DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1 recite(s):
A system comprising:
a digital twin of an educational institution in a jurisdiction comprising a three-dimensional virtual representation of a physical environment;
an encrypted database configured to store the digital twin and user-specific training data along with other digital twins of other educational institutions in the jurisdiction;
an access control module configured to authenticate users based on their organization type and access credentials, and to restrict access to the digital twin database based on role-specific permission for law enformance and fire department personnel;
an artificial intelligence model comprising a machine learning model trained using historical security incident data and reinforcement learning techniques, the model being configured to dynamically generated training scenarios and evaluate user performance metrics;
a training module to configured automatically generated scenario-training simulations in virtual realities and augmented reality wherein the simuations incorporate security threats based on the digital twin and are customized by the artificial intelligence model based on user performance and institution layout;
an assessment module comprising a decision point generator that determines key user actions during simulations and configured to evaluate user’s response by comparing decision timing, accuracy, and outcomes to historical benchmarks and generating a performance scores;
and
a management module configured to retrieve performance statistics from the assessment module and present a dashboard interface for viewing comparative user metrics and trainings effectiveness, wherein access is restricted to supervisory personnel of the law enforcement agency and fire department.
Claim 8 recites:
A method comprising:
encrypting a digital twin of an educational institution, the digital twin comprising a three-dimensional spatial representation of the educational institution’s physical environment and storing it along with other digital twins in a secure database;
authenticating and providing secure access to the digital twin to an authorized individual affiliated with at least one of a law enforcement agency and a fire department operating in the jurisdiction;
training an artificial intelligence model, implemented as a machine learning system, using historical safety and security incident data from educational institution across multiple jurisdictions, wherein the model is refined using reinforcement learning to optimize threat detection accuracy; and
determining by analyzing the digital twin using the trained artificial intelligence model, at least one of a security threat and a safety threat specific to the educational institution.
.
Claim 16 recites:
A system comprising:
an artificial intelligence model implemented as a learning machine system trained on historical safety and security incident data and refined using reinforcement learning, the model configured to identify at least one of a security threat and a safety threat specific to an educational institution;
a training module configured to automatically generate scenario-based training simulations incorporating the identified threat, wherein the training is delivered to an authorized individuals through an interactive digital interface; and
a recommendation module configured to analyze simulation outcomes and generate a set of actionable recommendations for modifying a physical space at the educational institution to improve at least one of a student security and safety, based on spatial data and performance metrics derived from the training simulations.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “encrypted database” [claim 1], “an artificial intelligence model” [claim 1, 8 and 16] , nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a user performing security analysis, creating a recommendation and assessment of the threat faced by an educational institution.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “encrypted database” and “an artificial intelligence module”.
The “computer-implemented,” “encrypted database” and “an artificial intelligence module” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 47-48) or are directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (machine learning environment).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. For example, claims 2, 4-6, 9-15, 17-18 and 20 further expound the abstract idea of the providing recommendation on how to configure a physical space to improve security and safety of a student or scoring the performance of authorized individual; claims 3 and 19 further includes a generic computing element (a headset).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that dependent claims 2-7 includes a limitation directed to technical implements and are directed to a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While claim 2-7 does include limitation directed to an artificial intelligence agents and a headset (for virtual reality training); these limitations are described in a high level of generality and are directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claims 2-7 appears to be directed to the result of the artificial intelligence without describing the specific working of the artificial intelligence itself; hence it is not sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
With respect to applicant’s argument the amendment to claim 8 is directed to an artificial intelligence model that is specifically trained ono school incident data across jurisdiction and as such serves a technical purpose toward enhancing situational awareness and automated threat analysis. As stated in the rejection and the argument above. The limitation of “training an artificial intelligence model implemented as a machine learning system, using historical safety and security incident data from educational institutions across multiple jurisdictions, wherein the model is refined using reinforcement learning to optimize threat detection accuracy” are described in a high level of generality that it amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and fails to add inventive concepts to claims 8 and its dependencies.
Claim 16 contains similar amendment to claim 8 and as such the examiner applies the same rejection rationale and argument to claim 16.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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 J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights