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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to amendment filed 10/17/2025. Claims 1-10 are cancelled. Claims 11-30 are added and currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11, 20, 28 and dependents thereof are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New claim 11-30 provides a number of recitations not found in the originally filed disclosure. For example, claims 11 and 20 each recites “wherein each testing sample of said plurality of testing samples has at least one known property…”, and claim 28 recites “wherein said sample data comprises at least one known property of a testing sample …”. However, the published specification does not disclose such information. The originally filed specification even fails to disclose the word “property” and also fails to disclose the following possible synonyms of the word “property”: attribute, characteristic, feature, trait and quality. Additionally, claims 11, 20 and 28 each recites “wherein said examination is presented in said second user interface in a way such that it does not inform said candidate user as to said sample data of said at least one known property of said testing sample”. However, the originally filed specification does not disclose such information. Applicant is respectfully reminded that “[F]or negative claim limitations . . . there is adequate written description when, for example, ‘the [S]pecification describes a reason to exclude the relevant [element].”’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir 2022) (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “A reason to exclude an element could be found in ‘statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using’ that element” or when “the specification “distinguishes among the element and alternatives to it.” Id. at 1016-17 (quoting Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351; Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). “The common denominator of these examples is disclosure of the element” and “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Id. at 1017 (emphasis added). In view of the foregoing, the claim features noted above are not supported by the specification as originally disclosed.
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 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Independent claims 11, 20 and 28 respectively recite “a system…”, “a method…”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium…”. Independent claims 11, 20 and 28 respectively falls within the “machine”, “process” and “manufacture” categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 11, analyzed as representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below.
A system for remote non-destructive testing (NDT) certification training, comprising:
[L1] a plurality of testing samples, wherein each testing sample of said plurality of testing samples has at least one known property, wherein each said testing sample of said plurality of testing samples is configured to be examined using an NDT technique,
[L2] wherein said at least one known property of each said testing sample of said plurality of testing samples is determined by a candidate user when said NDT technique is applied to each said testing sample of said plurality of testing samples,
[L3] a first computing device having a first user interface configured to allow an administrator user to train said candidate user to carry out said NDT technique,
[L4] wherein said administrator user operates said first user interface in a way that creates an instruction video, wherein said instruction video is configured to train said candidate user in how to carry out said NDT technique,
[L5] wherein said administrator user uses said first user interface to create an examination using said plurality of testing samples, wherein said examination is designed to determine an ability of each said candidate user of a plurality of candidate users using said NDT technique to determine said at least one known property if said plurality of testing samples, wherein said examination is composed of a plurality of sample profiles,
[L6] wherein said at least one known property of said plurality of testing samples is stored in a sample profile as sample data,
[L7] a second computing device having a second user interface configured to provide said candidate user with access to said instruction video and said examination,
a processor operably connected to said first computing device and said second computing device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to said processor, wherein said non-transitory computer-readable medium contains instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by said processor, cause said processor to perform operations comprising:
[L8] receiving sample data from said administrator user,
[L9] creating said sample profile using said sample data of said testing sample of said plurality of testing samples, wherein said sample profile is coupled to said testing sample in a way such that reference to said sample profile in said first user interface informs said administrator user as to which testing sample of said plurality of testing samples is referenced,
[L10] creating said examination using said plurality of sample profiles,
[L11] wherein said examination is presented in said second user interface in a way such that it informs said candidate user as to which said testing sample of said plurality of testing samples is to be examined using said NDT technique,
[L12] wherein said examination is presented in said second user interface in a way such that it does not inform said candidate user as to said sample data of said at least one known property of said testing sample,
[L13] receiving answer input from said candidate user, wherein said answer input pertains to said sample data of said at least one known property of said testing sample that said candidate user was not informed of,
[L14] determining a score for said examination of said candidate user based on said answer input and said plurality of sample profiles.
It is well established that humans have long conducted test preparation and testing using pen and paper. The published Specification discloses “present invention relates to Nondestructive Testing (NDT) practical or “hands-on” training systems and, more particularly, to a remote hands-on training system, process, and platform for deployment” (¶ 1), that “NDT is performed by technicians who are certified to perform specific non-destructive tests. To be certified, the technicians must take a certification examination(s) after receiving formal training and on-the-job/hands-on training” (¶ 3), that “there is a need for remote NDT hands-on applications training & competency testing that provides the flexibility of remote training but still maintains the benefits of a practical hands-on experience provided by in-person training” (¶ 4), and that “[T]he present invention eliminates the inefficiencies of the prior art, better utilizing personnel and integrating remote training options into trainers' and trainees' existing workflows” (¶ 4). It is apparent that other than reciting the “first computing device having a first user interface”, “second computing device having a second user interface”, and “processor”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least the italicized claim limitations may be performed using pen and paper, in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, and judgments and may also be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A: Prong 1. (Step 2A – Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The body of the claim, as noted above, recites the additional limitations of the “first computing device having a first user interface”, “second computing device having a second user interface”, and “processor”. The published Specification provides supporting exemplary descriptions of generic computer components: at least ¶ 5: … at least one server having an internet connection and comprising at least one processor executing a plurality of instructions within a memory …; ¶ 23: The techniques of the present disclosure are illustrated as being implemented in a computing device such as a PC, laptop, tablet, smartphone or other device capable of executing computer-executed instructions stored on a non-transient medium, e.g., memory, such as RAM, ROM, EPROM, flash memory and so on. Thus, the execution of steps in a process flow is by way of computer-execution of such steps, e.g., via a processor configured to retrieve the corresponding instructions from memory and execute them; ¶ 25: … The platform, system, and method of the present invention may include at least one computer with access provided thereto by a user interface. The computer may include at least one processing unit coupled to a form of memory. The computer may include, but is not limited to, a microprocessor, a server, a desktop, laptop, and smart device, such as, a tablet and smart phone. The computer includes a program product including a machine-readable program code for causing, when executed, the computer to perform steps. The program product may include systemic software which may either be loaded onto the computer or accessed by the computer. The loaded systemic software may include an application on a smart device. The systemic software may be accessed by the computer using a web browser. The computer may access the systemic software in part or entirely via the web browser using the internet, extranet, intranet, host server, internet cloud and the like; ¶ 28: … A user, such as a candidate or trainer, may access the at least one server 112 via a local device, such as a smartphone or computer, via a hardwired or wireless internet connection. The local device may use a web browser or downloaded application to establish the internet connection between the local device and the at least one server 112 …; ¶ 35: The live viewer module may utilize a local device's camera, microphone, or both to allow trainers and candidates to view and hear one another through a video displayed via the platform and on a user interface of respective local devices. The live viewer module may also include an augmented reality (AR) function to allow trainers to help candidates better visualize how to apply NDT techniques and principles and conduct NDT testing …; ¶ 37: The computer-based information security prioritization platform, system and method described above is for purposes of example only, and may be implemented in any type of computer system or programming or processing environment, or in a computer program, alone or in conjunction with hardware. The present invention may also be implemented in software stored on a computer-readable medium and executed as a computer program on a general purpose or special purpose computer. For clarity, only those aspects of the system germane to the invention are described, and product details well known in the art are omitted. For the same reason, the computer hardware is not described in further detail. It should thus be understood that the invention is not limited to any specific computer language, program, or computer. It is further contemplated that the present invention may be run on a stand-alone computer system or run from a server computer system that can be accessed by a plurality of client computer systems interconnected over an intranet network, or that is accessible to clients over the Internet. In addition, many embodiments of the present invention have application to a wide range of industries. The lack of details about “first computing device having a first user interface”, “second computing device having a second user interface”, and “processor” indicates that the above-mentioned additional elements are generic computer components, performing generic functions. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.”). The claim does not change the way in which the recited “first computing device having a first user interface”, “second computing device having a second user interface”, and “processor” perform their tasks, it simply uses those components for their ordinary purposes to carry out the abstract idea of non-destructive testing (NDT) certification training. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claimed invention merely implements the abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer components, as shown in bold above, and as supported in the above noted pertinent portions of the Specification. The instant claim merely uses a programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional limitations [L6] (“plurality of testing samples is stored in a sample profile as sample data”, i.e., data gathering), [L8] (“receiving sample data”, i.e., data gathering), [L11] (“wherein said examination is presented”, i.e., data presentation), [L12] (“wherein said examination is presented”, i.e., data presentation), and [L13] (“receiving answer input from said candidate user”, i.e., data gathering), as shown in above, reflect the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see In re Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353 (holding that collecting information is an abstract idea); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (holding that obtaining information is a mental process). The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Hence, as per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), the additional elements in claim 11, namely the “first computing device having a first user interface”, “second computing device having a second user interface”, and “processor” does not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The fact that the Specification does not further describe the “first computing device having a first user interface”, “second computing device having a second user interface”, and “processor” indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Hence, the additional elements are generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional computing elements. The use of the additional elements either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claim is patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent Claim 20:
Independent claim 20 recites a method, for providing non-destructive testing training counterpart to representative claim 11, the method comprising steps substantially similar in scope to those of representative claim 11 and performed using elements substantially similar to those of representative claim 11. As a result, claim 20 is rejected similarly to claim 11.
In regard to independent Claim 28:
Independent claim 28 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium for providing non-destructive testing training counterpart to representative claim 11, comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed on a processor, perform steps substantially similar in scope to those of representative claim 1 and performed using elements substantially similar to those of representative claim 11. As a result, claim 28 is rejected similarly to claim 11.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 12-19, 21-27 and 29-30 include all the limitations of respective independent claims 11, 20 and 28 from which they depend and as such recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for independent claims 11, 20 and 28. None of the additional claim activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Claims 12-19, 21-27 and 29-30 only provide more detailed limitations of the abstract idea, which do not make the abstract idea(s) any less abstract. Any additional claim elements are each recited as a generic component being used according to its conventional purpose in a conventional manner. See Spec., ¶¶ 5, 23, 25, 28, 35, 37. The Examiner fails to see any claim activity used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. An invocation to use known technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and conventional. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 12-19, 21-27 and 29-30 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. While dependent claims 12-19, 21-27 and 29-30 may have a narrower scope than independent claims 12-19, 21-27 and 29-30, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 12-19, 21-27 and 29-30 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U. S. C § 112
The rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U. S. C § 112 no longer apply as these claims have been cancelled.
Rejections Under 35 U. S. C § 101
The rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U. S. C § 101 no longer apply as these claims have been cancelled. Rejections under 35 U. S. C § 101 are applied to new claims 11-30 as shown above and not repeated herein.
Rejections Under 35 U. S. C § 103
The rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U. S. C § 103 no longer apply as these claims have been cancelled. No prior art rejections are currently applied to new claims 11-30.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO
Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715