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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed on August 4, 2026, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges
the amendments to claims 1, 3, 12, 14, and 20 and the cancellation of claims 2, and 13.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant presents the argument questioning integrating the judicial exception into the invention or simply reciting the exception without significantly more.
Examination revealed the recitation of abstract ideas and organizing human activity throughout the claims. Given this determination, the presence of a practical application was evaluated.
The Examiner notes arguments for the integration of the exception(s) into a practical application based on computer-implemented operations resulting in generating and routing instructions for an employee or employees. In this case, the instructions are provided to the worker via an interface for the human to receive and take action. Similar to computer generated plans, schedules, or directions, the invention relies on the worker to execute the directions provided. Situationally, updates may be provided, but the output remains information provided to the worker to execute. There is no indication of integration with another machine functioning in the technology area, no direct control of execution, no improvement to the functioning of a processor, and employment of a machine learning model appears to be peripheral or anecdotal and not disclosing a training mechanism. The additional elements appear to be network and system components supporting development of instructions for workers.
The Examiner concludes that the invention exemplifies the equivalent of “apply it,” as described above, and fails to meet the requirements for a practical application. The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s argues that the amendments to the independent claims, 1, 12, and 20, overcome previous rejections. Arguments dispute prior art teaching time and location data associated with a corresponding sub-area, or hierarchical data in layers with each layer associated with an assigned manifest. After review, the Examiner agrees, finding the arguments compelling and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will be withdrawn. Rejections to the dependent claims, because of their inherent dependency on the independent claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are also withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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, 3-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims 1, 3-12, 14-20, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1, 3-12, 14-20 are directed to a process (method), and machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-20, are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of dynamically developing training instructions for an employee or employees.
Claim 20 discloses a method for generating employee training instructions, the method comprising:
obtaining a set of inputs, wherein the set of inputs comprises geometry identifiers (locations) and time identifiers; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
obtaining a set of additional inputs, the set of additional inputs comprising a set of target areas, each target area comprising a plurality of sub-areas; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
generating one or more workflows for each of the plurality of sub-areas, each
workflow of the one or more workflows comprises attributes comprising time data and location data associated with a corresponding sub-area; wherein the attributes of each workflow comprises a set of hierarchical data, the hierarchical data including a plurality of layers, wherein each layer is associated with one or more assigned manifests for the corresponding sub-area; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
generating, for each workflow, filtering criteria, having the attributes; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
filtering, for each workflow, the set of inputs based on the filtering criteria by
filtering the geometry identifiers and the time identifiers of the plurality of computing devices based on the time data and the location data of the criteria such that each sub-area is associated with one or more workflows, each workflow of the one or more workflows associated with identifications of workers corresponding to the filtered set of inputs; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
generating, for each workflow, one or more training instructions by obtaining a
set of manifests associated with each workflow and
sending for each workflow, the generated training instructions associated with each workflow to one or more workers having the identifications associated with each workflow, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method where location data includes patrol areas, where a top level is a master plan for patrolling patrol areas, each area having a plurality of posts, where a lower level is a patrolling plan of each post, and includes the number of demanded employees and time duration for the post, (organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 3), where attributes of the workflow include duty and skills of the employee to perform the master plan, (organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 4), updating the workflow based on observations or data, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 5), creating a training set from the workflows, the data, and the updated workflows, (organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 6), generating training instructions from the training set, (organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 7), generating training scenarios by modifying scenario data, (organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 9), verifying the identity of the worker, (organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 10), and receiving updates on the instructions from the worker by verifying the update, (organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 11), where instructions are sent to employees preassigned to each workflow, organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 19).
Each of these claimed limitations involve organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, and employ mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claims 12, 14-18 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-11 and 19.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1, 3-12,14-20 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1, 3-12,14-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as dynamically generating, network-based services, from a plurality of computing devices, a database, computing devices, database is configured to store a plurality of workflows and sets of manifests associated with each workflow, computing devices transmitting, memory, a machine learning component, a neural network model, sensors, temperature sensors, object detection sensors, gas sensors, image sensors, and radar sensors, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-12,14-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 3-12,14-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1, 3-12,14-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims 3-11, and 14-19 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, 12, and 20.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Stone (US 20210304048 A1) “System and Method for Organic Cognitive Response (OCR) Feedback for Adaptive Work Instructions,” Brebner, (US 20200005523 A1), “Generative Content System that Supports Location-Base Services and Methods Threrefor,” and Nixon, (US 20140282257 A1), “Generating Checklists in a Process Control Environment.” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding claim 1, Stone teaches, A system for dynamically generating employee training instructions in network-based services, (fuzzy logic process on multiple inputs to provide instructions to a worker), [ ] generating for each workflow filtered criteria (results and findings) but falls short of the invention’s time data and the location data of the criteria such that each sub-area is associated with one or more workflows, and hierarchical data including a plurality of layers, wherein each layer is associated with one or more assigned manifests for the corresponding sub-area. Brebner and Nixon similarly fail to teach these aspects. These individually or in combination did not teach the complete scope of the claim.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822, and email is michael.borowski@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor, can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights