DETAILED ACTION
Status of claims
In response to applicant’s amendment filed 12/8/2025, claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12-18, and 20-28, are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12-18, and 20-28, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Packard et al. (US 2011/0039249) in view of Hamadani et al. (US 2019/0318659) and Angelone (US 2014/0220535).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 16, and 27-28, Packard discloses a GUI course generation component of an educational system, wherein a user can build a course from a plurality of discrete portions, and use various parameters to define a pathway corresponding to the plurality of discrete portions, wherein the portions are chosen from among a plurality of candidate portions. See paragraphs 0006, 0028-0029 and 0032-0033.
Packard discloses wherein the discrete portions can be a series of screens. See paragraph 0029 (e.g., pictures, videos, etc.).
Packard does not limit the educational topics, but nevertheless does not explicitly disclose wherein the screens pertain to introductions, pre-lab, lab, and post-lab educational schemes, or configure a simulated lab environment for conducting an interactive experiment. However, such schemes are established, as is disclosed by the teaching system of Hanadani in paragraph 0023. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Packard system, in order to teach various topics.
Packard does not disclose wherein the system provides candidate pathways (i.e. screens) for each discrete portion in a dynamic fashion. However, this is established with regard to educational systems, as is established by the system of Angelone in paragraph 0036 (the dynamic selection from among a set of candidate pathways based upon user performance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Packard system, in order to provide various scenarios.
Packard does not disclose wherein the system receives alteration to the content from the user device, and dynamically alters the course content based on the alteration, and transmits the altered content to the user. However this scheme is established, as is disclosed by Hamadani in paragraphs 0023-0024 and fig. 4 (note the simulated lab bench and manipulatable items as per claims 27-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Packard system, in order to provide various scenarios.
Regarding claim 17, Packard discloses adding educational components to the screens in paragraph 0041. The use of laboratory topics would be obvious as described above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 18, Packard discloses multiple pathways through the screens in paragraph 0038. The use of laboratory topics for the screens would be obvious as described above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claims 4, Packard discloses a first path to direct user navigation through the content. See paragraph 0036.
Regarding claim 6, Packard discloses wherein the user can set parameters to define user privileges through the set of pathways. See paragraph 0046.
Regarding claim 9, Packard discloses wherein the educational components can comprise videos in paragraph 0029, which would presumably be about the educational subject (e.g. a recreation of the environment).
Regarding claim 13, Packard discloses wherein the user (course author) can select a pathway type for various pathways. See paragraph 0033 (e.g. the citation describes a pathway type for a ‘visual learner’). The use of laboratory topics for the pathways would be obvious as described above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claims 14, and 20, Packard discloses wherein a teacher has privileges to monitor the progress state of the learner. See paragraph 0047.
Regarding claim 15, Packard discloses wherein the courses can be altered, and wherein the teacher user can monitor the students progress. See paragraph 0047.
Regarding claims 21-23, Packard does not disclose transmitting a current state of the content to the user, or receiving from the user an alteration to the content, such as remedial changes. However, these concepts are all established with regard to education systems, as is disclosed by Angelone in paragraph 0032. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Packard system, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Regarding claims 24-26, Packard does not disclose wherein the pathways are based upon condition parameters and corresponding actions based upon user responses, nor wherein the content comprises multiple screens. However, these concepts are established by Angelone, as described in paragraph 0032 and fig. 2C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Packard system, in order to provide various tailored experiences.
Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments dated 12/8/2025 have been fully considered. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn, as a computer simulated lab environment as claimed would render the rejection moot. Further arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached on 571-570-7625. 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.
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights