Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-19, 22, and 23 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 3, 8, 10, 13, 20, 21, and 24-27 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 17, 18, and 22 are amended.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-19, 22, and 23 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed April 1, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections of the claims as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, the rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 101 rejections of the claims as directed to an abstract idea, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, under Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant asserts the claims recite more than exchanging data and performing mental steps. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the claims explicitly recite requesting vendor services which is a commercial or legal interaction and as such, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Second, similarly, Applicant asserts the claims recite more than collecting and comparing information. Again, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the claims explicitly recite requesting vendor services which is a commercial or legal interaction and as such, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Third, Applicant asserts the claims reflect an improvement in authentication, encryption and system update processes. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see pg. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, it is not clear how the present claims improve authentication, encryption or system update processes (e.g., it is not clear how the present claims are advantageous over existing systems).
Fourth, Applicant asserts the claimed subject matter is not an economic or human process. Again, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the claims explicitly recite requesting vendor services which is a commercial or legal interaction and as such, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Fifth, under Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant asserts the claims reflect an improvement because claims provide a solution to the risk of unvalidated vendor services. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because showing an improvement involves showing a technical solution to a technical problem, see MPEP 2106.05(a). A risk of unvalidated vendor services is not a technical problem, it is a business or legal problem (e.g., preventing fraudulent activities).
Sixth, Applicant asserts the claims improve efficiency and reduce duplication of services because the claims recite verifying prior to activating vendor services. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see pg. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, it is not clear how verifying prior to activating vendor services improve efficiency and reduce duplication of services (e.g., it is not clear why verifying vendors would improve the functioning of a computer).
Seventh, under Step 2B, Applicant asserts the claims reflect an improvement in preventing unauthorized vendor services. Again, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because showing an improvement involves showing a technical solution to a technical problem, see MPEP 2106.05(a). A risk of unvalidated vendor services is not a technical problem, it is a business or legal problem (e.g., preventing fraudulent activities).
Eighth, Applicant asserts the claims reduce the number of manual steps needed to manage vendor integrations. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not provide a sufficient inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)). That is, automating manual activities does not reflect a practical application.
Accordingly the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 102 and 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn because the cited references do not teach all the newly amended limitations. Please see below for the new 103 rejections of the claims as amended.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Additionally, please note, while Applicant does not explicitly request their withdrawal, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification and claims.
The objection to the abstract is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the abstract.
The claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 112(b) rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
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, 4-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first 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). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-17, 22 and 23 are directed to a machine; and claims 18 and 19 are directed to a process. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claim 1
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…a) at least one learning management system having a learning management processor and a learning management memory operatively coupled thereto, wherein at least one learning management service or at least one extensible integration module are programmatically providable by the learning management processor, each extensible integration module comprising:
i) a predefined vendor services interface configured for requesting vendor services from at least one vendor system, the predefined vendor services interface comprising at least one vendor services definition, and
ii) a vendor configuration upload component configured for receiving vendor configuration settings about the at least one vendor system;
b) the at least one vendor system having a vendor processor and a vendor memory operatively coupled thereto, said vendor processor programmed for providing one or more vendor services, at least one of said one or more vendor services providing the at least one of said vendor service definition and at least one vendor integration module, each vendor integration module comprising the predefined vendor services interface and the vendor configuration settings, wherein the vendor configuration settings comprises at least one of vendor location information, communication security information, and authentication information; and
c) wherein the extensible integration module is configurable based on least on one or more settings of the learning management system and one of the vendor configuration settings and wherein the learning management system may request the at least one of said vendor services based on the extensible integration module,
wherein the vendor configuration upload component is configured to verify one or more of the vendor configuration settings prior to activating the at least one of said vendor services, and
wherein, in response to receiving the vendor configuration settings for the at least one vendor system, the learning management processor is configured to update the extensible integration module to enable a secure communication protocol between the at least one vendor system and the at least one learning management system.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions. These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions because these limitations essentially encompass requesting services from vendors, verifying the vendors, and receiving the services (i.e., hiring verified vendors). Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity”. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements in the limitations (emphasized):
…a) at least one learning management system having a learning management processor and a learning management memory operatively coupled thereto, wherein at least one learning management service or at least one extensible integration module are programmatically providable by the learning management processor, each extensible integration module comprising:
i) a predefined vendor services interface configured for requesting vendor services from at least one vendor system, the predefined vendor services interface comprising at least one vendor services definition, and
ii) a vendor configuration upload component configured for receiving vendor configuration settings about the at least one vendor system; and
b) the at least one vendor system having a vendor processor and a vendor memory operatively coupled thereto, said vendor processor programmed for providing one or more vendor services, at least one of said one or more vendor services providing the at least one of said vendor service definition and at least one vendor integration module, each vendor integration module comprising the predefined vendor services interface and the vendor configuration settings, wherein the vendor configuration settings comprises at least one of vendor location information, communication security information, and authentication information; and;
c) wherein the extensible integration module is configurable based on least on one or more settings of the learning management system and one of the vendor configuration settings and wherein the learning management system may request the at least one of said vendor services based on the extensible integration module,
wherein the vendor configuration upload component is configured to verify one or more of the vendor configuration settings prior to activating the at least one of said vendor services, and
wherein, in response to receiving the vendor configuration settings for the at least one vendor system, the learning management processor is configured to update the extensible integration module to enable a secure communication protocol between the at least one vendor system and the at least one learning management system.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the learning management system and processor, the predefined vendor services interface, the vendor system, the vendor configuration upload component, and the vendor integration module, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as two generic computer systems in communication with one another) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Second, the additional elements of the configurable extensible integration module, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (extensible programming) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the additional elements of enabling a secure communication, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (security protocols) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Claim 1 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use or technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and a general link to a field of use or technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 18
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 18 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…a) providing at least one learning management system and at least one vendor system and
b) providing at least one extensible integration module comprising a predefined vendor services interface configured for requesting vendor services from the at least one vendor system, the predefined vendor services interface having at least one vendor services definition and a vendor configuration upload component for receiving vendor configuration settings from the at least one vendor system, wherein the extensible integration module is configurable based at least on one or more settings of the learning management system and one of the vendor configuration settings of the vendor system, wherein the vendor configuration settings comprises at least one of vendor location information, communication security information, and authentication information and;
c) requesting, by the learning management system, the at least one of said vendor services from the at least one vendor system based on the extensible integration module,
wherein the vendor configuration upload component is configured to verify one or more of the vendor configuration settings prior to activating the at least one of said vendor services, and
wherein, in response to receiving the vendor configuration settings for the at least one vendor system, updating the extensible integration module to enable a secure communication protocol between the at least one vendor system and the at least one learning management system.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions. These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions because these limitations essentially encompass requesting services from vendors and verifying the vendors (i.e., hiring verified vendors). Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity”. Claim 18 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 18 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 18 recites additional elements in the limitations (emphasized):
…a) providing at least one learning management system and at least one vendor system and
b) providing at least one extensible integration module comprising a predefined vendor services interface configured for requesting vendor services from the at least one vendor system, the predefined vendor services interface having at least one vendor services definition and a vendor configuration upload component for receiving vendor configuration settings from the at least one vendor system, wherein the extensible integration module is configurable based at least on one or more settings of the learning management system and one of the vendor configuration settings of the vendor system and;
c) requesting, by the learning management system, the at least one of said vendor services from the at least one vendor system based on the extensible integration module,
wherein the vendor configuration upload component is configured to verify one or more of the vendor configuration settings prior to activating the at least one of said vendor services, and
wherein, in response to receiving the vendor configuration settings for the at least one vendor system, updating the extensible integration module to enable a secure communication protocol between the at least one vendor system and the at least one learning management system.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the learning management system, the vendor system, the predefined vendor services interface, and the vendor configuration upload component, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as two generic computer systems in communication with one another) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Second, the additional elements of the configurable extensible integration module, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (extensible programming) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the additional elements of enabling a secure communication, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (security protocols) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Claim 18 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use or technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and a general link to a field of use or technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 22
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 22 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 22 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
A tangible non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions which, when executed on a computing device, cause the computing device to:
a) at least one learning management service; and
b) provide at least one extensible integration module comprising a predefined vendor services interface configured for requesting vendor services from the at least one vendor system, the predefined vendor services interface, the predefine vendor services interface having at least one vendor services definition and a vendor configuration upload component for receiving vendor configuration settings from at least one vendor system, wherein the vendor configuration settings comprises at least one of vendor location information, communication security information, and authentication information,
wherein the vendor configuration upload component is configured to verify one or more of the vendor configuration settings prior to activating the at least one of said vendor services, and
wherein, in response to receiving the vendor configuration settings for the at least one vendor system, updating the extensible integration module to enable a secure communication protocol between the at least one vendor system and the learning management service.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions. These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions because these limitations essentially encompass requesting services from vendors and verifying the vendors (i.e., hiring verified vendors). Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity”. Claim 22 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 22 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 22 recites additional elements in the limitations (emphasized):
A tangible non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions which, when executed on a computing device, cause the computing device to:
a) at least one learning management service; and
b) provide at least one extensible integration module comprising a predefined vendor services interface configured for requesting vendor services from the at least one vendor system, the predefined vendor services interface, the predefine vendor services interface having at least one vendor services definition and a vendor configuration upload component for receiving vendor configuration settings from at least one vendor system, wherein the vendor configuration settings comprises at least one of vendor location information, communication security information, and authentication information,
wherein the vendor configuration upload component is configured to verify one or more of the vendor configuration settings prior to activating the at least one of said vendor services, and
wherein, in response to receiving the vendor configuration settings for the at least one vendor system, updating the extensible integration module to enable a secure communication protocol between the at least one vendor system and the learning management service.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the computer readable medium and instructions, the learning management system, the predefined vendor services interface, the vendor system, and the vendor configuration upload component, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as two generic computer systems in communication with one another) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Second, the additional elements of the extensible integration module, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (extensible programming) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the additional elements of enabling a secure communication, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (security protocols) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 22 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Claim 22 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use or technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and a general link to a field of use or technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claims 2 and 4 recite the additional elements of a predefined learning management services interface. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic interface) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 6 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because requesting vendor services and receiving requests is a part of the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 9 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because vendor services being integrated with the learning management services is a part of the abstract idea (i.e., receiving vendor services involves integrating the received services).
Claim 11 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because not requesting services from a vendor that has not provided configuration settings is a part of hiring vendors (i.e., not using vendors that have not provided all relevant initialization data).
Claims 12, 19, and 23 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because receiving the vendor configuration settings, as claimed, is a part of hiring vendors (i.e., vendors providing all relevant initialization data).
Claim 14 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because using multiple vendors is part of hiring vendors.
Claims 15-17 recites the additional elements of software being developed for the vendor or learning management services interfaces. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic software) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-19, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Charlson et al, US Pub. No. 2010/0318657, herein referred to as “Charlson”, in view of Love, US Pub. No. 2008/0052245, herein referred to as “Love”.
Regarding claim 1, Charlson teaches:
at least one learning management system having a learning management processor and a learning management memory operatively coupled thereto (educational provider system includes processor and memory, ¶¶[0055]-[0056] and Fig. 5) ,
wherein at least one learning management service or at least one extensible integration module are programmatically providable by the learning management processor (educational provider system provides extensibility, ¶¶[0012], [0020]; see also e.g. ¶[0023] and Fig. 1 discussing pluggable external service provider)
each extensible integration module comprising: i) a predefined vendor services interface (interface for pluggable external service providers such as, providers for communications, grouping, scoring, social-networking, ¶[0015]),
configured for requesting vendor services from at least one vendor system (receives request for computer services, e.g., ¶¶[0023], [0024] and Figs. 1, 2),
the predefined vendor services interface comprising at least one vendor services definition (external service providers provide services such as communications, grouping, scoring, social-networking, e.g., ¶¶[0015], [0023], [0024])
and ii) a vendor configuration upload component configured for receiving vendor configuration settings about the at least one vendor system (external service providers are added via configuration settings, ¶[0015]);
said vendor processor programmed for providing one or more vendor services (external service providers provide services such as communications, grouping, scoring, social-networking, e.g., ¶¶[0015], [0023], [0024]),
at least one of said one or more vendor services providing the at least one of said vendor service definition and at least one vendor integration module each vendor integration module comprising the predefined vendor services interface and the vendor configuration settings (external service providers provide services, e.g., ¶¶[0015], [0023], [0024]; and service request is reformatted in format required by external service provider, ¶¶[0023], [ 0024] and Figs. 1, 2);
and c) wherein the extensible integration module is configurable based on least on one or more settings of the learning management system and one of the vendor configuration settings (educational provider system provides extensibility, ¶¶[0012], [0020], based on configuration settings, ¶[0015]; see also ¶[0031] discussing configuration)
and wherein the learning management system may request the at least one of said vendor services based on the extensible integration module (requests services, ¶¶[0023], [0024] and Figs. 1, 2).
However Charlson does not teach but Love does teach:
b) the at least one vendor system having a vendor processor and a vendor memory operatively coupled thereto (vendor computer system, e.g., ¶¶[0016], [0017]; see also ¶¶[0106]-[0107] discussing computer processor and memory),
wherein the vendor configuration settings comprises at least one of vendor location information, communication security information, and authentication information (vendor provides validation information (e.g., a public key certificate, an identity certificate, or a digital certificate), ¶¶[0012], [0084]);
wherein the vendor configuration upload component is configured to verify one or more of the vendor configuration settings prior to activating the at least one of said vendor services (determines if certificate is valid, ¶[0084], and does so prior to allowing access or transacting business, e.g., ¶¶[0040], [0049]),
and wherein, in response to receiving the vendor configuration settings for the at least one vendor system, the learning management processor is configured to update the extensible integration module to enable a secure communication protocol between the at least one vendor system and the at least one learning management system (authenticates vendor and secure communication channel proceeds, ¶¶[0012], [0084] and Fig. 7).
Further, it would have been obvious before at the time of filing, to combine the educational provider architecture of Charlson with the authentication process of Love because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Charlson would likely be interested in ensuring the service providers are not fraudulent or otherwise untrustworthy and accordingly would have modified Charlson to verify the service providers, e.g., as taught by Love.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Charlson further teaches:
wherein the extensible integration module further comprises a predefined learning management services interface having at least one learning management services definition (system includes internal services providers, e.g., ¶[0031], [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Charlson further teaches:
wherein the vendor integration module further comprises a corresponding at least one predefined learning management service interface (system includes internal services providers, e.g., ¶[0031], [0036]; see also ¶¶[0038]-[0048] discussing examples of corresponding internal service providers).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Charlson further teaches:
wherein the learning management processor is further programmed for actively requesting the at least one of said vendor services via the extensible integration module (requests services, ¶¶[0023], [0024] and Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and Charlson further teaches:
wherein the at least one extensible integration module is configured to receive one or more requests from the at least one vendor system (reformats request usable by requestor, ¶[0023] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Charlson further teaches:
wherein at least one of said learning management services is integrated with at least one of said vendor services based on the at least one vendor services definition (interface for pluggable external service providers such as, providers for communications, grouping, scoring, social-networking, ¶[0015]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Charlson further teaches:
wherein at least one of said vendor services is integrated with at least one of said learning management services based on the at least one learning management services definition (interface for pluggable external service providers such as, providers for communications, grouping, scoring, social-networking, ¶[0015]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and does not explicitly teach:
wherein the learning management processor is further programmed for not requesting vendor services from the at least one vendor system if the vendor configuration settings for the at least one vendor are not received in the vendor configuration upload component.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, to not request vendor if the vendor configuration settings have not been received because it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of a reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom, see MPEP 2144.01. That is, one of ordinary skill would recognized the system of Charlson would not use vendors that have not been configured (i.e., vendor systems that have not been set up) because the vendor systems likely would not be integrated with the educational provider architecture.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Charlson further teaches:
wherein the at least one vendor configuration settings comprises vendor information for requesting services from the vendor associated with the vendor configuration settings (service request is reformatted in format required by external service provider, ¶¶[0023], [ 0024] and Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Charlson of teaches:
wherein the at least one vendor system comprises a plurality of vendors (system includes various service providers such as communications, grouping, scoring, social-networking, e.g., ¶¶[0015], [0023], [0024]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Charlson further teaches:
wherein software for programming the learning management processor is developed in view of the predefined vendor services interface (system is designed for easy integration,¶[0019]. Further, please note, this limitation does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the system, see MPEP 2103.I.C. That is, the motivation for the software development does not substantially limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intention of creating the system).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Charlson further teaches:
wherein software for programming the vendor processor is developed in view of the predefined learning management services interface (system is designed for easy integration,¶[0019]. Further, please note, this limitation does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the system, see MPEP 2103.I.C. That is, the motivation for the software development does not substantially limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intention of creating the system).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Charlson further teaches:
wherein software to program the processor in the learning management system and the processor in the vendor system are developed independently in view of at least one of the predefined vendor services interface and the predefined learning management services interface (service request must be reformatted twice to communicate between the service provider and the educational provider, ¶[0023] and Fig. 1. Further, please note, this limitation does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the system, see MPEP 2103.I.C. That is, the motivation for the software development does not substantially limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intention of creating the system).
Regarding claim 18, Charlson teaches:
using a processor and a memory operatively coupled thereto comprising the steps of (educational provider system includes processor and memory, ¶¶[0055]-[0056] and Fig. 5):
a) providing at least one learning management system (educational adaptive provider architecture, e.g., Abstract, ¶[0013])
and at least one vendor system (external service providers, ¶¶[0025]-[0026]);
and b) providing at least one extensible integration module (educational provider system provides extensibility, ¶¶[0012], [0020]; see also e.g. ¶[0023] and Fig. 1 discussing pluggable external service provider)
comprising a predefined vendor services interface configured for requesting vendor services from the at least one vendor system (receives request for computer services, e.g., ¶¶[0023], [0024] and Figs. 1, 2),
the predefined vendor services interface having at least one vendor services definition (external service providers provide services such as communications, grouping, scoring, social-networking, e.g., ¶¶[0015], [0023], [0024])
and a vendor configuration upload component for receiving vendor configuration settings from the at least one vendor system (external service providers are added via configuration settings, ¶[0015]),
wherein the extensible integration module is configurable based at least on one or more settings of the learning management system and one of the vendor configuration settings of the vendor system and (educational provider system provides extensibility, ¶¶[0012], [0020], based on configuration settings, ¶[0015]; see also ¶[0031] discussing configuration);
c) requesting, by the learning management system, the at least one of said vendor services from the at least one vendor system based on the extensible integration module (requests services, ¶¶[0023], [0024] and Figs. 1, 2).
However Charlson does not teach but Love does teach:
wherein the vendor configuration settings comprises at least one of vendor location information, communication security information, and authentication information (vendor provides validation information (e.g., a public key certificate, an identity certificate, or a digital certificate), ¶¶[0012], [0084]);
wherein the vendor configuration upload component is configured to verify one or more of the vendor configuration settings prior to activating the at least one of said vendor services (determines if certificate is valid, ¶[0084], and does so prior to allowing access or transacting business, e.g., ¶¶[0040], [0049]),
and wherein, in response to receiving the vendor configuration settings for the at least one vendor system, the learning management processor is configured to update the extensible integration module to enable a secure communication protocol between the at least one vendor system and the at least one learning management system (authenticates vendor and secure communication channel proceeds, ¶¶[0012], [0084] and Fig. 7).
Further, it would have been obvious before at the time of filing, to combine the educational provider architecture of Charlson with the authentication process of Love because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Charlson would likely be interested in ensuring the service providers are not fraudulent or otherwise untrustworthy and accordingly would have modified Charlson to verify the service providers, e.g., as taught by Love.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Charlson and Love teaches all the limitations of claim 18 and Charlson further teaches:
receiving the vendor configuration settings for requesting the at least one vendor service based on the extensible integration module (external service providers provide services, e.g., ¶¶[0015], [0023], [0024]; and service request is reformatted in format required by external service provider, ¶¶[0023], [ 0024] and Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 22, Charlson teaches:
A tangible non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions which, when executed on a computing device, cause the computing device to (educational provider system includes processor and memory, ¶¶[0055]-[0056] and Fig. 5):
a) at least one learning management service (educational adaptive provider architecture, e.g., Abstract, ¶[0013]);
and b) provide at least one extensible integration module (educational provider system provides extensibility, ¶¶[0012], [0020]; see also e.g. ¶[0023] and Fig. 1 discussing pluggable external service provider)
comprising a predefined vendor services interface (interface for pluggable external service providers such as, providers for communications, grouping, scoring, social-networking, ¶[0015]),
configured for requesting vendor services from the at least one vendor system (receives request for computer services, e.g., ¶¶[0023], [0024] and Figs. 1, 2),
the predefined vendor services interface, the predefine vendor services interface having at least one vendor services definition (external service providers provide services such as communications, grouping, scoring, social-networking, e.g., ¶¶[0015], [0023], [0024])
and a vendor configuration upload component for receiving vendor configuration settings from at least one vendor system (external service providers are added via configuration settings, ¶[0015]; see also ¶¶[0025]-[0026] discussing external service providers,).
However Charlson does not teach but Love does teach:
wherein the vendor configuration settings comprises at least one of vendor location information, communication security information, and authentication information (vendor provides validation information (e.g., a public key certificate, an identity certificate, or a digital certificate), ¶¶[0012], [0084]);
wherein the vendor configuration upload component is configured to verify one or more of the vendor configuration settings prior to activating the at least one of said vendor services (determines if certificate is valid, ¶[0084], and does so prior to allowing access or transacting business, e.g., ¶¶[0040], [0049]),
and wherein, in response to receiving the vendor configuration settings for the at least one vendor system, the learning management processor is configured to update the extensible integration module to enable a secure communication protocol between the at least one vendor system and the at least one learning management system (authenticates vendor and secure communication channel proceeds, ¶¶[0012], [0084] and Fig. 7).
Further, it would have been obvious before at the time of filing, to combine the educational provider architecture of Charlson with the authentication process of Love because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Charlson would likely be interested i