DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/809,416 filed on 08/20/2024. Claims 1-11 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/809,416 filed 08/20/2024 claims foreign priority to PI2024000716, filed 02/01/2024.
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Malaysia, filed 02/01/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of application PI2024000716, application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed March 31, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1-3, 7, and 10-11, and did not cancel any claims. No new claims were presented for examination.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1-3, 7, and 10-11 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim objections; accordingly, these objections have been removed.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 11 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments to claim 10 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments file March 31, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant submits “the Examiner characterized the pending claims as being directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity." Applicant respectfully disagrees.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 16]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that the claim limitations “providing training, and evaluation therefor, dynamically and automatically selecting and rendering one or more contents representing the training, and evaluation to a trainee, perform real time, event level temporal tracking by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in interactions without reliance on external sensors, and accumulate the sub procedure data into procedure level and chapter level datasets in real time and upload the aggregated datasets, thereby permitting real time data tracking that collects division data including time taken and status of division completion by the trainee with respect to the one or more contents rendered,” when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One, are part of the abstract idea itself, i.e., are steps within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106. For example, the steps for providing training, and evaluation, selecting and rendering one or more contents representing the training, and evaluation to a trainee, perform real time, event level temporal tracking by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in interactions without reliance on external sensors, and accumulate the sub procedure data into procedure level and chapter level datasets in real time and upload the aggregated datasets, thereby permitting real time data tracking that collects division data including time taken and status of division completion by the trainee with respect to the one or more contents rendered cover embodiments for organizing human activity given that the sequence of activities pertaining to evaluating a trainee fall squarely within the realm of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” or “following rules or instructions,” as explained by the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea groping set forth in MPEP 2106.
Next, it is noted that the defined sequence of activities for evaluating a trainee, when read in light of the Specification, is plainly generated for the primary purpose of managing human behavior, i.e., staff, as discussed throughout the Specification (See at least page 1, lines 30-36, e.g., “Employee training is vital as it helps employees learn specific knowledge or skills to acquire new or improve their job duties. An employer must provide employees with the necessary information, instruction, training, and supervision needed to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of employees at work. Adequate training in workplace safety can provide a significant boost to employee morale, spot potential risks in the workplace and eliminate some hazards.”). Therefore, the primary purpose of the claimed invention is unequivocally for employee training.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claims have been shown to recite an abstract idea via limitations falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106 via limitations that set forth steps for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions. The Office maintains that the claims recite to an abstract idea falling under the under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “The amended claims are directed to specific, concrete improvements in computer technology, particularly in the fields of virtual reality (VR) systems, multi-tenant computing, and real-time data processing architectures.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 16]
The Examiner respectfully disagree. In response to Applicant’s argument that “the amended claims are directed to specific, concrete improvements in computer technology, particularly in the fields of virtual reality (VR) systems, multi-tenant computing, and real-time data processing architectures,” it is noted that the claims, as amended, still describes operations at a high level of generality, including VR content selection and rendering, real-time interaction tracking, and hierarchical data aggregation, without reciting a specifical technical mechanism that improves computer or VR system functionality. Simply characterizing the invention as an “improvement in computer technology” is not sufficient where the claim does not clearly set forth how such improvement is achieved through a particular technical solution. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “The claims do not recite an abstract idea, nor do they pre-empt any such idea.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 16]
The Examiner respectfully disagree. In response to Applicant’s argument that “the claims do not recite an abstract idea,” it is noted that as previously explained, the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping because the claim is directed to the organization and management of human activity, specifically employee training and evaluation within a VR environment through collecting, organizing, and analyzing interaction data. Recitation of VR implementation does not remove the claims from this abstract idea grouping, as the underlying steps remain directed to data collection, organization, and assessment of user performance.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the claims do not “pre-empt any such idea,” it si noted that preemption is not the controlling test for eligibility. The Examiner notes that "the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). "Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Id.; see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13 62-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract."). The Examiner emphasized that the fact that the claims may not preempt al applications does not establish eligibility. Accordingly, Applicant’s preemption-based argument is not persuasive.
Applicant submits “that Claims 1 and 11 clearly improve a technology according to the streamlined eligibility analysis.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 18]
The Examiner respectfully disagree. In response to Applicant’s argument that “Claims 1 and 11 clearly improve a technology according to the streamlined eligibility analysis,” it is noted that claims 1 and 11 recite limitations related to selecting and rendering VR content, accumulating sub procedure data into procedure level and chapter level datasets, tracking data in real-time, without identifying a specific technological improvement to VR systems or computer functionality. Accordingly, the claims is not “clearly eligible” and it must be analyzed under the full Alice/Mayo framework. Under this analysis, the claim is directed to abstract data collection and organization in a VR environment, and does not provide an improvement to technology. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “The amended claims recite a specific improvement to computer technology. The amended claims now expressly recite a number of technical components and technical operations that improve the functioning of VR systems and multi-tenant computing platforms. These include: 1. A schema-isolated multi-tenant VR architecture. 2. A mandatory VR plugin operating independently of the VR training module. Applicant submits this is a specific software architecture, not an organizational method.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, pages 19]
The Examiner respectfully disagree. In response to Applicant’s argument that “the amended claims recite a specific improvement to computer technology. The amended claims now expressly recite a number of technical components and technical operations that improve the functioning of VR systems and multi-tenant computing platforms. These include: 1. A schema-isolated multi-tenant VR architecture. 2. A mandatory VR plugin operating independently of the VR training module,” it is noted that reciting “a schema-isolated multi-tenant VR architecture” and “a VR plugin operating independently of the VR training module” does not, by itself, establish aa specific improvement to computer functionality. These limitations are described at a high level and do not define a particular technical mechanism for how schema isolation is achieved or how the claimed independence improves system operation.
The claim does not recite a specific database architecture implementation, memory management technique, or other defined technical solution that improves the performance of the computing or VR system. Instead the limitations describe system organization and software components in functional terms. Therefore, the claim remains directed to organizing and processing data within a VR training environment, and does not provide a technical improvement to computer functionality. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits with respect to the 3. Hierarchical division-tracking code embedded within the plugin that “This is analogous to the rule-based automation found eligible in McRO.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 20]
With respect to Applicant's comparison to McRO, Examiner points out that the claims in McRO involved a method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of three-dimensional characters comprising: obtaining a first set of rules that defines a morph weight set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and times associated with said phoneme sequence; obtaining a plurality of sub-sequences of timed phonemes corresponding to a desired audio sequence for said three-dimensional characters; generating an output morph weight set stream by applying said first set of rules to each sub-sequence of said plurality of sub-sequences of timed phonemes. The claims at issue are far different from the claims in McRO. The claims of the present case involve a system for employee training and evaluation. The claims of the instant application do not recite techniques for automatically generating three-dimensional facial expressions matching a prerecorded track of speech. Second, it is noted that the claims in McRO recited a specific asserted improvement in computer animation. In contrast, the claim here is not directed to any improvement in computer functionalities/capabilities. The focus of the invention is on the algorithms that have been identified as abstract ideas (as opposed to an improvement to operations of the additional elements, improvement to another technology or technical field). The claims of the instant application thus cannot be characterized as an improvement in computer technology.
Further, contrary to the claims in the McRO decision, the additional elements of the instant application are not reliant on the programmed rules to improve intrinsic operations of the additional elements themselves. In McRO, the rules were deemed to allow the additional elements to accomplish a technical feature presumably not accomplished before. The Examiner points out that the claims in McRO did not simply provide a particular solution to a problem, but the claimed invention in McRO was deemed to provide an improvement in the technology. Again, Applicant’s claimed invention does not provide an improvement in the technology. Further, in McRO the courts did not find an Abstract idea in the claims. As the instant claims do contain an abstract idea, they are not similar to the claims in McRO.
It is further noted that the Court in McRO said an improvement in computer-related technology is not limited in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed as a set of “rules” basically mathematical relationships that improve computer-related technology by allowing the computer performance of a function not previously performed by a computer. The instant Specification and claims are devoid of any indication that the claimed invention is to a “set of rules that improve computer-related technology". Therefore, the Office finds that the concept present in the McRO is not analogous to the instant claimed invention. Based on the foregoing explanation the Examiner finds that the claims are not like those of McRO. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits with respect to the 4. Real-time event-level temporal tracking generated inside VR without external sensors “This is a technical advancement over prior VR systems, which typically rely on external sensors or hardware.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 20]
The Examiner respectfully disagree. In response to Applicant’s argument that “real-time event-level temporal tracking generated inside VR without external sensors” is “a technical advancement over prior VR systems,” it is noted that the claim recites real-time tracking of user interactions within a VR environment and the generation of timestamped data. However, the claim does not recite a specific technical mechanism by which this tracking is achieved in a manner that improves the functioning of the VR system itself. Applicant’s statement that the prior systems use external sensors is not sufficient to establish a technological improvement, as the claim does not define how sensor independence is achieved through a particular internal processing architecture or VR engine modification. Instead, the limitation describes the result of collecting interaction data within the VR environment. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits with respect to the 5. Tenant-specific module code and pairing code enabling secure multi-tenant operation “This is a security and data-integrity improvement, not an abstract concept.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 20]
The Examiner respectfully disagree. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that while the claim recites “tenant specific module code” and “tenant specific pairing code,” the claims does not define a particular security mechanism, authentication protocol, encryption technique, or other technical process that improves system security or data integrity. Merely labeling identifiers as “tenant specific” or “pairing code” does not establish a technical improvement. The claim, as amended, describes data partitioning and coordination across tenant using generic identifiers within a multi-tenant system without a specific asserted improvement to computer security, data integrity, or system operation. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “The claims are analogous to the eligible claims in Enfish, McRO, DDR Holdings, and Ancora.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 20]
With respect to Enfish, Applicant submits “Claims directed to a specific data structure were eligible because they improved computer functionality. Here, the schema-isolated multi-tenant architecture and hierarchical tracking code likewise improve system performance and data integrity.” Applicant argues against the §101 rejection by seeking to analogize to Enfish. Here, unlike Enfish, the claims do not provide any device with an improvement in technology or the functioning of the computer, but rather amount to an application of the abstract idea using the ordinary functions of the computer. The claim limitations are broad, directed to implementation, and not technologically specific, so as indicated in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2014‐1194, F.3d (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015), “even if the invention required the use of a computer, the claim did not constitute a technological invention. As we are now instructed, the presence of a general purpose computer to facilitate operations through uninventive steps does not change the fundamental character of an invention. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).” Furthermore, the courts have said the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Moreover, the Examiner points out that the focus of the claimed invention is on the details of the abstract ideas and not on the details of a database construct, much less how a database construct interacts with the processor to actively improve operations of the processor. The focus of the invention is on the algorithms that have been identified as abstract ideas (as opposed to an improvement to operations of the additional elements, improvement to another technology or technical field). Furthermore, as recited, the claim limitations do not rise to the level of the self-referential table in Enfish. Also, in the Enfish decision, the court found that there was no abstract idea in the Enfish claims, which is not the case in the instant application.
With respect to McRO, Applicant submits “McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Rule-based automation improving computer animation was eligible. Here, the hierarchical division-tracking code is a rule-based automation system for VR event tracking.” In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “hierarchical division tracking code” is recited at a high level and functions as a labeling scheme for tracking and aggregating VR interaction data. The claim does not recite a specific technical mechanism for how this code improves VR system operation. Please refer to the previous response addressing a similar argument regarding analogy to McRO.
With respect to DDR, Applicant submits “DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 113 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Claims solving a technical problem in computer networks were eligible. Here, the invention solves a technical problem in multi-tenant VR content delivery and real-time tracking.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner emphasizes that, while the claims in DDR were directed toward addressing problems related to retaining Web site visitors from being diverted from a host's Web site to an advertiser's Web site such that the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology, DDR’s claims are distinguishable from Applicant’s claims because the steps leading to collecting division data, as recited in Applicants’ claim 1, are not reasonably understood as providing a solution narrowly rooted in computing technology as in DDR. Furthermore, it bears emphasis that Applicants’ claims are not confined to, nor do the claims purport to, provide an improvement to the generation of a web page or to an Internet-centric problem. Instead, the claims merely employ a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, in contrast to the claims in DDR, there is simply no discernible improvement to any existing technological process, webpage or network, or to a computer itself. Accordingly, Applicants’ suggestion that the claims are eligible for the same reason as set forth in the DDR decision is not persuasive.
With respect to Ancora, Applicant submits “Ancora Tech., Inc. V. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1345-46, 128 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Storing security information in a specific location was eligible. Here, tenant-specific module codes and pairing codes provide a technical security improvement.” In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Ancora, eligibility was supported by a specific, claimed technical improvement (i.e., storing software license verification data in a particular, defined portion of memory used in a non-conventional manner to improve computer security). In contrast, claim 1 does not recite a defined technical mechanism for how “tenant specific module node” or “tenant specific pairing code” are stored, verified, or used to improve system security or operation. The claim instead recites these elements at a general level without identifying a particular implementation or technical change to computer functionality. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “The claims do not pre-empt any abstract idea.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 22]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the claims do not pre-empt any abstract idea,” the Examiner notes that "the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). "Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Id.; see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13 62-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract."). The Examiner emphasized that the fact that the claims may not preempt al applications does not establish eligibility. Accordingly, Applicant’s preemption-based argument is not persuasive.
Applicant submits “that claims 1 and 11 amount to using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment. The amendments clarify: the technical architecture, the technical components, the technical interactions, and the technical improvements.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 22]
The Examiner respectfully disagree. In response to Applicant’s argument that “claims 1 and 11 amount to using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment,” it is noted that the claims, as amended, continue to describe use of generic VR and computing components to collect, organize, and process interaction data within a multi-tenant environment. The argument refers to a “technical architecture,” “technical components,” “the technical interactions,” and “technical improvements,” however, the claim dos not set forth a specific technical architecture or particular implementation that improves VR system or computer functionality. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or apply it in a meaningful way beyond linking it to a technological environment. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “The claims now recite significantly more than any abstract idea. Rather, they are directed to a specific, structured, computer-implemented architecture that improves the functioning of VR systems and multi-tenant computing platforms.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 23]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that the claims “are directed to a specific, structured, computer-implemented architecture that improves the functioning of VR systems and multi-tenant computing platforms.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely produce a result in the form of information relating to division data, which is not an improvement to the schema isolated architecture, VR environment, multi-tenancy VR system, central platform, server, code, or any other system or technology. Furthermore, with respect to exemplary claim 1, none of the steps, individually or in combination, have been shown to yield an improvement to a computer or to any technology. The claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the schema isolated architecture, VR environment, multi-tenancy VR system, central platform, server, code, or any technology in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is no indication that any of the additional elements or the combination of elements amount to an improvement to the computer or to any technology. Their individual and collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, these additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
For the reasons above, in addition to the reasons provided in the updated §101 rejection below, Applicant’s amendment and supporting arguments are not sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
Applicant submits “Here, neither Pandit nor Pike discloses any of the core architectural features recited in the amended claims. The combination of these features is even further removed from the prior art.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 24]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “neither Pandit nor Pike discloses any of the core architectural features recited in the amended claims. The combination of these features is even further removed from the prior art,” it is noted that this argument is a mere allegation of patentability by the Applicant with no supporting rationale or explanation. Merely stating that the claims do not teach a feature does not offer any insight as to why the specific sections of the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fail to disclose the claimed features. The argument does not identify specific claim elements and an explanation of their distinguishing features over the applied prior art. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant submits “Pandit is directed to VR/AR training and workforce management. While Pandit mentions a "centralised platform," it does not disclose or suggest: schema isolation or any multi-tenant database architecture, tenant-specific module codes, tenant-specific pairing codes, hierarchical division-tracking, real-time event-level tracking inside VR, sensor-free tracking, or a mandatory VR plugin enforcing architectural rules.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 24]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Pandit does not disclose or suggest: schema isolation or any multi-tenant database architecture, tenant-specific module codes, tenant-specific pairing codes, hierarchical division-tracking, real-time event-level tracking inside VR, sensor-free tracking, or a mandatory VR plugin enforcing architectural rules,” the Examiner notes the limitations being argued by Applicant (i.e., a multi-tenancy virtual reality (VR) system implemented using a schema isolated architecture for providing hands-on VR environment, training, and evaluation therefor, the multi-tenancy VR system comprising: a central platform comprising a user platform and a back office connected to a server configured to maintain tenant isolated data schemas and to authenticate VR module access tokens; and a VR training module in communication with the central platform comprising a source code module configured for dynamically and automatically selecting and rendering, based on a tenant specific module code, wherein the source code module comprises a VR plugin or component having a hierarchical division tracking code embedded therein, the hierarchical division tracking code comprising a sub procedure code, a procedure code, and a chapter code, the VR plugin being further configured to: (i) perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in VR interactions without reliance on external sensors, and (ii) accumulate the sub procedure data into procedure level and chapter level datasets in real time and upload the aggregated datasets to the back office using a tenant specific pairing code, thereby permitting real time data tracking that collects division data including time taken and status of division completion by the trainee with respect to the one or more VR contents rendered) as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 03/31/2026, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 1 that are believed to be addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitations in claim and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
Applicant submits “Pike's reliance on external sensors is not merely different - it teaches away from the claimed architecture. A person of ordinary skill would not modify Pike to remove its core sensor-based functionality, nor would they replace it with the claimed hierarchical, plugin-based, sensor-free tracking.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 25]
In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the Specification does not support the assertion that Pike “teaches away” from sensor-based tracking. Rather, the Specification expressly discloses that VR devices may include multiple type of sensors, including optical sensors, motion sensors, controller, and biometric sensors for detecting user interaction and movement (see paragraphs 0043, 0075). The Specification indicates that sensor-based tracking is a conventional and contemplated aspect of VR systems, not a disfavored or excluded approach. Accordingly, the alleged prior art’s reliance on external or integrated sensors does not teach away from the claimed architecture.
Further, the claim limitation “without reliance on external sensors” is not clearly supported as a distinguishing technical requirement in the Specification. The Specification describes VR devices including various sensors, and does not define a specific architecture or mechanism that eliminates sensor use while still achieving the claimed tracked functionality. Accordingly, the argument has not established that the prior art teaches away for sensor based systems, nor that modifying the prior art to remove external sensor would be contrary to its teachings. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “The cited references are non-analogous art. Under In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011), a reference qualifies as analogous art only if it satisfies one of the following two tests: 1. It is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed; or 2. It is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor was trying to solve. If a reference fails both tests, it is non-analogous art and cannot be used in an obviousness rejection.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 25]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the cited references are non-analogous art,” the Examiner notes that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Pandit is directed towards a method and system for monitoring task performance. Pike is directed towards training ne evaluation system, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that that applying the known techniques of Pike would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Pike to the teachings of Pandit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrate by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such evaluation features into similar systems. Since the functionalities of the elements in the references do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination are predictable. The technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed, and when combined the elements performed the same function as it did separately. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As the claims have been given their "broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification", the Examiner asserts that the scope and contents of the prior art have been determined, thereby satisfying the first factual inquiry set forth by Graham v. John Deere Co. The Examiner applied the teachings of Pike and determined the deficiencies, thereby ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. The Examiner has fulfilled the role of factfinder while resolving the Graham inquiries, as per MPEP 2141, and determined that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art itself, thereby resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. The Examiner asserts that the Graham factual inquiries have been properly resolved, resulting in a proper prima facie case of obviousness. If Applicant disagrees with any factual findings by the Office, an effective traverse of a rejection based wholly or partially on such findings must include a reasoned statement explaining why the applicant believes the Office has erred substantively as to the factual findings. A mere statement or argument that the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness or that the Office's reliance on common knowledge is unsupported by documentary evidence will not be considered substantively adequate to rebut the rejection or an effective traverse of the rejection under 37 CFR 1.111(b).
Applicant submits “Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a person of ordinary skill in the art attempted to combine Pandit and Pike, the resulting system would be inoperable, internally inconsistent, and incapable of performing the functions required by either reference or the claimed invention. This is precisely the type of improper combination rejected in In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959), where the court held that a proposed combination that destroys the operability of the references cannot support an obviousness rejection” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 29]. Applicant also submits “A person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine these systems because doing so destroys their intended functionality.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 33]. Applicant further submits “No motivation to combine (KSR, Graham).” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 33]
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is noted that the Examiner has provided reasoning articulating why it would have been obvious to combine the references as proposed.
The Examiner notes that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. In this case, Pandit is directed towards a method and system for monitoring task performance. Pike is directed towards training ne evaluation system, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that that applying the known techniques of Pike would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Pike to the teachings of Pandit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrate by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such evaluation features into similar systems. Since the functionalities of the elements in the references do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination are predictable. The technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed, and when combined the elements performed the same function as it did separately. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As the claims have been given their "broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification", the Examiner asserts that the scope and contents of the prior art have been determined, thereby satisfying the first factual inquiry set forth by Graham v. John Deere Co. The Examiner applied the teachings of Pike and determined the deficiencies, thereby ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. The Examiner has fulfilled the role of factfinder while resolving the Graham inquiries, as per MPEP 2141, and determined that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art itself, thereby resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. The Examiner asserts that the Graham factual inquiries have been properly resolved, resulting in a proper prima facie case of obviousness. If Applicant disagrees with any factual findings by the Office, an effective traverse of a rejection based wholly or partially on such findings must include a reasoned statement explaining why the applicant believes the Office has erred substantively as to the factual findings. A mere statement or argument that the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness or that the Office's reliance on common knowledge is unsupported by documentary evidence will not be considered substantively adequate to rebut the rejection or an effective traverse of the rejection under 37 CFR 1.111(b).
27. Applicant submits “The proposed combination is a hindsight reconstruction.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 38]
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant submits “H. Synergistic technical effects The claimed architecture does not merely combine known components; rather, it produces synergistic technical effects that arise only when the specific claimed elements are integrated in the particular manner recited in the amended claims. These effects are not predictable from the teachings of Pandit, Pike, or any of the additional references cited by the Examiner… No cited reference - individually or in combination - teaches, suggests, or even hints at this synergy.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, pages 42-44]
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., produces synergistic technical effects) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The assertion of “synergistic technical effects” is conclusory and not supported by specific citation to the claim language or evidence demonstrating an unexpected result arising from the combination of the cited prior art. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “In addition to Pandit and Pike, the Examiner cited several other references relating generally to VR training, cloud computing, authentication, analytics, and multi-tenant SaaS platforms. Applicant respectfully submits that these references are even further removed from the claimed invention and cannot remedy the deficiencies of the primary references.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/31/2026, page 46]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “in addition to Pandit and Pike, the Examiner cited several other references relating generally to VR training, cloud computing, authentication, analytics, and multi-tenant SaaS platforms. Applicant respectfully submits that these references are even further removed from the claimed invention and cannot remedy the deficiencies of the primary references,” it is noted that this argument is a mere allegation of patentability by the Applicant with no supporting rationale or explanation. Merely stating that the claims do not teach a feature does not offer any insight as to why the specific sections of the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fail to disclose the claimed features. The argument does not identify specific claim elements and an explanation of their distinguishing features over the applied prior art. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
31. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
32. Claims 1-10 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 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.
33. Claim 1 was amended to recite “perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in VR interactions without reliance on external sensors.” The Specification does not actually describe “without reliance on external sensors.” The Specification consistently describes VR systems as including various sensor for detecting and tracking user interaction, including optical sensors, motion sensors, and biometric sensors (see paragraphs 0043, 0075). These disclosures indicate that sensor based tracking is a contemplated and an integral aspect of the disclosed VR system. There does not appear to be any written description in the Specification supporting “perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in VR interactions without reliance on external sensors.” The Specification is silent regarding a VR tracking system that preforms interaction tracking without reliance on external sensors. Even if a claim is supported by the Specification, the language of the Specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the case at hand, the Examiner concludes that the Applicants' disclosure fails to sufficiently disclose possession at the time of the invention. Thus, the disclosure in the specification and drawings fails to demonstrate that the applicant was in possession of the invention and/or had reduced the invention to practice and/or the invention was ready for patenting at the time of the filing of the instant application. Because the disclosure of the instant application fails adequately describe the structure and functionality described above, it fails to clearly convey the information that the applicant has invented the subject matter which is claimed. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are rejected under 112(a). Applicant is reminded this is a written description rejection, not an enablement rejection.
All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
34. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
35. Claim 1-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
36. Claim 1 was amended to recite “(i) perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in VR interactions without reliance on external sensors…” First, the phrase “the VR environment” lacks antecedent basis. While claim 1 introduces “hand-on VR environment,” claim 1 does not introduces “a VR environment.” It is unclear if “the VR environment” refers to the previously introduced “hands-on VR environment” or to a different “VR environment,” therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Second, the phrase “by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in VR interactions without reliance on external sensors” renders the scope of the claim unclear because ethe phase “from in VR interactions” is grammatically ambiguous. It is unclear whether the claim intends to recite “from VR interactions,” “from in-VR interactions,” “in VR interactions,” or other meaning, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
37. Claim 3-4 and 8 recite the limitation “the division code.” The phrase “the division code” lacks antecedent basis. While claim 1 introduces “a hierarchical division tracking code,” claim 1 does not introduce “a division code.” It is unclear if “the division code” refers to the previously introduced “hierarchical division tracking code,” or to a different “division code” therefore rendering the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
38. Claim 10 recites “The multi-tenancy VR system according to Claim 1, wherein the server includes a cloud server, an on-premises server, and any combination thereof comprising a database from which the one or more VR contents, online and/or offline, are communicated between the VR training module and the user platform, and from which the token code transmitted from the VR plugin is authenticated.” The claim is indefinite for the following reasons: 1) It is unclear whether each server (cloud, on-premises) individually comprises a database, or whether the combination of servers collectively comprises a single shared database, or whether only some combinations include a database. This renders the scope of the claim uncertain, as it is not clear what structure/arrangements is required to meet this limitation. 2) The phrase “online and/or offline” in the context of the “VR contents” is vague. It is unclear whether the VR contents themselves are stored in both online and offline formats, or whether this refers to the mode of transmission (e.g., streaming vs. local playback), or whether it refers to the availability status of the content (e.g., content cached for offline use). This lacks of clarity makes it difficult to ascertain the limitations of the content delivery system. 3) The overall sentence structure makes it unclear: which part of the systems is responsible for content delivery, and which part handles authentication, whether the database is involved in both functions, or only one, whether the functions are optional or mandatory components of the server. Because of the above ambiguities, claims 10 fails to particularly point out and distinctively claim the subject matter regarded as the invention, and therefore does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C.112(b). Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
39. 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.
40. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
41. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-10) and method (claim 11) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine and process, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-11 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP because the claims recite steps for managing employee training and evaluation, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions). With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: using a schema isolated architecture for providing hands-on VR environment, training, and evaluation therefor, the multi-tenancy VR system comprising: a central platform comprising a user platform and a back office connected to a server configured to maintain tenant isolated data schemas and to authenticate VR module access tokens; and a VR training module in communication with the central platform comprising a source code module configured for dynamically and automatically selecting and rendering, based on a tenant specific module code, one or more VR contents representing the hands-on VR environment, training, and evaluation to a trainee on the user platform via the server, wherein the source code module comprises a VR plugin or component having a hierarchical division tracking code embedded therein, the hierarchical division tracking code comprising a sub procedure code, a procedure code, and a chapter code, the VR plugin being further configured to: (i) perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in VR interactions without reliance on external sensors, and (ii) accumulate the sub procedure data into procedure level and chapter level datasets in real time and upload the aggregated datasets to the back office using a tenant specific pairing code, thereby permitting real time data tracking that collects division data including time taken and status of division completion by the trainee with respect to the one or more VR contents rendered. These steps are organizing human activity by managing interactions between people by following rules, or instructions.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations as those discussed above and is therefore found to recite the same or substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to independent claims 1/11, the additional elements are: a schema isolated architecture, hands-on VR environment, the multi-tenancy VR system, a central platform comprising a user platform and a back office connected to a server, maintain tenant isolated data schemas, authenticate VR module access tokens, a VR training module, a source code module configured for, a tenant specific module code, one or more VR contents, a VR plugin or component having a hierarchical division tracking code embedded therein, a sub procedure code, a procedure code, and a chapter code, and a tenant specific pairing code (claim 1), a hands-on virtual reality, VR, environment, a multi-tenancy VR system, a central platform having a user platform and a back office connected to a server, a VR training module, a source code module, a mandatory VR plugin or component having embedded therein: a tenant code, a module code, and a hierarchical division code comprising a sub-procedure code, a procedure code, and a chapter code, wherein the embedded codes are configured to enable schema-isolated multi-tenancy, access authentication, and real-time data pairing between the VR training module and the back office, one or more VR contents, transmits a token code received from the user platform to the server for access authentication prior to rendering (claim 11). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the step for collecting is not deemed part of the abstract idea, this step is at most directed to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to independent claims 1/11, the additional elements are: a schema isolated architecture, hands-on VR environment, the multi-tenancy VR system, a central platform comprising a user platform and a back office connected to a server, maintain tenant isolated data schemas, authenticate VR module access tokens, a VR training module, a source code module configured for, a tenant specific module code, one or more VR contents, a VR plugin or component having a hierarchical division tracking code embedded therein, a sub procedure code, a procedure code, and a chapter code, and a tenant specific pairing code (claim 1), a hands-on virtual reality, VR, environment, a multi-tenancy VR system, a central platform having a user platform and a back office connected to a server, a VR training module, a source code module, a mandatory VR plugin or component having embedded therein: a tenant code, a module code, and a hierarchical division code comprising a sub-procedure code, a procedure code, and a chapter code, wherein the embedded codes are configured to enable schema-isolated multi-tenancy, access authentication, and real-time data pairing between the VR training module and the back office, one or more VR contents, transmits a token code received from the user platform to the server for access authentication prior to rendering (claim 11). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that virtually any type of computing device under the sun can be used to implement the claimed invention (Specification at paragraph [0076]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.). Next, the steps for collecting and transmitting are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
With respect to reliance on “VR training module” to render one or more VR contents representing the hands-on VR environment, training, and evaluation to a trainee, it is noted that that the claimed use of a VR training module is recited at a high level of generality and these elements amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Horseman et al., US 2017/0162072 A1 (paragraph 0007: “a conventional virtual reality simulation training method may provide a three-dimensional (3D) training environment”).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-10 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2-10 recite “permits access authentication and that communicates a token code,” “permits data upload and pairing,” “wherein the division code is represented by a string of alphanumerical characters,” “wherein the module code is represented by a string of alphanumerical characters,” “wherein the tenant code is represented by a string of alphanumerical characters,” “wherein the source code module comprises a three-dimensional model and coding assets,” “permitting real-time data tracking, collects sub-procedure data including time taken and status of sub-procedure completion by the trainee, procedure data including time taken and status of procedure completion by the trainee, and chapter data including time taken and status of chapter completion by the trainee, respectively,” “accumulates the sub-procedure data collected thereof to produce the procedure data, which, in turn, is accumulated to produce the chapter data which accumulatively becomes module session data,” “the one or more contents are communicated between, the token code transmitted is authenticated”, however these limitations cover organizing human activity since they flow directly from the employee training evaluation involving human interaction, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which is part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping. Dependent claims recite additional elements of: an access authentication component embedded therein (claim 2), a module code and a tenant code embedded therein (claim 3), a sub-procedure code, a procedure code, and a chapter code adapted for (claim 8), wherein the server includes a cloud server, an on-premises server, and any combination thereof comprising a database from which the one or more VR contents, online and/or offline, are communicated between the VR training module and the user platform (claim 10). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
42. 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 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.
43. 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.
44. The factual inquiries 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.
45. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
46. Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandit et al., Pub. No.: US 2024/0064142 A1, [hereinafter Pandit], in view of Pike et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0392728 A1, [hereinafter Pike], in further view of Koblin et al., Pub. No.: US 2022/0395741 A1, [hereinafter Koblin].
As per claim 1, Pandit teaches a multi-tenancy virtual reality (VR) system implemented using a schema isolated architecture for providing hands-on VR environment, training, and evaluation therefor, (paragraph 0005: “a virtual reality (VR) and/or augmented reality (AR) system configured to adopt VR/AR technologies for the purpose of training and facilitating workforce functionality to users for completion of the task”; paragraph 0057: “the provider's computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned…”),
the multi-tenancy VR system comprising: a central platform comprising a user platform and a back office connected to a server configured to maintain tenant isolated data schemas and to authenticate VR module access tokens (paragraph 0024, discussing a centralized platform configured to allow administrators, admin, users, or any other applicable party to view individual related information (e.g. user data, security credentials, skills/qualifications, etc.), task related information, group related information, or any other applicable useful information known to those of ordinary skill in the art. In some embodiments, the centralized platform is a virtual reality (VR) and/or augmented reality (AR) system configured to adopt VR/AR technologies for the purpose of training and facilitating workforce functionality to users for completion of the task. The present disclosure provides dynamic creation of groupings of individuals for workforces to complete tasks in which indicators are allocated to individuals within a virtual environment to designate whether authorization module has authorized a particular individual and/or group for performing a task and/or access to a restricted area or resource associated with the task…The authorization process is based on data collected by server and/or any of the aforementioned modules in which authorization module evaluates the task authentication credentials of an individual…; paragraph 0025, discussing that the term “access” in reference to a task pertains to entry to the designated area, tool, service, etc. associated with the task; paragraph 0026, discussing that data associated with skills, expertise, qualifications, individual characteristics, etc. are provided via user inputs received on the centralized platform. In addition, the centralized platform may allow administrators, admin, etc. to view individual related information, which may be associated with a spreadsheet or other applicable visual depiction included within a dedicated software application with a graphical user interface. In some embodiments, an interactive spreadsheet is provided to users within the virtual reality environment hosted on the centralized platform; paragraph 0020, discussing that a system may be a single device or a collection of distributed devices that are adapted to execute one or more embodiments of the methods of the invention. For instance, a system may be a server or a collection of PCs and/or servers connected via a network such as a local area network, the Internet and so on to cooperatively execute at least one embodiment of the methods of the invention; paragraph 0022, discussing that the environment includes a server communicatively coupled to a database, an authorization module communicatively coupled to an authorization database, an activity-based grouping module, and a security access module communicatively coupled to a security access database, each of which are communicatively coupled over a network; paragraph 0030, discussing an input component that receives data derived from one or more of server and inputs associated with users (e.g. wearable devices,…, etc.). Input component is further designed to detect or poll available input devices connected to, in communication with, or accessible by authorization module; paragraph 0053, discussing that cloud computing is a model of service delivery for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g. networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction with a provider of the service; together by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability; paragraph 0057, discussing that the provider's computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to demand; paragraph 0082, discussing that the computer readable program instructions may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server; paragraphs 0028, 0032, 0034, 0036, 0041, 0048, 0086); and
a VR training module in communication with the central platform comprising a source code module configured for dynamically and automatically selecting and rendering, based on a tenant specific module code, one or more VR contents representing the hands-on VR environment, training, and evaluation to a trainee on the user platform via the server (paragraph 0005, discussing a virtual reality (VR) and/or augmented reality (AR) system configured to adopt VR/AR technologies for the purpose of training and facilitating workforce functionality to users for completion of the task; paragraph 0024, discussing a virtual reality (VR) and/or augmented reality (AR) system configured to adopt VR/AR technologies for the purpose of training and facilitating workforce functionality to users for completion of the task. The disclosure provides dynamic creation of groupings of individuals for workforces to complete tasks in which indicators are allocated to individuals within a virtual environment to designate whether the authorization module has authorized a particular individual and/or group for performing a task and/or access to a restricted area or resource associated with the task. The indicators may include an assigned color, marking, or any other applicable visual cue to an avatar representative of the individual within the virtual environment; paragraph 0030, discussing that a virtualization component is utilized to dynamically generate a framework within the virtual reality/augmented reality/mixed reality environment based on user preferences along with present user interactions and indicators associated with the task within the virtual environment; paragraph 0021, discussing that the embodiments have the capacity to evaluate skillsets of individuals for a particular task…Furthermore, virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality environments are provide to facilitate the functioning of the embodiments; paragraph 0034, discussing that subsets of applicable data acquired by server along with the plurality of activity characteristics/properties are transmitted to the security access module, allowing the security access module to utilize a policy server to establish security access control lists for the particular task, and manage the access group policies within a policy database. The policies may be based on the security configurations associated with the venues of the particular task…Access mapping database may be a collection of databases that include lists of resources associated with tasks within environment and the access group policies assigned to each task. In some embodiments, each mapping includes a unique identifier which is utilized by security access module to monitor assignment of a plurality of security credentials issued to each individual of the group formulated by activity-based grouping module),
wherein the source code module comprises a VR plugin or component having a hierarchical division tracking code embedded therein (paragraph 0027, discussing activity-based grouping module insights relating to formulating groups for a task such as but not limited to probability of collaboration among individuals, ascertaining skill gaps for a task, generating individual-specific analytics based on real-time monitoring (e.g., IOT sensors, etc.) of the individual during performance of one or more of the plurality of activities associated with the task. The activity-based grouping module is further configured to calculate the aggregate skill score which may be based on individual workforce scores calculated for each individual; paragraph 0033, discussing real-time analysis of performance of said activities at both an individual level and a group level; paragraph 0046, discussing that once access credentials have been granted by the security access module, the activity-based grouping module may continue to utilize data derived from IOT sensors in order to ascertain analytics associated with the performance and completion of the task at an individual and group level. The IOT sensor-derived data may be utilized as a source of training data by a machine learning module in order to generate predictions relating to required skillsets and group task authentication threshold for particular tasks),
the hierarchical division tracking code comprising a procedure code (paragraph 0027, discussing activity-based grouping module insights relating to formulating groups for a task such as but not limited to probability of collaboration among individuals, ascertaining skill gaps for a task, generating individual-specific analytics based on real-time monitoring of the individual during performance of one or more of the plurality of activities associated with the task. The activity-based grouping module is further configured to calculate the aggregate skill score which may be based on individual workforce scores calculated for each individual; paragraph 0033, discussing real-time analysis of performance of said activities at both an individual level and a group level; paragraph 0046, discussing that once access credentials have been granted by the security access module, the activity-based grouping module may continue to utilize data derived from IOT sensors in order to ascertain analytics associated with the performance and completion of the task at an individual and group level. The IOT sensor-derived data may be utilized as a source of training data by a machine learning module in order to generate predictions relating to required skillsets and group task authentication threshold for particular tasks),
the VR plugin being further configured to: (i) perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment (paragraph 0027, discussing activity-based grouping module insights relating to formulating groups for a task such as but not limited to probability of collaboration among individuals, ascertaining skill gaps for a task, generating individual-specific analytics based on real-time monitoring (e.g., IOT sensors, etc.) of the individual during performance of one or more of the plurality of activities associated with the task. The activity-based grouping module is further configured to calculate the aggregate skill score which may be based on individual workforce scores calculated for each individual; paragraph 0033, discussing real-time analysis of performance of said activities at both an individual level and a group level; paragraph 0046, discussing that once access credentials have been granted by the security access module, the activity-based grouping module may continue to utilize data derived from IOT sensors in order to ascertain analytics associated with the performance and completion of the task at an individual and group level. The IOT sensor-derived data may be utilized as a source of training data by a machine learning module in order to generate predictions relating to required skillsets and group task authentication threshold for particular tasks),
thereby permitting real-time data tracking that collects division data (paragraph 0027, discussing activity-based grouping module insights relating to formulating groups for a task such as but not limited to probability of collaboration among individuals, ascertaining skill gaps for a task, generating individual-specific analytics based on real-time monitoring (e.g., IOT sensors, etc.) of the individual during performance of one or more of the plurality of activities associated with the task. The activity-based grouping module is further configured to calculate the aggregate skill score which may be based on individual workforce scores calculated for each individual; paragraph 0033, discussing real-time analysis of performance of said activities at both an individual level and a group level; paragraph 0046, discussing that once access credentials have been granted by the security access module, the activity-based grouping module may continue to utilize data derived from IOT sensors in order to ascertain analytics associated with the performance and completion of the task at an individual and group level. The IOT sensor-derived data may be utilized as a source of training data by a machine learning module in order to generate predictions relating to required skillsets and group task authentication threshold for particular tasks).
Pandit does not explicitly teach the hierarchical division tracking code comprising a sub procedure code and a chapter code, (i) perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in VR interactions without reliance on external sensors, and (ii) accumulate the sub procedure data into procedure level and chapter level datasets in real time and upload the aggregated datasets to the back office using a tenant specific pairing code. Pike in the analogous art of virtual reality training and evaluation systems teaches:
the hierarchical division tracking code comprising a sub procedure code and a chapter code (paragraph 0004, discussing a virtual reality training and evaluation system; paragraph 0031, discussing that the system typically monitors the user's actions in real-time within the virtual environment while the user is completing the assigned task and related subtasks. An evaluation system compares the user's actions to defined criteria to quantify and evaluate the safety, step-process accuracy, and efficiency of the completed tasks by the user. Monitoring the user's interactions within the virtual environment allows for in-depth scoring and analysis to provide a comprehensive view of a user's performance that can be used to identify specific skills or gaps in knowledge that may require improvement or additional training. For example, a user's overall evaluation score may be broken down into individual steps or time intervals that may be individually assessed…Scores may be generated in real-time during a training simulation and provided to a user upon completion based on the user's actions. In some embodiments, user evaluation information is collected and stored in a database which generates an aggregated view of a user base and further provides a tool for searching and comparing the user information. In one embodiment, user scores may be compared to one another based on, for example, a type of work performed, geographic locations of the users, accreditation level of the users, and the like; paragraph 0038, disusing that one or more applications (e.g., VR simulation application), are loaded into the temporary memory during use…memory may include any computer readable medium configured to store data, code, or other information; paragraph 0275, discussing that all user interactions are monitored in real-time by the VR (virtual reality) simulation system and/or evaluation system and logged within a database. In one embodiment, the VR training and evaluation system is automated; paragraph 0284, discussing that the step-process evaluation may further evaluate a user based on an amount of time required to complete individual tasks and/or subtasks by comparing an individual task and/or subtask completion time to a preferred completion time….The evaluation system may further notify the user if any subtasks took too long to complete (e.g., as compared to a defined amount of time specified in the step-process criteria; paragraph 0285, discussing that the user interactions may also be compared to the efficiency criteria to determine an efficiency evaluation for the user's completion of a task or subtask. In one embodiment, the efficiency criteria may include a preferred completion time of one or more of the tasks or subtasks. The user's progress within a task may be timed, wherein the completion of the task or subtasks by the user may be time stamped and compared to the preferred time stamp completion times stored in the efficiency criteria…; paragraph 0287, discussing that the duration of time required to complete a task (i.e., the virtual training program) and/or subtask by the user may be tracked from start to finish by the evaluation system; paragraph 0292, discussing that the VR simulation system may be configured to evaluate multiple users using multiple VR devices at the same time. The multiple users may be simultaneously trained through interaction with a virtual environment in real time; paragraph 0298, discussing that each block included in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks included in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, may be implemented by one or more computer-executable program code portions. These one or more computer-executable program code portions may be provided to a processor of a special purpose computer in order to produce a particular machine, such that the one or more computer-executable program code portions, which execute via the processor of the computer and/or other programmable data processing apparatus, create mechanisms for implementing the steps and/or functions represented by the flowchart(s) and/or block diagram block),
(i) perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in VR interactions (paragraph 0011, discussing that the efficiency evaluation is further based on an order and timing of the user interaction events; paragraph 0029, discussing that to “monitor” is to watch, observe, or check something for a special purpose over a period of time. The “monitoring” may occur continuously over the period of time; paragraph 0031, discussing that the system typically monitors the user's actions in real-time within the virtual environment while the user is completing the assigned task and related subtasks…For example, a user's overall evaluation score may be broken down into individual steps or time intervals that may be individually assessed. Furthermore, more-important subtasks or actions may be given higher score weighting than less-important subtasks in order to emphasize the importance or the potentially hazardous nature of certain subtasks. Scores may be generated in real-time during a training simulation and provided to a user upon completion based on the user's actions; paragraph 0032, discussing that a total time taken by the user to complete the task as well as times required by the user to complete individual subtasks during the training simulation may be compared to predefined time limits and/or the times of other users to further evaluate and score the user; paragraph 0285, discussing that the user's progress within a task may be timed, wherein the completion of the task or subtasks by the user may be time stamped and compared to the preferred time stamp completion times stored in the efficiency criteria…; paragraphs 0036, 0154-0163),
(ii) accumulate the sub procedure data into procedure level and chapter level datasets in real time and upload the aggregated datasets to the back office using a tenant specific pairing code (paragraph 0031, discussing that the system typically monitors the user's actions in real-time within the virtual environment while the user is completing the assigned task and related subtasks. An evaluation system compares the user's actions to defined criteria to quantify and evaluate the safety, step-process accuracy, and efficiency of the completed tasks by the user. Monitoring the user's interactions within the virtual environment allows for in-depth scoring and analysis to provide a comprehensive view of a user's performance that can be used to identify specific skills or gaps in knowledge that may require improvement or additional training. For example, a user's overall evaluation score may be broken down into individual steps or time intervals that may be individually assessed…Scores may be generated in real-time during a training simulation and provided to a user upon completion based on the user's actions. In some embodiments, user evaluation information is collected and stored in a database which generates an aggregated view of a user base and further provides a tool for searching and comparing the user information. In one embodiment, user scores may be compared to one another based on, for example, a type of work performed, geographic locations of the users, accreditation level of the users, and the like; paragraph 0032, discussing that the user may select the transformer bank replacement training experience within the virtual environment and then perform a series of subtasks (e.g., actions) that relate to complete of this task. The user's interactions with the virtual environment are received via user input devices and progress is monitored recorded by the evaluation system and compared to scoring criteria related to proper execution of the task and subtasks. The user completes the experience by either completing the task associated with the experience or executing a critical error that triggers failure. Upon completion of the experience, the system may immediately present the user with a safety score based on the extent of the user's execution of the task and subtasks complied with defined safety criteria. Further, a total time taken by the user to complete the task as well as times required by the user to complete individual subtasks during the training simulation may be compared to predefined time limits and/or the times of other users to further evaluate and score the user; paragraph 0034, discussing that the VR simulation system can send information to and receive information from the evaluation system and the enterprise system; paragraph 0038, disusing that one or more applications (e.g., VR simulation application), are loaded into the temporary memory during use…memory may include any computer readable medium configured to store data, code, or other information; paragraph 0275, discussing that all user interactions are monitored in real-time by the VR (virtual reality) simulation system and/or evaluation system and logged within a database. In one embodiment, the VR training and evaluation system is automated; paragraph 0284, discussing that the step-process evaluation may further evaluate a user based on an amount of time required to complete individual tasks and/or subtasks by comparing an individual task and/or subtask completion time to a preferred completion time….The evaluation system may further notify the user if any subtasks took too long to complete (e.g., as compared to a defined amount of time specified in the step-process criteria; paragraph 0285, discussing that the user interactions may also be compared to the efficiency criteria to determine an efficiency evaluation for the user's completion of a task or subtask. In one embodiment, the efficiency criteria may include a preferred completion time of one or more of the tasks or subtasks. The user's progress within a task may be timed, wherein the completion of the task or subtasks by the user may be time stamped and compared to the preferred time stamp completion times stored in the efficiency criteria…; paragraph 0287, discussing that the duration of time required to complete a task (i.e., the virtual training program) and/or subtask by the user may be tracked from start to finish by the evaluation system; paragraphs 0290, 0298),
thereby permitting real time data tracking that collects division data including time taken and status of division completion by the trainee with respect to the one or more VR contents rendered (paragraph 0004, discussing a virtual reality training and evaluation system; paragraph 0275, discussing that all user interactions are monitored in real-time by the VR (virtual reality) simulation system and/or evaluation system and logged within a database. In one embodiment, the VR training and evaluation system is automated; paragraph 0284, discussing that the step-process evaluation may further evaluate a user based on an amount of time required to complete individual tasks and/or subtasks by comparing an individual task and/or subtask completion time to a preferred completion time….The evaluation system may further notify the user if any subtasks took too long to complete (e.g., as compared to a defined amount of time specified in the step-process criteria; paragraph 0285, discussing that the user interactions may also be compared to the efficiency criteria to determine an efficiency evaluation for the user's completion of a task or subtask. In one embodiment, the efficiency criteria may include a preferred completion time of one or more of the tasks or subtasks. The user's progress within a task may be timed, wherein the completion of the task or subtasks by the user may be time stamped and compared to the preferred time stamp completion times stored in the efficiency criteria…; paragraph 0287, discussing that the duration of time required to complete a task (i.e., the virtual training program) and/or subtask by the user may be tracked from start to finish by the evaluation system; paragraph 0292, discussing that the VR simulation system may be configured to evaluate multiple users using multiple VR devices at the same time. The multiple users may be simultaneously trained through interaction with a virtual environment in real time)
Pandit is directed towards a virtual reality (VR) system configured to adopt VR technologies for the purpose of training and facilitating workforce functionality to users for completion of the task. Pike is directed towards a virtual reality training and evaluation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for performance evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pandit with Pike because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for performance evaluation, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems and method for training performance evaluation), and because modifying Pandit to include Pike’s features for including the hierarchical division tracking code comprising a sub procedure code and a chapter code, perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment by generating time stamped sub procedure data directly from in VR interactions, accumulate the sub procedure data into procedure level and chapter level datasets in real time and upload the aggregated datasets to the back office, thereby permitting real time data tracking that collects division data including time taken and status of division completion by the trainee with respect to the one or more VR contents rendered, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of improving the training and evaluation process (Pike at paragraph 0002); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Pandit-Pike combination does not explicitly teach (i) perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment without reliance on external sensors. However, Koblin in the analogous art of activity tracking systems teaches these concepts. Koblin teaches:
(i) perform real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment without reliance on external sensors (paragraph 0003: “This invention relates generally to virtual reality (VR), and, more particularly, to methods, systems and devices supporting activity tracking and feedback in a real-time shared VR environments.”; paragraph 0156, discussing that sensors in the VR headset and/or other sensors in the user's environment may track the VR user's actual movements. The VR headset preferably provides user tracking without external sensors); and
Examiner notes that Koblin, in addition to Pike as cite above, also teaches upload the aggregated datasets to the back office using a tenant specific pairing code (paragraph 0236, discussing that while the user is performing their activities, their headset sends information about their movement to a system that compares the user's movements to those expected/desired for that activity or workout. The system may then adjust the difficulty level based on real-time user performance during a workout; paragraph 0183, discussing that it may be acceptable to have the feedback determined and provided by the fitness/training system. For example, a user's overall progress in a series of activities may suitably be evaluated by the fitness/training system, which may then provide modification of the user's activities; paragraph 0186, discussing that it should be appreciated that the fitness/training system may interact with multiple users at the same time. It should also be appreciated that the following description of the operation of the fitness/training system with one user extends to multiple users; paragraph 0187, discussing that the fitness/training programs may include movement/tracking mechanism(s), training mechanism(s), and communication mechanism(s); paragraph 0191, discussing that the training mechanism(s) may evaluate the user's movements (as determined by the movement/tracking mechanism(s)), and, may compare the user's movements to expected and/or desired movements for the activity that the user is supposed to be performing. That is, having determined what the user is doing (e.g., how the user is moving) from the data provided by the user's headset, the training mechanism(s) may determine how much the user's movements differ or deviate from expected or desired movements; paragraphs 0164, 0194, 0216).
The Pandit-Pike combination describes features related to facilitating training and employee evaluation. Koblin is directed towards systems and devices supporting activity tracking and feedback in a real-time shared VR environment. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for activity tracking and user evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Pandit-Pike combination with Koblin because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for training and employee evaluation, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems and method for training performance evaluation), and because modifying Pandit-Pike combination to include Koblin’s feature for including performing real time, event level temporal tracking within the VR environment without reliance on external sensors, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of helping a user improve for a particular activity (Koblin at paragraph 0008); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination teaches the multi-tenancy VR system according to Claim 1. Pandit further teaches wherein the VR plugin or component comprises an access authentication component embedded therein, which permits access authentication by the VR plugin or component that communicates a token code received from the user platform with the server (paragraph 0024, discussing that the authorization process is based on data collected by server and/or any of the aforementioned modules in which the authorization module evaluates the task authentication credentials of an individual…; paragraph 0025, discussing that the authorization module is designed to utilize one or more authentication processes to analyze identifying credentials in order to verify an individual's identity, credentials, skills/qualifications, etc. for the purpose of authorizing access to one or more of a restricted area/space, computing system, network, resource, and/or device associated with a particular task. In some embodiments, the authorization module is configured to assign access credentials to an individual based on the analysis of the identifying credentials, in which access credentials may include a two-dimensional access mechanism, alpha-numerical code, or any other applicable form of granting access known to those of ordinary skill in the art; paragraph 0030, discussing that upon the authorization module authenticating an individual or group, the virtualization component assigns the applicable visual indicator to the applicable individual or group allowing other individuals to ascertain whether or not the individual or group is authorized for the task within the virtual environment based on the aggregate skill score exceeding a group task authentication threshold; paragraph 0037).
As per claim 3, the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination teaches the multi-tenancy VR system according to Claim 1. Pandit further teaches wherein the VR plugin or component comprises a module code and a tenant code embedded therein, which, together with the division code, permits data upload and pairing between the VR training module and the back office thereof (paragraph 0026, discussing that the activity-based grouping module is communicatively coupled to one or more sensors associated with an individual configured to acquire biological information, movement data, location data, etc. and transmit said data to the server over a network; paragraph 0030, discussing that the input component receives data derived from one or more of server and inputs associated with users. The input component is further designed to detect or poll available input devices connected to, in communication with, or accessible by the authorization module. The virtualization component is utilized to dynamically generate a framework within the virtual reality/augmented reality/mixed reality environment based on user preferences along with present user interactions and indicators associated with the task within the virtual environment. For example, upon the authorization module authenticating an individual or group, the virtualization component assigns the applicable visual indicator to the applicable individual or group allowing other individuals to ascertain whether or not the individual or group is authorized for the task within the virtual environment; paragraph 0069, discussing that the cloud infrastructure is a composition of two or more clouds (private, community, or public) that remain unique entities but are bound together by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability; paragraph 0057, discussing that the provider's computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to demand; paragraph 0048).
As per claim 7, the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination teaches the multi-tenancy VR system according to Claim 1. Pandit further teaches wherein the source code module comprises coding assets (paragraph 0038, discussing that the process is illustrated as a collection of blocks, in a logical flowchart, which represents a sequence of operations that can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination thereof. In the context of software, the blocks represent computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, perform the recited operations. Generally, computer-executable instructions may include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, and the like that perform functions or implement abstract data types. In each process, the order in which the operations are described is not intended to be construed as a limitation, and any number of the described blocks can be combined in any order and/or performed in parallel to implement the process; paragraph 0062, discussing the capability provided to the consumer is to deploy onto the cloud infrastructure consumer-created or acquired applications created using programming languages and tools supported by the provider; paragraph 0082, discussing that computer readable program instructions for carrying out operations of the present invention may be assembler instructions, instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine instructions, machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware instructions, state-setting data, configuration data for integrated circuitry, or either source code or object code written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Smalltalk, C++, or the like, and procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages; paragraph 0084).
Although not explicitly taught by Pandit, Pike in the analogous art of virtual reality training and evaluation systems teaches wherein the source code module comprises a three-dimensional model (paragraph 0025, discussing that the term “virtual reality” may refer to a computer-rendered simulation or an artificial representation of a three-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment or devices, such as the devices described herein. In a specific example, a virtual environment may be rendered that simulates a hazardous working environment or hazardous materials and/or equipment (e.g., electric line work, construction, or the like)).
Pandit is directed towards a virtual reality (VR) system configured to adopt VR technologies for the purpose of training and facilitating workforce functionality to users for completion of the task. Pike is directed towards a virtual reality training and evaluation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for performance evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pandit with Pike because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for performance evaluation, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems and method for training performance evaluation), and because modifying Pandit to include Pike’s feature for including wherein the source code module comprises a three-dimensional model, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of improving the training and evaluation process (Pike at paragraph 0002); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination teaches the multi-tenancy VR system according to Claim 1. Pandit further teaches wherein the division code includes a procedure code for permitting real-time data tracking by the VR plugin or component that collects procedure data (paragraph 0027, discussing activity-based grouping module insights relating to formulating groups for a task such as but not limited to probability of collaboration among individuals, ascertaining skill gaps for a task, generating individual-specific analytics based on real-time monitoring (e.g., IOT sensors, etc.) of the individual during performance of one or more of the plurality of activities associated with the task. The activity-based grouping module is further configured to calculate the aggregate skill score which may be based on individual workforce scores calculated for each individual; paragraph 0033, discussing real-time analysis of performance of said activities at both an individual level and a group level; paragraph 0046, discussing that once access credentials have been granted by the security access module, the activity-based grouping module may continue to utilize data derived from IOT sensors in order to ascertain analytics associated with the performance and completion of the task at an individual and group level. The IOT sensor-derived data may be utilized as a source of training data by a machine learning module in order to generate predictions relating to required skillsets and group task authentication threshold for particular tasks).
Pandit does not explicitly teach teaches wherein the division code includes a sub-procedure code and a chapter code adapted for permitting real-time data tracking by the VR plugin or component that collects sub-procedure data including time taken and status of sub-procedure completion by the trainee, procedure data including time taken and status of procedure completion by the trainee, and chapter data including time taken and status of chapter completion by the trainee, respectively. However, Pike in the analogous art of virtual reality training and evaluation systems teaches this concept. Pike teaches:
wherein the division code includes a sub-procedure code and a chapter code adapted for permitting real-time data tracking by the VR plugin or component that collects sub-procedure data including time taken and status of sub-procedure completion by the trainee, procedure data including time taken and status of procedure completion by the trainee, and chapter data including time taken and status of chapter completion by the trainee, respectively (paragraph 0004, discussing a virtual reality training and evaluation system; paragraph 0031, discussing that the system typically monitors the user's actions in real-time within the virtual environment while the user is completing the assigned task and related subtasks. An evaluation system compares the user's actions to defined criteria to quantify and evaluate the safety, step-process accuracy, and efficiency of the completed tasks by the user. Monitoring the user's interactions within the virtual environment allows for in-depth scoring and analysis to provide a comprehensive view of a user's performance that can be used to identify specific skills or gaps in knowledge that may require improvement or additional training. For example, a user's overall evaluation score may be broken down into individual steps or time intervals that may be individually assessed…Scores may be generated in real-time during a training simulation and provided to a user upon completion based on the user's actions. In some embodiments, user evaluation information is collected and stored in a database which generates an aggregated view of a user base and further provides a tool for searching and comparing the user information. In one embodiment, user scores may be compared to one another based on, for example, a type of work performed, geographic locations of the users, accreditation level of the users, and the like; paragraph 0038, disusing that one or more applications (e.g., VR simulation application), are loaded into the temporary memory during use…memory may include any computer readable medium configured to store data, code, or other information; paragraph 0275, discussing that all user interactions are monitored in real-time by the VR (virtual reality) simulation system and/or evaluation system and logged within a database. In one embodiment, the VR training and evaluation system is automated; paragraph 0284, discussing that the step-process evaluation may further evaluate a user based on an amount of time required to complete individual tasks and/or subtasks by comparing an individual task and/or subtask completion time to a preferred completion time….The evaluation system may further notify the user if any subtasks took too long to complete (e.g., as compared to a defined amount of time specified in the step-process criteria; paragraph 0285, discussing that the user interactions may also be compared to the efficiency criteria to determine an efficiency evaluation for the user's completion of a task or subtask. In one embodiment, the efficiency criteria may include a preferred completion time of one or more of the tasks or subtasks. The user's progress within a task may be timed, wherein the completion of the task or subtasks by the user may be time stamped and compared to the preferred time stamp completion times stored in the efficiency criteria…; paragraph 0287, discussing that the duration of time required to complete a task (i.e., the virtual training program) and/or subtask by the user may be tracked from start to finish by the evaluation system; paragraph 0292, discussing that the VR simulation system may be configured to evaluate multiple users using multiple VR devices at the same time. The multiple users may be simultaneously trained through interaction with a virtual environment in real time; paragraph 0298, discussing that each block included in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks included in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, may be implemented by one or more computer-executable program code portions. These one or more computer-executable program code portions may be provided to a processor of a special purpose computer in order to produce a particular machine, such that the one or more computer-executable program code portions, which execute via the processor of the computer and/or other programmable data processing apparatus, create mechanisms for implementing the steps and/or functions represented by the flowchart(s) and/or block diagram block).
Pandit is directed towards a virtual reality (VR) system configured to adopt VR technologies for the purpose of training and facilitating workforce functionality to users for completion of the task. Pike is directed towards a virtual reality training and evaluation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for performance evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pandit with Pike because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for performance evaluation, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems and method for training performance evaluation), and because modifying Pandit to include Pike’s feature for including wherein the division code includes a sub-procedure code and a chapter code adapted for permitting real-time data tracking by the VR plugin or component that collects sub-procedure data including time taken and status of sub-procedure completion by the trainee, procedure data including time taken and status of procedure completion by the trainee, and chapter data including time taken and status of chapter completion by the trainee, respectively, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of improving the training and evaluation process (Pike at paragraph 0002); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination teaches the multi-tenancy VR system according to Claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Pandit, Pike in the analogous art of virtual reality training and evaluation systems teaches wherein the VR plugin or component, by way of the sub-procedure code, accumulates the sub-procedure data collected thereof to produce the procedure data, which, in turn, is accumulated to produce the chapter data which accumulatively becomes module session data (paragraph 0031, discussing that the system typically monitors the user's actions in real-time within the virtual environment while the user is completing the assigned task and related subtasks. An evaluation system compares the user's actions to defined criteria to quantify and evaluate the safety, step-process accuracy, and efficiency of the completed tasks by the user. Monitoring the user's interactions within the virtual environment allows for in-depth scoring and analysis to provide a comprehensive view of a user's performance that can be used to identify specific skills or gaps in knowledge that may require improvement or additional training. For example, a user's overall evaluation score may be broken down into individual steps or time intervals that may be individually assessed…Scores may be generated in real-time during a training simulation and provided to a user upon completion based on the user's actions. In some embodiments, user evaluation information is collected and stored in a database which generates an aggregated view of a user base and further provides a tool for searching and comparing the user information. In one embodiment, user scores may be compared to one another based on, for example, a type of work performed, geographic locations of the users, accreditation level of the users, and the like; paragraph 0032, discussing that the user may select the transformer bank replacement training experience within the virtual environment and then perform a series of subtasks (e.g., actions) that relate to complete of this task. The user's interactions with the virtual environment are received via user input devices and progress is monitored recorded by the evaluation system and compared to scoring criteria related to proper execution of the task and subtasks. The user completes the experience by either completing the task associated with the experience or executing a critical error that triggers failure. Upon completion of the experience, the system may immediately present the user with a safety score based on the extent of the user's execution of the task and subtasks complied with defined safety criteria. Further, a total time taken by the user to complete the task as well as times required by the user to complete individual subtasks during the training simulation may be compared to predefined time limits and/or the times of other users to further evaluate and score the user; paragraph 0038, disusing that one or more applications (e.g., VR simulation application), are loaded into the temporary memory during use…memory may include any computer readable medium configured to store data, code, or other information; paragraph 0275, discussing that all user interactions are monitored in real-time by the VR (virtual reality) simulation system and/or evaluation system and logged within a database. In one embodiment, the VR training and evaluation system is automated; paragraph 0284, discussing that the step-process evaluation may further evaluate a user based on an amount of time required to complete individual tasks and/or subtasks by comparing an individual task and/or subtask completion time to a preferred completion time….The evaluation system may further notify the user if any subtasks took too long to complete (e.g., as compared to a defined amount of time specified in the step-process criteria; paragraph 0285, discussing that the user interactions may also be compared to the efficiency criteria to determine an efficiency evaluation for the user's completion of a task or subtask. In one embodiment, the efficiency criteria may include a preferred completion time of one or more of the tasks or subtasks. The user's progress within a task may be timed, wherein the completion of the task or subtasks by the user may be time stamped and compared to the preferred time stamp completion times stored in the efficiency criteria…; paragraph 0287, discussing that the duration of time required to complete a task (i.e., the virtual training program) and/or subtask by the user may be tracked from start to finish by the evaluation system; paragraphs 0290, 0298).
Pandit is directed towards a virtual reality (VR) system configured to adopt VR technologies for the purpose of training and facilitating workforce functionality to users for completion of the task. Pike is directed towards a virtual reality training and evaluation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for performance evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pandit with Pike because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for performance evaluation, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems and method for training performance evaluation), and because modifying Pandit to include Pike’s feature for including wherein the VR plugin or component, by way of the sub-procedure code, accumulates the sub-procedure data collected thereof to produce the procedure data, which, in turn, is accumulated to produce the chapter data which accumulatively becomes module session data, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of improving the training and evaluation process (Pike at paragraph 0002); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination teaches the multi-tenancy VR system according to Claim 1. Pandit further teaches wherein the server includes a cloud server, an on-premises server, and any combination thereof comprising a database from which the one or more VR contents, online and/or offline, are communicated between the VR training module and the user platform, and from which the token code transmitted from the VR plugin is authenticated (paragraph 0005, discussing a virtual reality (VR) and/or augmented reality (AR) system configured to adopt VR/AR technologies for the purpose of training and facilitating workforce functionality to users for completion of the task; paragraph 0022, discussing that the environment includes a server communicatively coupled to a database, an authorization module communicatively coupled to an authorization database, an activity-based grouping module, and a security access module communicatively coupled to a security access database, each of which are communicatively coupled over a network; paragraph 0024, discussing a virtual reality (VR) and/or augmented reality (AR) system configured to adopt VR/AR technologies for the purpose of training and facilitating workforce functionality to users for completion of the task. The disclosure provides dynamic creation of groupings of individuals for workforces to complete tasks in which indicators are allocated to individuals within a virtual environment to designate whether the authorization module has authorized a particular individual and/or group for performing a task and/or access to a restricted area or resource associated with the task. The indicators may include an assigned color, marking, or any other applicable visual cue to an avatar representative of the individual within the virtual environment. The authorization process is based on data collected by server and/or any of the aforementioned modules in which the authorization module evaluates the task authentication credentials of an individual…; paragraph 0030, discussing an input component that receives data derived from one or more of server and inputs associated with users (e.g. wearable devices, audio/visual entertainment devices, computing devices, image capture devices, keyboards, etc.). Input component is further designed to detect or poll available input devices connected to, in communication with, or accessible by authorization module; paragraph 0053, discussing that cloud computing is a model of service delivery for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g. networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction with a provider of the service; paragraph 0082, discussing that the computer readable program instructions may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server; paragraphs 0048, 0086).
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 11, the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination teaches a method of providing hands-on virtual reality, VR, environment, training, and evaluation therefor (Pandit, paragraph 0019: “In the context of the present application, where embodiments of the present invention constitute a method, it should be understood that such a method is a process for execution by a computer, i.e. is a computer-implementable method.”; paragraph 0077).
47. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandit in view of Pike, in view of Koblin, in further view of May et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0412781 A1, [hereinafter May].
As per claim 4, the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination teaches the multi-tenancy VR system according to Claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Pandit-Pike combination, May in the analogous art of training systems teaches wherein the division code is represented by a string of alphanumerical characters (paragraph 0031, discussing that each attendee of a virtual conference is provided with an access to their own virtual environment via use of a unique identifier (e.g. login credential, id number, unique alpha-numeric code, etc.). A 3-Dimensional (3D) interface of the virtual environment demonstrates network security products in form of virtual booths of various vendors. Each virtual booth is associated with a learning objective (e.g. video demonstration of the network security product) such that the attendee can learn about the network security product by completing the learning objective; paragraph 0079, discussing that the virtual environment generation engine generates a dedicated virtual environment for each attendee of a network security training session, which is part of a virtual conference demonstrating network security products. The dedicated virtual environment can contain a network topology simulating a deployed network of multiple network security devices for which the attendees or teams of attendees are to receive training. In an example, each attendee can be associated with a unique identifier (e.g. login credential, id number, unique alphanumeric code, etc.) so that one or more attendees can use corresponding unique identifiers to form a team of attendees.).
The Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination describes features related to facilitating training and employee evaluation. May is directed towards providing training to attendees of a network security training session in the virtual conference through the use of gamification. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for training and employee evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination with May because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for training and employee evaluation, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems and method for training performance evaluation), and because modifying Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination to include May’s feature for including wherein the division code is represented by a string of alphanumerical characters, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing organizations with an opportunity to expand the knowledge base of their employees so that efficiency of employees is increased and requisite supervision by management is reduced (May at paragraph 0006); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination teaches the multi-tenancy VR system according to Claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Pandit-Pike combination, May in the analogous art of training systems teaches wherein the module code is represented by a string of alphanumerical characters (paragraph 0065, discussing that the architecture illustrates an example of an online network security training session, which is part of a virtual conference. Multiple environments are generated by the server to enable online attendees to participate in the virtual conference through remote devices. Each environment of online training session is a dedicated virtual environment for a remote attendee device of online attendees. Online attendees can have persistent accounts with unique identifiers (e.g. login credentials, unique alphanumeric code, id numbers, etc.) so that their progress can span across multiple virtual booth and training sessions of the virtual conference. The use of unique identifiers enables the attendee to resume the virtual conference from the last accessed learning-objective; paragraph 0045, discussing that an apparatus for practicing various embodiments of the invention may involve one or more computers (or one or more processors within a single computer) and storage systems containing or having network access to computer program(s) coded in accordance with various methods described, and the method steps of the invention could be accomplished by modules, routines, subroutines, or subparts of a computer program product.).
The Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination describes features related to facilitating training and employee evaluation. May is directed towards providing training to attendees of a network security training session in the virtual conference through the use of gamification. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for training and employee evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination with May because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for training and employee evaluation, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems and method for training performance evaluation), and because modifying Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination to include May’s feature for including wherein the module code is represented by a string of alphanumerical characters, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing organizations with an opportunity to expand the knowledge base of their employees so that efficiency of employees is increased and requisite supervision by management is reduced (May at paragraph 0006); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
48. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandit in view of Pike, in view of Koblin, in further view of Pahud et al., Pub. No.: US 2024/0031217 A1, [hereinafter Pahud].
As per claim 6, the Pandit-Pike combination teaches the multi-tenancy VR system according to Claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination, Pahud in the analogous art of training systems teaches wherein the tenant code is represented by a string of alphanumerical characters (paragraph 0158, discussing that proxy server(s) may include or serve as an adapter service utilizing plugins and/or other components to make various Application Program Interface (API) calls for incoming or outgoing traffic, such as traffic communicated with cloud-based services. For example, such API calls could include API calls to one or more third-party providers of conditions, events, and/or actions to the management network. As another example, the API calls could be for an external API to communicate user information directly between the end-user network and the management network. As yet another example, the API calls could relate to tenant configuration (e.g., back-office configurations) of the end-user network by the management network; paragraph 0182, discussing that several techniques may be used to garner the content of a case in order to route the case into an appropriate queue. In some cases, the type of the case may be provided by a communication or other data from the front office 322. As another example, a document or file associated with a case may have a case identifier (e.g., a tag or an alphanumeric code/sequence) that identifies a particular case as being of a certain case type. In further examples, back-office case system(s) may include one or more algorithms to parse content (e.g., textual content) of incoming cases to deduce a case type. For instance, text analysis algorithms may be used; paragraph 0283, discussing that in an example, relating to agent training, assume that the end-user network has existing rules running, via the management network, to monitor the real-time status of all incoming service queues and identify unexpected periods of downtime that are automatically leveraged for off-phone working, such as training, coaching, reviewing communications, etc.).
The Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination describes features related to facilitating training and employee evaluation. Pahud is directed towards employee monitoring systems. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for training and employee monitoring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination with Pahud because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for training and employee monitoring, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems and method for training performance evaluation), and because modifying Pandit-Pike-Koblin combination to include Pahud’s feature for including wherein the tenant code is represented by a string of alphanumerical characters, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of monitoring and evaluating performance of agents to ensure continual and optimal efficiency (Pahud at paragraph 0105); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bashkirov et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0122436 A1 – describes virtual reality body tracking without external sensors.
Kaifosh et al., Patent No.: US 11,337,652 B2 – describes enabling a computing system to determine time-varying orientation and position of the non-anchored segment relative to the anchored point on the first segment, e.g., to determine a configuration of the articulated rigid body system during the user's real-time movements (e.g., an interaction with an application such as a virtual reality game). In some embodiments, during the real-time movement tracking, just information sensed from a wrist-attached IMU may be used. More generally, techniques described herein allow for reconstruction of human movements from a small number of movement sensors. For example, some embodiments provide for techniques that allow for determining the position and/or orientation of both the forearm and upper arm relative to the torso reference frame using a single wrist-worn device, and without external devices or sensors. Further describes accumulating data over time as a time-series.
Tran et al., Patent No..: US 10,998,101 B1 – describes that rather than aggregating the raw data to a centralized datacenter for training, federated learning leaves the raw data distributed on the device or local clients (mobile devices), and trains a shared model on the server by aggregating locally-computed updates. In federated learning embodiment, each client sends a full model or a full model update back to the server in a typical round, or the computation of local updates can be done at the clients.
Patel, Vishal, et al. "Trends in workplace wearable technologies and connected‐worker solutions for next‐generation occupational safety, health, and productivity." Advanced Intelligent Systems 4.1 (2022): 2100099 – describes that wearable devices enable constant monitoring of individual workers and the environment, whereas connected worker solutions provide contextual information and decision support.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights