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 .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 24 February 2026. Claims 2-6 have been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 21-27 are newly added. Claims 1 and 7-27 are pending. Of the pending claims 1-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 21-27 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
[3] Previous interpretation of elements of original claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are withdrawn. The claim is amended the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function). Specifically, the amendments to claim 1 now specify that the system include a microprocessor and the subject modules constitute stored instructions that are executed by the microprocessor. Accordingly, the modules are reasonably understood to constitute stored computer-executable instructions which perform the recited functions when executed by the microprocessor.
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.
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-6 (now claims 1 and 21-27 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 not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on 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). Claim(s) 1 and 21-27 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claim 1 is directed to a system and is reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, claim 1 is determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of managing a contractual training program including monitoring, implementing, and reporting actions and tasks with respect to contact compliance, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity, namely: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., managing agreements in the form of contracts and business relations, e.g., training contract compliance); and managing personal behavior or interactions between people (e.g., assigning roles and tasks to personnel associated with the contract/program).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 1. In particular, claim 1 as amended includes:
“…generating all pre-processed and pre-formatted reports tailored for each persona;…automating tasks…to conduct automated updates, additions, and verification of data…determining at least an ROI indicator…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…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of managing a contractual training program including monitoring, implementing, and reporting actions and tasks with respect to contact compliance, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., managing agreements in the form of contracts and business relations, e.g., training contract compliance); and managing personal behavior or interactions between people (e.g., assigning roles and tasks to personnel associated with the contract/program) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The technical elements identified in claim 1 are limited to:
[i] “…a personas module…” is identified as being used to define user roles, privileges, and security level clearances to perform functions.
[ii] “…a web interface module…” is identified portal providing access to resources and services facilitated by the system.
[iii] “…an API module…” is identified as executing requests in the system.
[a] Claim 8 further lists general APIs associated with the API module including 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. The claimed functions of the listed APIs do not extend beyond naming the general function of the listed APIs.
[iv] “…a reporting module…” is identified as being used to generate formatted reports.
[v] “…an automation module…” is identified as being used to execute data updates, additions, and verifications using general commands.
[vi] “…a data analysis module…” is identified as being used to for determining an ROI.
[vii] “…a cloud stored-mobile module…” is identified as being used to for general data storage operations including file synchronization, additions, and updates.
[viii] “…a contract compliance module…” is identified as being used to for managing contract performance and compliance.
In accordance with MPEP 2181 II. B., as the above noted limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the recited modules are construed to include the disclosed hardware elements programmed to perform the recited functions utilizing executable instructions, e.g., “software-based applications” or “software components” (see interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above. These technical elements and the recited functions constitute technical features which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As presented by amendment, additional technical elements of claim s that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “at least one microprocessor”, “software instructions that are stored in a memory unit and are implemented as a plurality of modules”, “at least one peripheral or external device”, “a schema of table resources”. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “microprocessor” and “software instructions that are stored in a memory unit and are implemented as a plurality of modules” are engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions associated with each software module.
(2) The “at least one peripheral or external device” is identified as including a bus and being used for communication between the microprocessor and devices.
(3) The “schema of table resources” is identified as being accessible to the module.
(4) The communications of the “peripheral device” are further specified as “…transmits apprenticeship events via the dedicated input/output bus to the microprocessor, and wherein the events are validated against a defined JSON schema or OpenAPI schema before being converted into data objects accessible exclusively in the schema of table resources to compute contract compliance and return-on-investment…”.
Previous elements of claim 1 are retained in claim 1 and new claim 21 and include:
[i] “…a personas module…” is identified as being used to define user roles, privileges, and security level clearances to perform functions.
[ii] “…a web interface module…” is identified portal providing access to resources and services facilitated by the system.
[iii] “…an API module…” is identified as executing requests in the system.
[a] Claim 23 further lists general APIs associated with the API module including 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. The claimed functions of the listed APIs do not extend beyond naming the general function of the listed APIs.
[iv] “…a reporting module…” is identified as being used to generate formatted reports.
[v] “…an automation module…” is identified as being used to execute data updates, additions, and verifications using general commands.
[vi] “…a data analysis module…” is identified as being used to for determining an ROI.
[vii] “…a cloud stored-mobile module…” is identified as being used to for general data storage operations including file synchronization, additions, and updates.
[viii] “…a contract compliance module…” is identified as being used to for managing contract performance and compliance.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., software modules are executed, roles are defined and stored, data is accessed, requests are transmitted, data is updated, verified and stored, data is provided to monitor contact performance and compliance, data resources are accessed by programs and data objects are stored etc.) as associated with a respective “microprocessor”, “peripheral device”, “modules”, or “schema”. Beyond the general indications that “microprocessor”, “peripheral device”, “modules”, or “schema” facilitate the functions associated with each of the modules in an unspecified manner to perform the recited operations, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “microprocessor”, “peripheral device”, “modules”, or “schema” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a module” or “by a microprocessor executing instructions”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., requests and data via generic programmed commands); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g. data and reports); and (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., generic portal/web-interface); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., determine ROI) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of managing a contractual training program including monitoring, implementing, and reporting actions and tasks with respect to contact compliance using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed managing a contractual training program including monitoring, implementing, and reporting actions and tasks with respect to contact compliance benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0309]-[0317]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “microprocessor” and “software instructions that are stored in a memory unit and are implemented as a plurality of modules” are engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions associated with each software module.
(2) The “at least one peripheral or external device” is identified as including a bus and being used for communication between the microprocessor and devices.
(3) The “schema of table resources” is identified as being accessible to the module.
(4) The communications of the “peripheral device” are further specified as “…transmits apprenticeship events via the dedicated input/output bus to the microprocessor, and wherein the events are validated against a defined JSON schema or OpenAPI schema before being converted into data objects accessible exclusively in the schema of table resources to compute contract compliance and return-on-investment…”.
Previous elements of claim 1 are retained in claim 1 and new claim 21 and include:
[i] “…a personas module…” is identified as being used to define user roles, privileges, and security level clearances to perform functions.
[ii] “…a web interface module…” is identified portal providing access to resources and services facilitated by the system.
[iii] “…an API module…” is identified as executing requests in the system.
[a] Claim 23 further lists general APIs associated with the API module including 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. The claimed functions of the listed APIs do not extend beyond naming the general function of the listed APIs.
[iv] “…a reporting module…” is identified as being used to generate formatted reports.
[v] “…an automation module…” is identified as being used to execute data updates, additions, and verifications using general commands.
[vi] “…a data analysis module…” is identified as being used to for determining an ROI.
[vii] “…a cloud stored-mobile module…” is identified as being used to for general data storage operations including file synchronization, additions, and updates.
[viii] “…a contract compliance module…” is identified as being used to for managing contract performance and compliance.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., requests and data via generic programmed commands); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g. data and reports); and (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., generic portal/web-interface); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., determine ROI).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of managing a contractual training program including monitoring, implementing, and reporting actions and tasks with respect to contact compliance. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., managing a contractual training program including monitoring, implementing, and reporting actions and tasks with respect to contact compliance, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of managing a contractual training program including monitoring, implementing, and reporting actions and tasks with respect to contact compliance benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: 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; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information 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); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
New claim 27 introduces 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…”. This element introduces an additional process that, while generally tied to software instructions, is otherwise performable by human mental processing.
New claims 21-27, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
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 Wagner (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0390154 hereinafter ‘Wagner’).
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]-[0205] [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 system structure to further include “…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…”.
Claim 1 as amended further specifies “…wherein the peripheral device transmits apprenticeship events via the dedicated input/output bus to the microprocessor, and wherein the events are validated against a defined JSON schema or OpenAPI schema before being converted into data objects accessible exclusively in the schema of table resources to compute contract compliance and return-on-investment…”.
With respect to these elements, Creditor discloses evaluations of training and apprentice ship performance that are reasonably forms of return on investment metrics and contract compliance metrics and 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 (Creditor et al.; paragraphs [0110]-[0115] [0180] [0207] [0209]; See at least apprenticeship logging of events. See databases, and open data model).
Creditor fails to specify that the database and common data model utilize a specified relational structure or schema table of resources into which events are converted into data objects.
However, as evidenced by Wagner, it is well-known in the art to implement a training and apprenticeship program using a structural relational database to direct event validation and storage to specified location in the relational structure (Wagner et al.; paragraphs [0008] [0019] [0022]-[0023] [0110]; See at least relational database storing event data using tokens to direct storage of event data generated by modules in the presentation layer using object code to insert specific data into specific database locations and fields. The relational structure, combining event data into storage elements/units is reasonably a form of database schema directing storage of event data objects to location designated by the structure).
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]).
With respect to new 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 new 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 new 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 new 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 new 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 new 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 new 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).
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[6] Applicant's remarks filed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 (now claims 1 and 21-27 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 2 December 2026 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of 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).
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 (now claims 1 and 21-27 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 2 December 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.
Lane, RELATIONAL DATA BASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0354675, paragraphs [0072]-[0074]: Relevant Teachings: Lane discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions utilizing a relational database and directory to store management tracking information including ongoing employee training programs.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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