, training sessions, certifications, tasks/activities, profile maintenance, payments, reports, agreements and contracts, automated data synchronizations and notifications, and data analysis).
With respect to claim 24, Creditor discloses a system wherein the ROI indicator is determined in real-time (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0013] [0148] [0205]; See at least data analytics module and apprenticeship progress reporting via real-time data exchanges. Reporting of certifications and skill gained reported to the sponsor and/or employer are reasonably measures of return on investment).
With respect to claim 25, Creditor discloses a system wherein a training program and an employment program is associated with the at least one contract, wherein at least one quantifiable value goal of the contract is predetermined (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0153]-[0156] [0174]-[0175] [0203]-[0205]; See at least training agreement and apprenticeship contracts. See further apprenticeship hours and training requirements and employment conditions, See further monitoring apprentice progress including fulfilling at least hours requirements and certifications, i.e., “compliance” with the agreement/contract. Progress and certifications are reasonably form of quantifiable value goals).
With respect to claim 26, Creditor discloses a system wherein a contract validation indicator is determined based on compliance with the contract (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0148] [0174]-[0175]; See at least sign-offs for completion of work requirements a skills verifications based on the requirements of the apprenticeship agreement/contract).
With respect to claim 27, Creditor discloses a system wherein the software instructions further comprise an algorithm to determine, in real-time: a financial-competency indicator of at least one participant over time for the contract based on at least one quantifiable value goal, at least one certification progress indicator, and a level of performance data of the at least one participant, as well as a contract validation indicator based on compliance with contract standards, and wherein the algorithm prompts a course-correction where the contract validation indicator is not achieved (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0153]-[0156] [0174]-[0175] [0203]-[0205]; See at least training agreement and apprenticeship contracts. See further apprenticeship hours and training requirements and employment conditions, See further monitoring apprentice progress including fulfilling at least hours requirements and certifications, i.e., “compliance” with the agreement/contract. Progress and certifications are reasonably form of quantifiable value goals, i.e., competency).
With respect to (newly added) claim 28, Creditor discloses a system further comprising at least one peripheral or external device connected to the microprocessor via a dedicated input/output bus used exclusively for communication between the microprocessor and device (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0201]-[0206] [0207]; See at least communications between devices and processors via a provided bus).
With respect to (newly added) claim 29, Creditor discloses a system wherein the multiple batch operations comprise multiple contract standard reconciliations (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0153]-[0156] [0174]-[0175] [0203]-[0205]; See at least training agreement and apprenticeship contracts. See further apprenticeship hours and training requirements and employment conditions, See further monitoring apprentice progress including fulfilling at least hours requirements and certifications, i.e., “compliance” with the agreement/contract. The contract compliance assessments are reasonably “contract standard reconciliations”. The process is executed for multiple apprenticeships, i.e., a batch or multiple “operations” absent further clarification).
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[6] Applicant's remarks filed 28 August 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 21-27, now claims 1 and 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered and are convincing in light of the present amendments to the pending claims. In accordance with the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update), published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024, the previous rejection of pending claims 1 and 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has/have been overcome by the amendments to the pending claims and is/are withdrawn.
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 (now claims 1 and 21-29 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered and are moot in light of newly added grounds of rejection responsive to the amendments to the subject claims. See revised rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 presented above.
Conclusion
[7] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Bandel et al., SOFTWARE ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR MIGRATING COMPUTING APPLICATIONS USING MACHINE LEARNING, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0152869, paragraphs [0034]-[0062]: Relevant Teachings: Bandel discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions for role-based data access including a database schema and resource locking and unlocking mechanisms to prevent parallel resource migration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights