DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 21-39 are pending with Claim 1 having been withdrawn. Claims 21-39 are considered in this Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 5/2/2025 has been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 1 has been withdrawn by Applicant.
Applicant's election without traverse of the non-elected Claims in the reply filed on 9/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-39 of the current application, hereby known as ‘582, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,423,346 – hereby known as ‘346. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claims 1, 15, 16, and 20, Claims 21, 30, and 39 of ‘582 recite substantially similar steps of '346 Claim 1.
Claims 21, 30, and 39 of ‘582 state the limitations of:
retrieving, by a computing system, data corresponding to a work procedure, wherein the data corresponding the work procedure comprising:
a first set of data corresponding to an author of instructions corresponding to the work procedure, the instructions comprising a sequence of steps for carrying out the work procedure, the first set of data comprising:
a type of instruction corresponding to each step in the sequence of steps; and
a target time for completing each step in the sequence of steps; and
a second set of data corresponding to a plurality of workers performing the instructions for carrying out the work procedure, the second set of data comprising: an order in which the worker performed the sequence of steps; and an actual time for completing each step in the sequence of steps; and
generating, by the computing system, an amount of improvement of time to complete the work procedure by comparing the first data set with the second data set.
Whereas Claim 1 of ‘346 states:
retrieving, by a computing system, data corresponding to a plurality of work procedures, wherein the data corresponding to each work procedure comprising:
a first set of data corresponding to an author of instructions corresponding to the work procedure, the instructions comprising a sequence of steps for carrying out the work procedure, the first set of data comprising:
a type of instruction corresponding to each step in the sequence of steps; and
a target time for completing each step in the sequence of steps;
a second set of data corresponding to a worker performing the instructions for carrying out the work procedure, the second set of data comprising: an order in which the worker performed the sequence of steps; and an actual time for completing each step in the sequence of steps;
generating, by the computing system, a first predictive model for optimizing the work procedure, by:
generating a first training set based on the first set of data; and learning, by a first machine learning model, to generate an authoring metric corresponding to a quality of the instructions for the work procedure based on the first training set;
generating, by the computing system, a second predictive model for quantifying a performance of the worker by: generating a second training set based on the first set of data and the second set of data; and learning, by a second machine learning model, to generate a worker metric quantifying the performance of the worker and learning needs of the worker;
receiving, by the computing system, a request to optimize a current work procedure; accessing, by the computing system, target instructions for carrying out the current work procedure, wherein the target instructions are provided to the worker in a video format;
receiving, by the computing system, activity data of the worker carrying out the current work procedure, wherein the activity data comprises an indication that the worker has stopped a video of the target instructions for carrying out the current work procedure; and optimizing, by the computing system via the first predictive model and the second predictive model, the current work procedure by generating a plurality of actionable insights for improving the work procedure based on the target instructions and the activity data, wherein the plurality of actionable insights comprises an annotation over a portion of the video that the worker has stopped.
These are obvious variants of each other as both recite substantially the same limitations. Further, elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
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.
Alice – Claims 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21, 30, and 39 are directed at limitations for retrieving data corresponding to a work procedure, wherein the data corresponding the work procedure comprising: a first set of data corresponding to an author of instructions corresponding to the work procedure, the instructions comprising a sequence of steps for carrying out the work procedure, the first set of data comprising: a type of instruction corresponding to each step in the sequence of steps; and a target time for completing each step in the sequence of steps; and a second set of data corresponding to a plurality of workers performing the instructions for carrying out the work procedure, the second set of data comprising: an order in which the worker performed the sequence of steps; and an actual time for completing each step in the sequence of steps (Receiving Information, an obsevation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing work procedures; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and generating an amount of improvement of time to complete the work procedure by comparing the first data set with the second data set (Analyzing and Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing work procedures; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of organizing and tracking information for managing work procedures, Managing Human Activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computing system using data, system, processor, memory, and a computer-readable medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing work procedures. For example, generating an amount of improvement of time to complete the work procedure encompasses a person, manager, floor manager, supervisor, etc. who uses a target time, information about workers, etc. to generate this estimation is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Activity/Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The computing system, system, processor, memory, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0076] Computing system 502 may include a processor 504, a memory 506, a storage 508, and a network interface 510. In some embodiments, computing system 502 may be coupled to one or more I/O device(s) 512 (e.g., keyboard, mouse, etc.). [0077] Processor 504 may retrieve and execute program code 520 (i.e., programming instructions) stored in memory 506, as well as stores and retrieves application data. Processor 504 may be included to be representative of a single processor, multiple processors, a single processor having multiple processing cores, and the like. Network interface 510 may be any type of network communications allowing computing system 502 to communicate externally via computing network 505. For example, network interface 510 is configured to enable external communication with computing system 552. ”
Which states that any computer with I/O devices can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, desktop, cell phone, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the computing system, processor, etc., nor the receiving steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 22-29 and 31-38 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capps (U.S. Publication No. 2019/011,4937) in view of Malaviya (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0324939).
Regarding Claims 21, 30, and 39, Capps, a system and method for grouping users by problematic objectives, teaches
retrieving, by a computing system ([0068-70] system to receive the information, data corresponding to a work information, wherein the data corresponding the work information comprising:
a type of instruction corresponding to each step in the sequence of steps ([0040-43] type of instruction can be work assignments, quizzes, tests, assessment activities, etc.); and
a target time for completing each step in the sequence of steps ([0044-45] a target and time to complete the learning tasks); and
a second set of data corresponding to a plurality of workers performing the instructions for carrying out the work procedure, the second set of data comprising: an order in which the worker performed the sequence of steps; and an actual time for completing each step in the sequence of steps ([0040] work assignments and information such as scores and in [0041] a particular course) ; and
generating, by the computing system, an amount of improvement of time to complete the work procedure by comparing the first data set with the second data set ([0156] actionable insights are provided/generated which provide an improvement and an amount of improvement as in [0160] by comparing the information above using models)
Although Capps teaches receiving work information as above, it does not explicitly state this is a work procedure a first set of data corresponding to an author of instructions corresponding to the work procedure, the instructions comprising a sequence of steps for carrying out the work procedure, the first set of data comprising:
Maggiore, a method for controlling dissemination of instructional content to operators performing procedures at equipment with a facility, teaches work procedures with [0022] sequence of steps for carrying out the [0099] work instructions.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the work instruction and learning system of Capps with the work instruction and procedure system of Maggiore as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all provide solutions for improving processes using actionable insights, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase efficiency by reducing frustrations of learners by reducing minimal guidance and instruction as taught in [0015-16] of Maggiore.
Examiner notes Capps teaches a system, processor, memory ([0002] system with processor and memory), and computer-readable medium ([0068-70] system, processor, memory, medium etc.).
Regarding Claims 22 and 31, the combination of Capps and Maggiore teaches a work procedure as in Claim 21 above.
Capps further teaches determining an action related to the work procedure to capture the amount of improvement ([0156] actionable insight for a improvements in both learning and time)
Regarding Claims 23 and 32, the combination of Capps and Maggiore teaches a work procedure as in Claim 21 above.
Capps further teaches comprising calculating an ideal target time for carrying out the work procedure based on the first and second data sets ([0045] target times and desired time are used for carrying out the work).
Regarding Claims 24 and 33, the combination of Capps and Maggiore teaches a work procedure as in Claim 21 above.
Capps further teaches wherein the data corresponding to the work procedure comprises one or more of version information, changes made to the sequence of steps over time, a number of steps in each work procedure, cards corresponding to each step in each work procedure, style of the steps presented to a user in each work procedure, execution data, cycle time of each step, or patterns of up and down times ([0043] drill down time of each learning objective/step).
Regarding Claims 25 and 34, the combination of Capps and Maggiore teaches a work procedure as in Claim 21 above.
Capps further teaches comprising generating a hierarchy of steps with the most capturable productivity gains based on the data corresponding to the work procedure.
Regarding Claims 26 and 35, the combination of Capps and Maggiore teaches a work procedure as in Claim 21 above.
Capps further teaches comprising generating an actionable insight to a worker index that quantifies learning needs and performance index of a worker of the plurality of workers ([0156] an actionable insight is used to improve the performance and credit the work to the learner)
Regarding Claims 27 and 36, the combination of Capps and Maggiore teaches an actionable insight and a work procedure as in Claim 21 above.
Capps teaches use of a learner model as in [0114] as well as training the model as in [0167-168].
Regarding Claims 28 and 37, Capps teaches wherein the generating the improvement includes learning, by a machine learning model (As in Claim 27 above in [0114] and [0167-168]), to generate a worker metric quantifying the performance of the plurality of workers and learning needs of each of the plurality of workers ([0166-167] the machine learning model is used to quantify performance data and assist with learner needs and improvement as in [0159-160])
Regarding Claims 29 and 38, the combination of Capps and Maggiore teaches a work procedure as in Claim 21 above.
Capps does not teach monitoring a work device, but
Maggiore teaches wherein the data is collected from the plurality of workers via monitoring a remote device of a worker executing the work procedure ([0019] monitoring of devices for with a monitoring system as in [0099-100].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the work instruction and learning system of Capps with the remote work instruction and procedure system of Maggiore as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all provide solutions for improving processes using actionable insights, remote work was well-known at the time, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase efficiency by reducing frustrations of learners by reducing minimal guidance and instruction as taught in [0015-16] of Maggiore.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190316912 A1
Maggiore; Frank et al.
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DISSEMINATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT TO OPERATORS PERFORMING PROCEDURES AT EQUIPMENT WITHIN A FACILITY
US 20190114937 A1
Capps; Neena et al.
GROUPING USERS BY PROBLEMATIC OBJECTIVES
US 20240118841 A1
Weaver; Robert V et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRACKING PRODUCTION LINE PRODUCTIVITY WITH AN INDUSTRIAL PRINTER
US 20220391801 A1
Kober; Wolfgang et al.
COMPOSITE WORKER RANKING
US 20210118076 A1
Eidelman; Vladimir et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE IMPACT OF ISSUE OUTCOMES
US 20200211141 A1
Argyle; Daniel et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANALYZING POLICYMAKER INFLUENCE
US 20200051460 A1
Bedor; Samuel et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TEACHING CURRICULUM AS AN EDUCATIONAL GAME
US 20190372863 A1
CAPPS; Neena et al.
SIMULATING A USER SCORE FROM INPUT OBJECTIVES
US 20190332785 A1
AthuluruTlrumala; GiriSrinivasaRao
Real-time tracking and analyzing to improve business, operations, and customer experience
US 20190114346 A1
Capps; Neena et al.
OPTIMIZING USER TIME AND RESOURCES
US 20190102791 A1
Park; Hoyong et al.
TARGET USER ESTIMATION FOR DYNAMIC ASSETS
US 20180293911 A1
Rastegar-Panah; Navid
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRACKING AND EXCHANGING WELLNESS, FITNESS, AND PRODUCTIVITY DATA USING AN ELECTRONIC PLATFORM
US 20180246797 A1
MODI; Ankur et al.
IDENTIFYING AND MONITORING NORMAL USER AND USER GROUP INTERACTIONS
US 20180075139 A1
SADOVSKY; Aleksandr Anatolievich
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GENERATING A SUMMARY OF THE DIGITAL CONTENT
US 20170308986 A1
Simpson; Chris et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAPPING TO MILESTONES IN A POLICYMAKING PROCESS
US 20170076237 A1
Hazy; James K.
System And Method To Simulate The Impact Of Leadership Activity
US 20160196511 A1
Anisingaraju; Vidya Sagar et al.
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTION IN AN ORGANIZATION
US 20150227860 A1
Baldo; Nicholas J. et al.
DEFECT TURNAROUND TIME ANALYTICS ENGINE
US 20150193699 A1
Kil; David et al.
DATA-ADAPTIVE INSIGHT AND ACTION PLATFORM FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
US 20140358828 A1
Phillipps; Kelly D. et al.
MACHINE LEARNING GENERATED ACTION PLAN
US 20090287543 A1
Allderdice; April et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FACILITATING AGGREGATION OF SOCIAL CREDITS
US 20090234720 A1
George; Sam O. et al.
Method and System for Tracking and Coaching Service Professionals
US 20090043621 A1
Kershaw; David
System and Method of Team Performance Management Software
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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 BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 12/8/2025
Prosecution Insights