DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1 and 16 recite(s):
A training system operable to provide workplace safety training, the training system comprising:
one or more training mechanisms; and
a badge operable to be registered with an employee, the badge being operable to communicate with the one or more training mechanisms,
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.
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”, “badge”, 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 and controlling job access of the user based on the progress of the user’s training history.
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 (use of the badge to monitor the progress of the employee).
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) 2-15, 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.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson US 2025/0141866 and in view of Peters US 20130189658
Claim 1: The Jackson reference provide a teaching of a training system operable to provide workplace safety training, the training system comprising:
a badge operable to be registered with an employee (see paragraph 21)
wherein the one or more training mechanisms are each operable to provide a training program to the employee (see paragraph 83);
wherein the badge is operable to receive progress of the employee for the training program from the one or more training mechanisms (see paragraph 78);
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 (see paragraph 23).
The Jackson reference is silent on the teaching of one or more training mechanisms and the badge being operable to communicate with the one or more training mechanisms. However, the Peters reference provide a teaching of one or more training mechanisms (see paragraph 42) and the badge being operable to communicate with the one or more training mechanisms (see paragraph 179).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Jackson reference with the feature of one or more training mechanisms and the badge being operable to communicate with the one or more training mechanisms, as taught by the Peters reference, in order to provide a realistic training environment (see paragraph 6).
Claims 2 and 20: The Jackson reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more training mechanisms include one or more VR systems, one or more training kiosks, and/or one or more training stations.
However, the Peters reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more training mechanisms include one or more VR systems, one or more training kiosks, and/or one or more training stations (see paragraph 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Jackson reference with the feature of wherein the one or more training mechanisms include one or more VR systems, one or more training kiosks, and/or one or more training stations, as taught by the Peters reference, in order to provide a realistic training environment (see paragraph 6).
Claim 3: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of wherein the badge is operable to communicate with an entry structure for the area of the jobsite such that the entry structure prevents passage of the employee into the area (see paragraph 23)
Claim 4: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of wherein the badge is operable to communicate with a control system that is operable to control the access of the employee throughout the jobsite (see paragraph 98).
Claim 5: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of wherein the control system is operable to provide task information to the badge, wherein the task information includes tasks that the employee is approved to perform and is prohibited from performing (see paragraph 126).
Claim 6: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of wherein the badge is operable to unlock a second training program for the employee based on the progress(see paragraph 115).
Claim 7: The Jackson refrence provides a teaching of wherein the badge, based on the progress of the training program, is operable to provide access to the one or more training mechanisms (see paragraph 42).
Claim 8: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of wherein the training program is based on one or more sources of a suite of data sources such that the training program is tailored to the jobsite (see paragraph 77).
Claim 9: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of wherein the badge is operable to receive project data regarding a project for the employee (see paragraph 83).
Claim 10: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of wherein the training program for the employee is determined based on the project data (see paragraph 83).
Claim 11: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of wherein the badge is operable to track attendance, location, and/or safety of the employee (see paragraph 40).
Claim 12: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of wherein the badge is operable to transmit credentials of the employee to the one or more training mechanisms (see paragraph 36).
Claim 13: The Jackson refeference provides a teaching wherein the training program is customized based on the credentials of the employee (see paragraph 83).
Claim 14: The Jackson reference provides teaching of further comprising one or more additional badges, each of the one or more additional badges operable to be registered with corresponding one or more additional employees, wherein the one or more additional badges are operable to transmit credentials of the one or more additional employees and the badge is operable to transmit credentials of the employee to the one or more training mechanisms (see paragraph 88 and 90)
Claim 15: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of wherein the training program is customized based on a combination of the credentials of the employee and the credentials of the one or more additional employees (see paragraph 92).
Claim 16: The Jackson reference provide a teaching of amethod comprising:
providing, via, a training program to an employee (see paragraph 83);
transmitting, to a badge registered with the employee, progress of the employee for the training program; and
controlling access of the employee into an area of a jobsite based on the progress of the employee for the training program ((see paragraph 23).
The Jakson reference is silent on the teaching of one or more training mechanisms. However, the Peters reference provides a teaching of one or more training mechanisms (see paragraph 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Jackson reference with the feature of one or more training mechanisms, as taught by the Peters reference, in order to provide a realistic training environment (see paragraph 6).
Claim 17: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of unlocking a second training program for the employee based on the progress (see paragraph 115).
Claim 18: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of transmitting, from the badge, credentials of the employee to the one or more training mechanisms, wherein the training program is customized based on the credentials of the employee ((see paragraph 83).
Claim 19: The Jackson reference provides a teaching of communicating, by the badge, with a control system that is operable to control the access of the employee throughout the jobsite (see paragraph 98); and providing, by the control system, task information to the badge, wherein the task information includes tasks that the employee is approved to perform and is prohibited from performing (see paragraph 126)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights