DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, IN 202241076011, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, the disclosure of the prior-filed application fails to provide sufficient written description for “a skill capture device, wherein the skill capture device is configured to capture technical and behavioral skills of a person”, “the skill assessment dashboard is configured to receive and analyze data points and responses from the skill capture device, and providing a plurality of analyses for technical and behavioral skills”, “the training delivery module is configured to assign specific training modules to users based on the analysis from the skill assessment dashboard”, “the training delivery module is also configured to deliver training through digital means to remote and local user”, “the back-end module enables test paper authoring, test administration, data collection, data analysis, training needs assessment, training planning and administration, continuous assessment, dashboard generation, and Management Information System (MIS) for decision-making”, and “the back-end module enables test paper authoring, test administration, data collection, data analysis, training needs assessment, training planning and administration, continuous assessment, dashboard generation, and Management Information System (MIS) for decision-making” in claim 1, “wherein the skill capture device is configured to capture audio-visual inputs, enabling audio, image, and video recording for evidence-based skill assessment and eliminating human bias, and wherein, the skill capture device is equipped with a sensor module that further includes imaging sensors, inertial sensors, proximity sensors, pressure sensors, and haptic sensors” in claim 2, “wherein the AI module includes virtual avatars and virtual trainers configured to assess and guide users based on technical and behavioral skills, and wherein, the AI module is pre-configured with skill definitions linking trades and assessment modules, shortlisting candidates based on parameters and data generated, taking inputs from the skill capture device and triggering training delivery” in claim 3, “creating a list of unique trades/duty positions”, “assessing individual technical and behavioral skills using the skill capture device”, “generating individual and department-wise skill assessment report; creating a training plan based on the assessment report”, “delivering training modules”, “conducting post-training assessments” , “providing re-training/multi-skilling as required”, and “generating management reports and providing feedback for skill planning” in claim 4, “wherein the technical and behavioral skills are assessed based on evidence captured through audio, image, and video recording using the skill capture device, and wherein, the skill capture device further captures biometric feedback including facial cues, body language, actions, and gestures for assessing behavioral skills of the person” in claim 5, “wherein the AI module is configured to shortlist candidates for training based on technical and behavioral skill assessment data and triggers training delivery according to the decision it takes” in claim 6, “a knowledge assessment process, which further comprises: creating department-level list of unique trades/duty positions; generating skill directories and question bank for each trade/ duty position; technical and behavioral assessment; generating individual and department-wise evaluation report; and, providing skill evaluation report for assessment and skill planning” in claim 7, “a practical skill assessment process, which further comprises: generating skill observation template for equipment and unique duty position; individual's skill observation based on template; recording performance and practical skills with evidence; generating skill evaluation report; and, providing skill evaluation report for assessment and skill planning” in claim 8, and “a training management process, which further comprises: creating training needs bank for technical and behavioral skills; generating training plan; generating training calendar; delivering the training; and, post-training evaluation” in claim 9 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, the specification of the prior-filed application, at best, merely recites similar language as the claims without providing any substantive description for the claimed limitations identified above for the same reasons that the instant specification also fails as identified in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) below for the same claim limitations.
Thus, claims 1-9 do not gain benefit of priority to IN 202241076011. Therefore, claims 1-9 have an effective filing date of 10 December 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are generally blurry with Fig. 3 being so blurry as to be illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are inconsistently formatted. In particular, independent claims 1 and 4 are formatted following conventional practice wherein each limitation begins on a new line and ends with a semi-colon. However, dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-9 lump multiple limitations together, including not using a semi-colon in some instances.
Claim 1 has an errant comma following the term “and” at the end of the limitation “an Artificial Intelligence (AI) module; and”.
Claim 4 is missing the term “and” at the end of the second-to-last limitation.
Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the skill capture device is configured to capture technical and behavioral skills of a person” in claim 1.
“the skill assessment dashboard is configured to receive and analyze data points and responses from the skill capture device, and providing a plurality of analyses for technical and behavioral skills” in claim 1.
“the training delivery module is configured to assign specific training modules to users based on the analysis from the skill assessment dashboard” in claim 1.
“the training delivery module is also configured to deliver training through digital means to remote and local user” in claim 1.
“the back-end module enables test paper authoring, test administration, data collection, data analysis, training needs assessment, training planning and administration, continuous assessment, dashboard generation, and Management Information System (MIS) for decision-making” in claim 1.
“wherein the AI module includes virtual avatars and virtual trainers configured to assess and guide users based on technical and behavioral skills, and wherein, the AI module is pre-configured with skill definitions linking trades and assessment modules, shortlisting candidates based on parameters and data generated, taking inputs from the skill capture device and triggering training delivery” in claim 3.
“assessing individual technical and behavioral skills using the skill capture device” in claim 4.
“the AI module is configured to shortlist candidates for training based on technical and behavioral skill assessment data and triggers training delivery according to the decision it takes” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “the skill assessment dashboard is configured to receive and analyze data points and responses from the skill capture device, and providing a plurality of analyses for technical and behavioral skills” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding what the skill assessment dashboard comprises as well as silent regarding it performing any function, let alone the claimed receiving and analyzing data points and responses and the claimed providing a plurality of analyses for technical and behavioral skills. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2 and 3 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the training delivery module is configured to assign specific training modules to users based on the analysis from the skill assessment dashboard” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding what the training delivery module comprises as well as silent regarding it performing any function, let alone the claimed assigning of specific training modules to users. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2 and 3 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the training delivery module is also configured to deliver training through digital means to remote and local user” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding what the training delivery module comprises as well as silent regarding it performing any function, let alone the claimed delivering of training through digital means to remote and local user. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2 and 3 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the back-end module enables test paper authoring, test administration, data collection, data analysis, training needs assessment, training planning and administration, continuous assessment, dashboard generation, and Management Information System (MIS) for decision-making” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding the back-end module performing any function, let alone the claimed enabling of test paper authoring, test administration, data collection, data analysis, training needs assessment, training planning and administration, continuous assessment, dashboard generation, and MIS for decision-making. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2 and 3 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “wherein the AI module includes virtual avatars and virtual trainers configured to assess and guide users based on technical and behavioral skills, and wherein, the AI module is pre-configured with skill definitions linking trades and assessment modules, shortlisting candidates based on parameters and data generated, taking inputs from the skill capture device and triggering training delivery” in claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding what the AI module comprises as well as silent regarding it performing any function, let alone the claimed assessing and guiding of users on technical and behavioral skills, the claimed skill definitions linking trades and assessment modules, shortlisting candidates based on parameters and data generated, taking inputs from the skill capture device and triggering training delivery. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “assessing individual technical and behavioral skills using the skill capture device” in claim 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding the skill capture device performing any assessing of individual technical and behavioral skills. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the AI module is configured to shortlist candidates for training based on technical and behavioral skill assessment data and triggers training delivery according to the decision it takes” in claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding the skill capture device performing any assessing of individual technical and behavioral skills. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further regarding claim 1, it is unclear what a “remote and local user” is. While one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what a remote user is and what local user, it is unclear what constitutes a “remote and local user”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 2 and 3 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 2 contains the trademarks/trade names “Wi-Fi” (misspelled as WiFi), “Bluetooth”, and “Zigbee”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe communication protocols and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the skill capture device" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 4, it is unclear how “providing re-training/multi-skilling as required” further limits the claim. In particular, the claim and disclosure are silent regarding when providing re-training is required nor when providing multi-skilling is required. Similarly for when these functions are not required. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the AI module" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a skill capture device, wherein the skill capture device is configured to capture technical and behavioral skills of a person” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding any meaningful description for capturing technical and behavioral skills of a person. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 2 and 3 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the skill assessment dashboard is configured to receive and analyze data points and responses from the skill capture device, and providing a plurality of analyses for technical and behavioral skills” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding what the skill assessment dashboard comprises as well as silent regarding it performing any function, let alone the claimed receiving and analyzing data points and responses and the claimed providing a plurality of analyses for technical and behavioral skills. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 2 and 3 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the training delivery module is configured to assign specific training modules to users based on the analysis from the skill assessment dashboard” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding what the training delivery module comprises as well as silent regarding it performing any function, let alone the claimed assigning of specific training modules to users. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 2 and 3 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the training delivery module is also configured to deliver training through digital means to remote and local user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding what the training delivery module comprises as well as silent regarding it performing any function, let alone the claimed delivering of training through digital means to remote and local user. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 2 and 3 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the back-end module enables test paper authoring, test administration, data collection, data analysis, training needs assessment, training planning and administration, continuous assessment, dashboard generation, and Management Information System (MIS) for decision-making” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding the back-end module performing any function, let alone the claimed enabling of test paper authoring, test administration, data collection, data analysis, training needs assessment, training planning and administration, continuous assessment, dashboard generation, and MIS for decision-making. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 2 and 3 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the skill capture device is configured to capture audio-visual inputs, enabling audio, image, and video recording for evidence-based skill assessment and eliminating human bias, and wherein, the skill capture device is equipped with a sensor module that further includes imaging sensors, inertial sensors, proximity sensors, pressure sensors, and haptic sensors” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure, at best, merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe any particular structure or function. See, for example, at least, para. 41 of the specification. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding any meaningful description of “evidence-based skill assessment and eliminating human bias” beyond merely reciting in results-based language that they are performed. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the AI module includes virtual avatars and virtual trainers configured to assess and guide users based on technical and behavioral skills, and wherein, the AI module is pre-configured with skill definitions linking trades and assessment modules, shortlisting candidates based on parameters and data generated, taking inputs from the skill capture device and triggering training delivery” in claim 3 and “wherein the AI module is configured to shortlist candidates for training based on technical and behavioral skill assessment data and triggers training delivery according to the decision it takes” in claim 6 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure is particularly silent regarding what the AI module comprises as well as silent regarding it performing any function, let alone the claimed assessing and guiding of users on technical and behavioral skills, the claimed skill definitions linking trades and assessment modules, shortlisting candidates based on parameters and data generated, taking inputs from the skill capture device and triggering training delivery. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
Regarding claim 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “creating a list of unique trades/duty positions” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure, at best, merely recites similar language as the claim, but is silent regarding any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least, para. 16, 30, 31, 36, and 37 of the specification. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “assessing individual technical and behavioral skills using the skill capture device” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding the skill capture device performing any assessing of individual technical and behavioral skills. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “generating individual and department-wise skill assessment report; creating a training plan based on the assessment report” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure, at best, merely recites similar language as the claim, but is silent regarding any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least, para. 16, 30, 31, 36, and 37 of the specification. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “delivering training modules” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding delivering training modules. See, for example, at least, para. 16, 30, 33, and 39 of the specification which provide the closest language but merely recite “deliver the training” or “delivering the training”. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “conducting post-training assessments” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least, para. 16, 30, 33, 36, and 39 of the specification which provide the closest language but merely recite “post training assessment”, “carrying out post training evaluation”, or “post-training evaluation”. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “providing re-training/multi-skilling as required” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least, para. 16, 30, and 36 of the specification which provide the closest language but merely recite “re-training/multi-skilling” or “re-training/multi-skilling (as required)”. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “generating management reports and providing feedback for skill planning” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least, para. 16, 30, and 36 of the specification which provide the closest language but merely recite “creating management report and providing feedback for skill planning” or “generating management report and providing feedback for skill planning”. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 5, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the technical and behavioral skills are assessed based on evidence captured through audio, image, and video recording using the skill capture device, and wherein, the skill capture device further captures biometric feedback including facial cues, body language, actions, and gestures for assessing behavioral skills of the person” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is particularly silent regarding assessing the technical and behavioral skills based on “evidence captured through audio, image, and video recording”. See, for example, at least, para. 41 of the specification which provides the closest language but merely recites the conclusory statement that the “skill capture device is also configured to capture audio visual inputs enabling audio, image and video recording enabling evidence-based skill assessment and eliminating human bias.” Additionally, the disclosure is entirely silent regarding “capturing biometric feedback including facial cues, body language, actions, and gestures for assessing behavioral skills of the person”. The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
Regarding claim 7, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a knowledge assessment process, which further comprises: creating department-level list of unique trades/duty positions; generating skill directories and question bank for each trade/ duty position; technical and behavioral assessment; generating individual and department-wise evaluation report; and, providing skill evaluation report for assessment and skill planning” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least, Fig. 4 and para. 31 and 37 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claim without any further description. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
Regarding claim 8, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a practical skill assessment process, which further comprises: generating skill observation template for equipment and unique duty position; individual's skill observation based on template; recording performance and practical skills with evidence; generating skill evaluation report; and, providing skill evaluation report for assessment and skill planning” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least, Fig. 5 and para. 32 and 38 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claim without any further description. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
Regarding claim 9, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a training management process, which further comprises: creating training needs bank for technical and behavioral skills; generating training plan; generating training calendar; delivering the training; and, post-training evaluation” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least, Fig. 6 and para. 33 and 39 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claim without any further description. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. It is noted that even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07.
Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and a product which fall under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A system for end-to-end technical and behavioral competency assessment and training management, the system comprising:
a skill capture device, wherein the skill capture device is configured to capture technical and behavioral skills of a person;
a skill assessment dashboard, wherein, the skill assessment dashboard is configured to receive and analyze data points and responses from the skill capture device, and providing a plurality of analyses for technical and behavioral skills;
a training delivery module, wherein the training delivery module is configured to assign specific training modules to users based on the analysis from the skill assessment dashboard, and wherein, the training delivery module is also configured to deliver training through digital means to remote and local user;
an Artificial Intelligence (AI) module; and,
a back-end module, wherein the back-end module further comprises a processing module, a communications module, a training management module, an assessment module, a database module, wherein the back-end module enables test paper authoring, test administration, data collection, data analysis, training needs assessment, training planning and administration, continuous assessment, dashboard generation, and Management Information System (MIS) for decision-making.
Independent claim 4 recites:
A method for end-to-end technical and behavioral competency assessment and training management, the method comprising:
creating a list of unique trades/duty positions;
generating skill directories bank of technical and behavioral skills required for each trade/duty position;
assessing individual technical and behavioral skills using the skill capture device;
generating individual and department-wise skill assessment report;
creating a training plan based on the assessment report;
delivering training modules;
conducting post-training assessments;
providing re-training/multi-skilling as required;
generating management reports and providing feedback for skill planning.
The foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because they are managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. This collection, analysis, and outputting of results also amounts to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
Aside from claim 6 (addressed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, below), the dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: reciting the method as “computer-implemented” (claim 1), a computing device (claims 1, 8, and 14), reciting the environment and course as “virtual” (claims 1, 8, and 14), reciting the object block as “virtual” (claims 4, 12, and 17), and reciting the mere use of one or more machine learning models (claims 6, 10, and 19). Although the claims recite the components, identified above, these elements are recited at a high level of generality for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced by at least Fig. 1, 2, and 5, which illustrate the components as stock images or symbols and non-descript black boxes, with Fig. 2 further illustrating the claimed invention as a software application. Further evidence is provided by the specification. See, for example, at least para. 14, 24-26, 28-31, 33, 34, and 40-44. For instance, para. 24 and 40 identify that any suitable combination of hardware, software, or firmware may be used to implement the computing device. Similarly, para. 30 identifies that the virtual environment, itself, is not particular – it “may be any applicable virtual and/or physical space configured for educational mats or virtual objects to be integrated within” as it only acts to “host[] a conflict resolution exercise between participants”. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim as the computerized elements are merely recited as a tool to perform an abstract idea as well as to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. It should also be noted that because the courts have made it clear that the mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computing device and associated hardware does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 224-26 (2014). The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. For instance, claim 6 recites the mere use of non-descript machine learning models while the specification provides an unbounded list of machine learning techniques and models that may be used without any meaningful description. See, for example, at least para. 28, 29, and 34 of the specification. Additionally, the additional elements, as identified above, are merely recited to indicate a field of use – using a computerized, virtual environment to implement a conflict resolution exercise between two people. The claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed product and the process it performs do not require the use of a particular machine, nor do they result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, outputting data). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. For instance, para. 24 and 40 identify that any suitable combination of hardware, software, or firmware may be used to implement the computing device. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Similarly, para. 30 identifies that the virtual environment, itself, is not particular – it “may be any applicable virtual and/or physical space configured for educational mats or virtual objects to be integrated within” as it only acts to “host[] a conflict resolution exercise between participants”. This also evidences that the components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed, which the courts have held does not amount to significantly more. The claims also do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. For instance, claim 6 recites the mere use of non-descript machine learning models while the specification provides an unbounded list of machine learning techniques and models that may be used without any meaningful description. See, for example, at least para. 28, 29, and 34 of the specification. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hnich et al. (WO 2022/003627, hereinafter referred to as Hnich).
Regarding claim 1, Hnich teaches a system for end-to-end technical and behavioral competency assessment and training management (Hnich, at least para. 2 and 4 identify this), the system comprising:
a skill capture device, wherein the skill capture device is configured to capture technical and behavioral skills of a person (Hnich, Fig. 1C and 1D, computing device 100);
a skill assessment dashboard, wherein, the skill assessment dashboard is configured to receive and analyze data points and responses from the skill capture device, and providing a plurality of analyses for technical and behavioral skills (Hnich, at least para. 74 and 76 describe this);
a training delivery module, wherein the training delivery module is configured to assign specific training modules to users based on the analysis from the skill assessment dashboard, and wherein, the training delivery module is also configured to deliver training through digital means to remote and local user (Hnich, at least para. 255-257 describe the functions of the training delivery module);
an Artificial Intelligence (AI) module (Hnich, while para. 2 identifies that Hnich “relates generally to systems and methods for analytics and artificial intelligence in the context of assessment of individuals participating in learning processes, trainings and/or activities that involve or require certain skills, competencies and/or knowledge”, much of the disclosure within Hnich discusses the particulars of such artificial intelligence use. Thus, Hnich necessarily includes an AI module such that the performance of those techniques are possible.); and,
a back-end module, wherein the back-end module further comprises a processing module, a communications module, a training management module, an assessment module, a database module, wherein the back-end module enables test paper authoring, test administration, data collection, data analysis, training needs assessment, training planning and administration, continuous assessment, dashboard generation, and Management Information System (MIS) for decision-making (Hnich, para. 255-258 describes this).
Regarding claim 2, Hnich teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the skill capture device is configured to capture audio-visual inputs, enabling audio, image, and video recording (Hnich, para. 55-57 disclose the devices that collect these inputs. Para. 73, “The term respondent, as used herein, refers to the fact that an evaluatee responds, e.g., either by action or by providing oral or written answers, to some assignments, instructions, questions or expectations, and the evaluatees are assessed based on respective responses according to a plurality of assessment items. An assessment item can include an item or component of a homework, quiz, exam or assignment, such as a question, a sub-question, a problem, a sub-problem or an exercise or component. The assessment item can include a task, such as a sports or athletic drill or exercise, reading musical notes, identified musical notes being played, playing or tuning an instrument, singing a song, performing an experiment, writing a software code or performing an activity or task associated with a given profession or training, among others.”) for evidence-based skill assessment and eliminating human bias (Hnich, para. 148, “using the contextual parameters can help remediate any relative bias and/or any relative scaling between item-specific parameters associated with different assessment instruments.”), and wherein, the skill capture device is equipped with a sensor module that further includes imaging sensors, inertial sensors, proximity sensors, pressure sensors, and haptic sensors (Hnich, at least para. 55 discloses these); a computer input module further comprising keyboard, trackpad, mouse, microphone, external media readers, and touch input; a user authentication module (Hnich, at least para. 55 discloses these); a communications interface supporting a plurality of communication protocols including WiFi, Bluetooth, and Zigbee (Hnich, at least para. 39 and 40 disclose this); a storage module (Hnich, Fig. 1C, Storage 128; Fig. 1D, Cache 140); a memory module (Hnich, Fig. 1C and 1D, Main Memory 122); a processor (Hnich, Fig. 1C, CPU 121; Fig. 1D, Main Processor 121); and an output module enabling audio-visual output, augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR) (Hnich, Fig. 1C, I/O CTRL 123); Fig. 1D, I/O Port; para. 57, “Some 1/0 devices 130a-130n, display devices 124a-124n or group of devices may be augment reality devices.” Para. 58, “3D displays. Examples of 3D displays may use, e.g. stereoscopy, polarization filters, active shutters, or autostereoscopy. Display devices 124a-124n may also be a head-mounted display (HMD).” Para. 59, “the computing device 100 may include any type and/or form of video adapter, video card, driver, and/or library to interface, communicate, connect or otherwise use the display devices 124a-124n.”).
Regarding claim 4, Hnich teaches a method for end-to-end technical and behavioral competency assessment and training management, the method comprising:
creating a list of unique trades/duty positions (Hnich, para. 71, “the output of a teaching/learning process depends on learners' abilities at the individual level and/or the group level as well as the difficulty levels of the assessment items used. Each evaluatee may have different abilities with respect to distinct assessment items. In addition, different abilities of the same evaluatee or different evaluatees can change or progress differently over the course of the teaching/learning process. These facts are not specific to education or teaching/learning processes only, but are also true in the context of professional development, sports, arts and other fields that involve the assessment of respective members.” Para. 72, “An evaluatee is also referred to herein as a respondent or a learner and can include an elementary school student, a middle school student, a high school student, a college student, a graduate student, a trainee, an apprentice, an employee, a mentee, an athlete, a sports player, a musician, an artist or an individual participating in a program to learn new skills or knowledge, among others.” Para. 74, “For example, in the context of professional development, an employee, a trainee or an intern can be evaluated, e.g., on a quarterly basis, a half-year basis or on a yearly basis, by respective managers with respect to a competency framework based on the job performances of the employee, the trainee or the intern.” Para. 257, “Embodiments described herein allow for tailoring or designing, for each learner or respondent, the respective learning path based on the learner's current ability, how well the learner is progressing or a target performance profile.”);
generating skill directories bank of technical and behavioral skills required for each trade/duty position (Hnich, para. 71, “the output of a teaching/learning process depends on learners' abilities at the individual level and/or the group level as well as the difficulty levels of the assessment items used. Each evaluatee may have different abilities with respect to distinct assessment items. In addition, different abilities of the same evaluatee or different evaluatees can change or progress differently over the course of the teaching/learning process. These facts are not specific to education or teaching/learning processes only, but are also true in the context of professional development, sports, arts and other fields that involve the assessment of respective members.” Para. 72, “An evaluatee is also referred to herein as a respondent or a learner and can include an elementary school student, a middle school student, a high school student, a college student, a graduate student, a trainee, an apprentice, an employee, a mentee, an athlete, a sports player, a musician, an artist or an individual participating in a program to learn new skills or knowledge, among others.” Para. 74, “For example, in the context of professional development, an employee, a trainee or an intern can be evaluated, e.g., on a quarterly basis, a half-year basis or on a yearly basis, by respective managers with respect to a competency framework based on the job performances of the employee, the trainee or the intern.” Para. 257, “Embodiments described herein allow for tailoring or designing, for each learner or respondent, the respective learning path based on the learner's current ability, how well the learner is progressing or a target performance profile.”);
assessing individual technical and behavioral skills using the skill capture device (Hnich, Fig. 1C and 1D, computing device 100; at least para. 74 and 76 describe this);
generating individual and department-wise skill assessment report (Hnich, at least para. 74 and 76 describe this);
creating a training plan based on the assessment report (Hnich, para. 257, “Embodiments described herein allow for tailoring or designing, for each learner or respondent, the respective learning path based on the learner's current ability, how well the learner is progressing or a target performance profile.”);
delivering training modules (Hnich, at least para. 255-257 describe the functions of the training delivery module);
conducting post-training assessments (Hnich, para. 256, “as the education, learning professional development process progresses through various stages or phases, one can repeatedly assess the abilities of the learners, e.g., at each stage or phase of the learning process, and determine or adjust the learning paths, learners' groups, if any, and/or other parameters of the learning process. The dynamic customization allows for knowledge-based and real-time planning of learning plans and strategies.”);
providing re-training/multi-skilling as required (Hnich, para. 256, “as the education, learning professional development process progresses through various stages or phases, one can repeatedly assess the abilities of the learners, e.g., at each stage or phase of the learning process, and determine or adjust the learning paths, learners' groups, if any, and/or other parameters of the learning process. The dynamic customization allows for knowledge-based and real-time planning of learning plans and strategies.”);
generating management reports and providing feedback for skill planning (Hnich, at least para. 76, “Performance data ( or assessment data) including performance scores for various respondents with respect to different assessment items can be analyzed to determine latent traits of respondents and the assessment items. The analysis can also provide insights, for example, with regard to future actions that can be taken to enhance the competencies or skills of respondents.”).
Regarding claim 5, Hnich teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the technical and behavioral skills are assessed based on evidence captured through audio, image, and video recording using the skill capture device (Hnich, para. 55-57 disclose the devices that collect these inputs. Para. 73, “The term respondent, as used herein, refers to the fact that an evaluatee responds, e.g., either by action or by providing oral or written answers, to some assignments, instructions, questions or expectations, and the evaluatees are assessed based on respective responses according to a plurality of assessment items. An assessment item can include an item or component of a homework, quiz, exam or assignment, such as a question, a sub-question, a problem, a sub-problem or an exercise or component. The assessment item can include a task, such as a sports or athletic drill or exercise, reading musical notes, identified musical notes being played, playing or tuning an instrument, singing a song, performing an experiment, writing a software code or performing an activity or task associated with a given profession or training, among others.”), and wherein, the skill capture device further captures biometric feedback including facial cues, body language, actions, and gestures for assessing behavioral skills of the person (Hnich, para. 56, “Devices 130a-130n may include a combination of multiple input or output devices, including, e.g., Microsoft KINECT, Nintendo Wiimote for the WII, Nintendo WII U GAMEPAD, or Apple IPHONE. Some devices 130a-130n allow gesture recognition inputs through combining some of the inputs and outputs. Some devices 130a-130n provides for facial recognition which may be utilized as an input for different purposes including authentication and other commands. Some devices 130a-130n provides for voice recognition and inputs, including, e.g., Microsoft KINECT, SIRI for !PHONE by Apple, Google Now or Google Voice Search.”).
Regarding claim 6, Hnich teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the AI module is configured to shortlist candidates for training based on technical and behavioral skill assessment data and triggers training delivery according to the decision it takes (Hnich, at least para. 74 and 76 describe this).
Regarding claim 7, Hnich teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the method further includes a knowledge assessment process, which further comprises: creating department-level list of unique trades/duty positions (Hnich, para. 71, “the output of a teaching/learning process depends on learners' abilities at the individual level and/or the group level as well as the difficulty levels of the assessment items used. Each evaluatee may have different abilities with respect to distinct assessment items. In addition, different abilities of the same evaluatee or different evaluatees can change or progress differently over the course of the teaching/learning process. These facts are not specific to education or teaching/learning processes only, but are also true in the context of professional development, sports, arts and other fields that involve the assessment of respective members.” Para. 72, “An evaluatee is also referred to herein as a respondent or a learner and can include an elementary school student, a middle school student, a high school student, a college student, a graduate student, a trainee, an apprentice, an employee, a mentee, an athlete, a sports player, a musician, an artist or an individual participating in a program to learn new skills or knowledge, among others.” Para. 74, “For example, in the context of professional development, an employee, a trainee or an intern can be evaluated, e.g., on a quarterly basis, a half-year basis or on a yearly basis, by respective managers with respect to a competency framework based on the job performances of the employee, the trainee or the intern.” Para. 257, “Embodiments described herein allow for tailoring or designing, for each learner or respondent, the respective learning path based on the learner's current ability, how well the learner is progressing or a target performance profile.”); generating skill directories and question bank for each trade/duty position Hnich, para. 71, “the output of a teaching/learning process depends on learners' abilities at the individual level and/or the group level as well as the difficulty levels of the assessment items used. Each evaluatee may have different abilities with respect to distinct assessment items. In addition, different abilities of the same evaluatee or different evaluatees can change or progress differently over the course of the teaching/learning process. These facts are not specific to education or teaching/learning processes only, but are also true in the context of professional development, sports, arts and other fields that involve the assessment of respective members.” Para. 72, “An evaluatee is also referred to herein as a respondent or a learner and can include an elementary school student, a middle school student, a high school student, a college student, a graduate student, a trainee, an apprentice, an employee, a mentee, an athlete, a sports player, a musician, an artist or an individual participating in a program to learn new skills or knowledge, among others.” Para. 74, “For example, in the context of professional development, an employee, a trainee or an intern can be evaluated, e.g., on a quarterly basis, a half-year basis or on a yearly basis, by respective managers with respect to a competency framework based on the job performances of the employee, the trainee or the intern.” Para. 257, “Embodiments described herein allow for tailoring or designing, for each learner or respondent, the respective learning path based on the learner's current ability, how well the learner is progressing or a target performance profile.”); technical and behavioral assessment (Hnich, at least para. 74 and 76 describe this); generating individual and department-wise evaluation report (Hnich, at least para. 74 and 76 describe this); and, providing skill evaluation report for assessment and skill planning (Hnich, at least para. 74 and 76 describe this).
Regarding claim 8, Hnich teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the method further includes a practical skill assessment process, which further comprises: generating skill observation template for equipment and unique duty position (Hnich, at least para. 74, “competency framework”); individual's skill observation based on template (Hnich, at least para. 74 and 76 describe this); recording performance and practical skills with evidence (Hnich, at least para. 74 and 76 describe this); generating skill evaluation report (Hnich, at least para. 74 and 76 describe this); and, providing skill evaluation report for assessment and skill planning (Hnich, at least para. 74 and 76 describe this).
Regarding claim 9, Hnich teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the method further includes a training management process, which further comprises: creating training needs bank for technical and behavioral skills; generating training plan (Hnich, para. 257, “Embodiments described herein allow for tailoring or designing, for each learner or respondent, the respective learning path based on the learner's current ability, how well the learner is progressing or a target performance profile.”); generating training calendar (Hnich, para. 63, “scheduling of tasks”; para. 257, “Embodiments described herein allow for tailoring or designing, for each learner or respondent, the respective learning path based on the learner's current ability, how well the learner is progressing or a target performance profile.”); delivering the training (Hnich, at least para. 255-257 describe delivering the training); and, post-training evaluation (Hnich, para. 256, “as the education, learning professional development process progresses through various stages or phases, one can repeatedly assess the abilities of the learners, e.g., at each stage or phase of the learning process, and determine or adjust the learning paths, learners' groups, if any, and/or other parameters of the learning process. The dynamic customization allows for knowledge-based and real-time planning of learning plans and strategies.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hnich as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Seaton (US 2019/0130788).
Regarding claim 3, Hnich teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the AI module is pre-configured with skill definitions linking trades and assessment modules, shortlisting candidates based on parameters and data generated, taking inputs from the skill capture device and triggering training delivery.
Hnich does not explicitly teach wherein the AI module includes virtual avatars and virtual trainers configured to assess and guide users based on technical and behavioral skills.
However, in an analogous art, Seaton teaches wherein the AI module includes virtual avatars and virtual trainers configured to assess and guide users based on technical and behavioral skills (para. 37, “an intelligent user interface 87, such as an interactive animated assistant or digital assistant (like Clippit in Microsoft Office). The animated assistant 87 may be incorporated into a virtual environment, overlaid in a real world environment, or integrated into a real world environment. During a training session, the animated character may speak to the user to relay relevant skill information to the user, and the user in turn can interact with the animated character to obtain further information or details regarding the skill or sub-skills.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the AI module in Hnich to include virtual avatars and virtual trainers configured to assess and guide users based on technical and behavioral skills as taught by Seaton because “generat[ing] VR, AR, AV and/or MR experiences that deliver… training sessions for deliberate practice of a particular skill… is beneficial in that it administers an intensive series of training events to the training for developing and refining professional capabilities and skills of the trainee.” See Seaton at para. 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aimone et al. (US 2016/0077547) discloses a system and method for enhanced training using a virtual reality environment and bio-signal data.
Shavit (US 2017/0368413) discloses a training system and methods for designing, monitoring, and providing feedback of training.
Smith et al. (US 2018/0203238) discloses a simulation learning experience that integrates augmented reality, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715