DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1 and 16 recite(s):
A training system operable to provide workplace safety training, the training system comprising:
one or more training mechanisms;
a control system; and
a badge operable to be registered with an employee, the badge being operable to communicate with the one or more training mechanisms via a wireless communication protocol,
wherein the one or more training mechanisms are each operable to provide a training program to the employee,
wherein the badge is operable to receive progress of the employee for the training program from the one or more training mechanisms,
wherein the badge is operable to control access of the employee into an area of a jobsite based on the progress of the employee for the training program.
wherein the badge is operable to communicate, via the wireless communication protocol, with an entry structure for the area of the jobsite such that the entry structure physically prevents or permits passage of the employee into the area based on the progress of the employee for the training program, and
wherein the control system dynamically adjusts at least one of training content of the training program or the manner in which the training content is presented based on a combination of: (1) employee performance data generated during the training program; and (2) at least one of (i) project data identifying a task to be performed by the employee at the jobsite or (ii) sensor data generated by the badge and indicative of an activity, location, or safety condition of the employee.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “training mechanism”, “wireless communication protocol“, “badge”, “entry structure“ nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a supervisor monitoring the training progress of a user, controlling user’s access to a job site based on the progress of the user’s training history and providing a training content based on the user’s performance.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people or perform in the mind of the user, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “training mechanism”, “badge”.
The “training mechanism”, “badge” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 32 and 35) or is directed insignificant extra-solution activity since the additional limitation is directed to steps of gathering data for use in a claimed process or linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g: use of the badge to monitor the progress of the employee or the use of a badge to gain access to a facility).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2, 4-15, and 17-20 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. For example, claims 2 and 20 are directed to a particular technological environment (VR stations/training kiosk); claims 3-15 and 17-19 are either directed to the type of job site access for a user, determining the type of training material to be presented to the user or communication about the project data (abstract). Thus, these claims recite no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2027 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that the current amendment directed to the communication of the badge, via a wireless communication protocol, with a physical entry structure that physically prevents or permit passage into a job area based on the employee training progress. The Applicant argued that this requires specific hardware or structure that causes the jobsite access structure to physically prevent or permit passage to the jobsite. Accordingly, the claim is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong 2 since it imposes a concrete, real-word physical constraint through a jobsite infrastructure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A review of the specification appears to show that the prevention of a person from the jobsite can be affected by abstract idea means (paragraph 30-31 e.g.: an alert to inform the employee and/or other employees that the employee is entering the area of the jobsite when access is not approve, proving an alert sound to inform the user). As such, the Examiner will interpreted these amendment limitations as an example of field of use or technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the limitation of claims 1-2, 4-20 are insufficient to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
