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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final on Merits. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and claims 4-6 are withdrawn from consideration. Therefore, claims 1-3 have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
Priority
The present application, filed on 11/11/2024, claims priority to foreign application TR2022/007485 filed on 05/09/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract is objected to as it is not in the proper format and does not contain the proper content. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The title of the invention is objected to. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
The specification is objected to for not being in the proper format. See above guidelines for arrangement of the specification. Further, the specification does not provide any clear or concise explanation of the invention to be claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2, 3a-5b, 7-9, 12-15 are improper because the text is not legible or properly labeled (37 CFR 1.84(b)(1)). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 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.
Claims 1-3 there is no details or specifics in the specification for the technology that is sought to be patented. Mere use of the same words in the specification and the claim is not sufficient to establish written description. The written description requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Further, claims 1-3 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification simply recites intended uses and high-level outcomes without any actual detail regarding any claimed invention or functional limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 USC § 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 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. Claims 1-3 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the system must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Even further, Claims 1-2 are replete with numbers and it is unclear what the numbers refer to. For example, claim 1 in merely the first two lines of the claim recites: “(300), (402, 502, 602, 702) and (403, 503, 603, 703)”. Numbers are listed throughout claims 1 and 2 and it is unclear what the numbers are referring to.
Even further, Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claims lack a preamble and are not directed to a statutory class of invention. It is therefore unclear what Applicant is claiming. See MPEP §2173.05(p) II
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are not directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. “A claim of this type is precluded by the express language of 35 U.S.C 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only.” See MPEP §2173.05(p) II or Ex Parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (B.P.A.I., 1990).
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-3 are not within one of the four statutory categories. However, if claims 1-3 were within a statutory category, they would also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea(s).
For compact prosecution, Examiner will continue the 101 analysis below.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: The present invention is related to a controlled system that supports different thinking skills of the user (300) with a multi-disciplinary resource (402, 502, 602, 702), equipment, and applications (403, 503, 603, 703), enables their competences (306) to come out in accordance with the field of interests (304), allows them to detect the life purpose (301), allows (301) to coincide with social problems (400), allows them to gain by combining with commercial benefit (profit) (401), produces compositions depending on the content (402) created by the inventor, and depending on them, enables the user to think as a polymath according to the new world order, analyze, take action and through new (400, 500, 600, 700) improve projects (800) or work sets (801) which create difference and value, as well as an organization method developed according to said system; characterized in that it consists of a system - Which consists of training and unit that are improvable and organizable such as proficiency adaptation unit (500), boot camp unit (600), master camp unit (700), and permanent unit where users can progress gradually,- Which enables the users that conform to question index and instructions in accordance to graduate and be entitled to join subsequent training - Which develops solution-oriented methods that are consisted of a multi- disciplinary structure where a plurality of training and applications are available in the - Wherein there are courses screens over fifty and applications over five in the proficiency, courses over a hundred and applications over twenty-five in the recruit, course over a hundred and fifty and applications over eighty in the expert - Which facilitates to improve the existing talents of the users and to access the information by means of these applications and course available - Which allows the user to generate business project output (800) and business sets (801) that develop solution-oriented methods from the multi-disciplinary resources (300) by presenting mentoring support which is expert in the related field- Which enables the user to gain wide perspective (900), acquire different thinking skills (305), and level up their intellectuals with the developed interdisciplinary training model - Wherein the users that are graduated from are invited to special units where they can get lifetime support and subsequently, may have the highest authority, privileges, and characteristics within the organization. The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under all three abstract groupings of:
Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (independent claim 1 recites for example, “supports different thinking skills of the user”; “enables their competences (306) to come out in accordance with the field of interests (304), allows them to detect the life purpose”; “allows (301) to coincide with social problems (400), allows them to gain by combining with commercial benefit, produces compositions depending on the content (402) created by the inventor”; “enables the user to think as a polymath according to the new world order, analyze, take action”; “users can progress gradually,- Which enables the users that conform to question index and instructions in accordance to graduate and be entitled to join subsequent training”; “develops solution-oriented methods that are consisted of a multi- disciplinary structure where a plurality of training and applications are available”; “enables the user to gain wide perspective (900), acquire different thinking skills (305), and level up their intellectuals”; “users that are graduated from are invited to special units where they can get lifetime support and subsequently, may have the highest authority, privileges, and characteristics within the organization.”) Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps for example of thinking skills and the user to think as a polymath mimic human thought processes, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). As the claims discuss for example: detect the life purpose; coincide with social problems; enables the user to think as a polymath according to the new world order, analyze, take action; improve the existing talents of the users; user to gain wide perspective, acquire different thinking skills and level up their intellectuals; they can get lifetime support and subsequently, may have the highest authority, privileges, and characteristics within the organization, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity. Dependent claims 2-3 add additional limitations, for example: (claim 2) allow the users to know the brain structure (310), working of the brain, and thinking modes (311), to improve the thinking structure and to overcome inertia exist at the same time; (claim 3) wherein the users that are not graduated are prevented from proceeding to other subsequent interfaces or starting over, wherein only the successful users are allowed to proceed, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of methods of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) interface(s), repository. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, the above-mentioned additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramlet et al. (US 2020/0388181 A1), hereinafter “Bramlet”, over ABTS (US 2015/0242979), hereinafter “ABTS”.
Regarding Claim 1, In light of the above rejections, and best understanding by the examiner of the claims, the closest prior art Bramlet teaches The present invention is related to a controlled system that supports different thinking skills of the user (300) with a multi-disciplinary resource (402, 502, 602, 702), equipment, and applications (403, 503, 603, 703), enables their competences (306) to come out in accordance with the field of interests (304), allows them to detect the life purpose interface (301), allows said interface (301) to coincide with social problems (400), allows them to gain by combining with commercial benefit (profit) (401), produces compositions depending on the content (402) created by the inventor, and depending on them, enables the user to think as a polymath according to the new world order, analyze, take action and through new interfaces (400, 500, 600, 700) improve projects (800) or work sets (801) which create difference and value, as well as an organization method developed according to said system; characterized in that it consists of a system (See at least Bramlet, Abstract, teaches A method for utilizing a multi-disciplined learning tool regarding a topic includes generating a fundamental illustrative model based on illustrative assets of a lesson that includes learning objects. The method further includes modifying the fundamental illustrative model to illustrate first and second sets of teaching assets of a first learning object to produce first and second learning illustrative models. When enabled, the method further includes modifying the fundamental illustrative model to illustrate third and fourth sets of teaching assets of a second learning object to produce third and fourth learning illustrative models; See at least Bramlet, para 0043, describing the computing environment including interface module);
- Which consists of training and unit interfaces that are improvable and organizable such as proficiency adaptation interface unit (500), boot camp unit (600), master camp unit (700), and permanent unit where users can progress gradually, (See at least Bramlet, para 0004, This invention relates generally to computer systems and more particularly to computer systems providing educational and training content);
- Which enables, in the interfaces, the users that conform to question index and instructions in accordance with related interfaces to graduate and be entitled to join subsequent training interfaces, (See at least Bramlet, para 0004, This invention relates generally to computer systems and more particularly to computer systems providing educational and training content; See at least Bramlet, para 0043, describing the computing environment including interface module);
- Which develops solution-oriented methods that are consisted of a multi- disciplinary structure where a plurality of training and applications are available in the interfaces, (See at least Bramlet, para 0004, This invention relates generally to computer systems and more particularly to computer systems providing educational and training content; See at least Bramlet, para 0043, describing the computing environment including interface module);
- Wherein there are courses screens over fifty and applications over five in the proficiency interface, courses screens over a hundred and applications over twenty-five in the recruit interface, course screens over a hundred and fifty and applications over eighty in the expert interface, (See at least Bramlet, para 0004, This invention relates generally to computer systems and more particularly to computer systems providing educational and training content; Bramlet, para 0005, reference materials, training manuals, classroom coursework; See at least Bramlet, para 0043, describing the computing environment including interface module);
- Which facilitates to improve the existing talents of the users and to access the information repository by means of these applications and course screens available in the interfaces, (See at least Bramlet, para 0004, This invention relates generally to computer systems and more particularly to computer systems providing educational and training content; Bramlet, para 0005, reference materials, training manuals, classroom coursework; See at least Bramlet, para 0043, describing the computing environment including interface module and learning assets database);
- Which allows the user to generate business project output (800) and business sets (801) that develop solution-oriented methods from the multi-disciplinary resources (300) by presenting ... interface which is expert in the related field, (See at least Bramlet, para 0004, This invention relates generally to computer systems and more particularly to computer systems providing educational and training content; Bramlet, para 0005, reference materials, training manuals, classroom coursework; See at least Bramlet, para 0043, describing the computing environment including interface module);
- Which enables the user to gain wide perspective (900), acquire different thinking skills (305), and level up their intellectuals with the developed interdisciplinary training model, (See at least Bramlet, Abstract, teaches A method for utilizing a multi-disciplined learning tool regarding a topic includes generating a fundamental illustrative model based on illustrative assets of a lesson that includes learning objects. The method further includes modifying the fundamental illustrative model to illustrate first and second sets of teaching assets of a first learning object to produce first and second learning illustrative models. When enabled, the method further includes modifying the fundamental illustrative model to illustrate third and fourth sets of teaching assets of a second learning object to produce third and fourth learning illustrative models);
- Wherein the users that are graduated from all of the interfaces are invited to special units where they can get lifetime support and subsequently, may have the highest authority, privileges, and characteristics within the organization (See at least Bramlet, para 0004, This invention relates generally to computer systems and more particularly to computer systems providing educational and training content).
Yet, Bramlet does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor ABTS teaches mentoring support (ABTS teaches mentors throughout, see at least ABTS, para 0061, teaching mentors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bramlet with mentoring support as taught by ABTS with the motivation for a system that manages education, career planning, and workforce mobility for students and workers (ABTS, para 0008). The Bramlet invention now incorporating the ABTS invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Bramlet, now incorporating ABTS, teaches Claim 2 is a system according to claim 1, wherein the interfaces (400, 500, 600, 700) that allow the users to know the brain structure (310), working of the brain, and thinking modes (311), to improve the thinking structure and to overcome inertia exist at the same time (See at least Bramlet, para 0004, This invention relates generally to computer systems and more particularly to computer systems providing educational and training content).
Regarding Claim 3, Bramlet, now incorporating ABTS, teaches Claim 3 is a system according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the users that are not graduated from interfaces are prevented from proceeding to other subsequent interfaces or starting over, wherein only the successful users are allowed to proceed (See at least Bramlet, para 0004, This invention relates generally to computer systems and more particularly to computer systems providing educational and training content; Further, ABTS, para 0202, teaches end of learning cycle (e.g. pre-college and undergraduate)).
Additional Prior Art Consulted
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure includes the following:
Padmanabhan US 2019/0388787 - The present invention allows organizations to set up, and its users to experience, dynamic, realistic gamified simulations in a cost- and time-efficient manner, as a means of iteratively assessing and developing individuals' work-focused decision making. It also enables measurement of user attributes and the process of decision making involved at work, through the process of experiencing such simulations. By closely mirroring, or realistically simulating the way data changes with users' decisions or with events external or internal to the organization, the invention is able to faithfully reconstruct the work environment of the user, generate true-to-life responses and unobtrusively measure behavior under various simulated situations. Overcoming existing challenges involved in measuring personal attributes (such as leadership competencies or decision making) in dynamic simulations, the invention allows assignment of scores to users regardless of the specific dynamic and idiosyncratic stimuli they are exposed to within the simulation experience, using the invention's method and system.
NPL – Gianluca Paravati; Fabrizio Lamberti; Valentina Gatteschi, “Joint Traditional and Company-Based Organization of Information Systems and Product Development Courses”, Published in: 2015 IEEE 39th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7273712
Applicant is advised to review additional references supplied on the PTO-892 as to the state of the art of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3629/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629