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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on December 2, 2025 for the patent application 17/708,676 originally filled on March 30, 2022. Claims 1-11, 13-18, 21, and 22 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are amended. Claims 12, 20, and 23 are canceled. The first office action of August 5, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this final action.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 16, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated over Stuckey (Document ID US 20220013025 A1; 2022-01-13) in view of Gauglitz et al. (Document ID WO 2020242590 A1; 2020-12-03) and Nguyen et al. (Document ID US 20050191605 A1; 2005-09-01).
Regarding claim 1, Stuckey teaches:
A training system with personalized, effective, asynchronous, and remote feedback, the system comprising:
a. a student module (Para. [0059] and fig. 1, show a trainee, i.e. student, computing device 102a; para. [0063]-[0064] and fig. 3-4, further show a trainee interface that operates with the trainee computing device, i.e. a student module);
b. storage module (Para. [0061] and fig. 1, memory component 144b, i.e. a storage module);
c. a control module (Para. [0061] and fig. 1, show a remote computing device 104, i.e. a control module);
d. administrator module (Para. [0059] and fig. 1, show an administrator, i.e. student, computing device 102c; para. [0071] and fig. 9, further show an administrative interface that operates with the administrator computing device, i.e. an administrator module); and
e. evaluator or teacher module (Para. [0059] and fig. 1, show a trainer, i.e. teacher, computing device 102b; para. [0068] and fig. 6, further show a trainer interface that operates with the trainer computing device, i.e. an evaluator/teacher module).
comprising a video editing interface, wherein the video editing interface comprises tools to evaluate a performance by at least one student of a first training program (Para. [0090]-[0091] and fig. 7a-7b, show that the trainer interface allows for the instructor to overlay feedback/comments on top of the trainee’s submitted video, i.e. a video editing interface), and wherein the tools comprise a video function (Para. [0091], shows that the comments may comprise video and audio), a text function, a graphics function, a voice recording function (Para. [0075], further shows that the comments, which comprise audio, may be recorded), use of comparison patterns with discrete or continuous variables created in the control module (Para. [0030]-[0031], shows that the content of the user’s video may be analyzed for certain patterns of movement and may be provided with a scale score, i.e. a discrete variable), video libraries (Para. [0090] and fig. 17b item 1748, show that the trainer can select from a preexisting set, i.e. library, of videos), creation of favorite comment libraries (Para. [0035], shows that feedback items may be tagged, i.e. favorited, and saved to a media library, i.e. a library of favorited comments), video sharing functions (Para. [0092] and fig. 18, show that the trainer’s comments are made accessible, i.e. shared to the trainee), comments of multiple collaborative evaluators, editing tools (Para. [0056] and [0074], shows that the system may allow for a multitude of editing tools), creation of stickers, and gamification elements in educational environments (Para. [0033], further shows that the system may be evaluating a user engaged with a serious game with the purpose of developing a skill, i.e. gamification elements in and educational environment),
wherein the evaluator or teacher module is configured to provide asynchronous review of the performance of the at least one student of the first training program by uploading of commented records with feedback, timestamps, and evaluations by at least one evaluator through use of one or more of the tools (Para. [0075]-[0078] shows that the trainer’s user interface, i.e. an evaluators module, may be used to review and evaluate a video that a student has recorded and submitted, i.e. asynchronous review, via the addition of comments to the user’s video, i.e. commented records, in order to provide feedback; Para. [0036] and [0050] further shows that particular points in the timeline of the performance area may be marked, i.e. utilization of timestamps), and
Stuckey fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the tools comprise a text function, a graphics function, comments of multiple collaborative evaluators, creation of stickers,
wherein the training system is configured to permit the at least one student to advance to a second training program if the at least one student passes the first training program.
Gauglitz et al. teaches:
wherein the tools (Abstract, shows that this art teaches various tool for creating/editing video content referred to as “stories”) comprise a text function (Para. [0039], shows that text notations may be added to videos), a graphics function (Para. [0039], shows that graphics may be added to videos), comments of multiple collaborative evaluators (Para. [0010], shows that multiple users may be collaboratively edit the videos), creation of stickers (Para. [0005], [0039],and [0046] shows that graphic overlays, i.e. stickers, may be added to videos),
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Gauglitz et al., regarding the utilization of various video editing tools, to the similar device of Stuckey, an assessment platform that relies off of video editing to provide students with feedback, to yield the predictable result of producing an assessment platform that is capable of giving a student in-depth feedback. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Gauglitz et al. with the similar device of Stuckey as of features such as graphic overlays and stickers would allow evaluators to modify the students video directly as opposed to simply adding in clips of their own. Furthermore, utilizing features such as collaborative video editing would allow multiple instructors, or perhaps and instructors and various TAs, the provide feedback to the same student in a single cohesive video.
Nguyen et al. teaches:
Gamification elements in educational environments (Para. [0010], [0018], [0033], and [0077], all demonstrate a gamification approach to a training system).
wherein the training system is configured to permit the at least one student to advance to a second training program if the at least one student passes the first training program (Para. [0057] and fig. 11, show that a student can’t move to a new problem/exercise until the prior exercise is completed properly, i.e. the student passes the exercise; Para. [0059]-[0060], further show that the overall student progress is used to access higher difficulty problems).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Nguyen et al., regarding gamification, to the similar device of Stuckey, an assessment platform, to yield the predictable result of producing an assessment platform that is more engaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Nguyen et al. with the similar device of Stuckey as the utilization of gamification would help users remain engaged with the program as this would provide a point reward structure (Nguyen et al., abstract and para. [0018]). Furthermore, it would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Nguyen et al, regarding the iteration of a user through similar exercises until the user gains enough skill for more difficult exercises, to the similar device of Stuckey, an assessment platform, to yield the predictable result of producing an assessment platform better equipped to gauge user’s skill level. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Nguyen et al. with the similar device of Stuckey as the utilization of this methodology would ensure that users have the appropriate skill level in basic topics before moving onto more advanced topics.
Regarding claim 2, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the administrator module is configured to interact with at least one administrator, the student module is configured to interact with the at least one student, and the evaluator or teacher module is configured to interact with the at least one evaluator (Para. [0059]-[0061] and fig. 1, all show computing devices of the system for administrators, trainees, and trainers, i.e. evaluators, which would allow administrators, students, or evaluators to interact with the system; this claim only provides an intended use, i.e. it defines how the system is to be interacted with by administrators, students, or evaluators as opposed to a limitation of the system).
Regarding claim 4, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 2, wherein the student module is configured to select the first training or program (Para. [0079]-[0082] and fig. 15, show that an assignment user interfaces 1430 and 1530 allow a student to select a particular assignment, i.e. a training/exercise program, that has associated tasks for the user to complete), and wherein the student module or the administrator module is configured to make a recording, the recording comprising a performance of a procedure or skill of the at least one student according to the first selected training program, and wherein the recording includes at least one video, and optionally information from sensors (Para. [0086]-[0087], further show that as part of training a student may need to record themselves performing a mock interview, i.e. the performance of a skill according to a selected assignment, in a video format).
Regarding claim 6, Stuckey further teaches:
The training system according to claim 4, wherein the training syste7
is configured to process the recording for motion pattern recognition and evaluation (Para. [0039]-[0040] and [0044], show that analysis/evaluation of human motion may be used on collected data).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuckey (Document ID US 20220013025 A1; 2022-01-13) in further view of Nguyen et al. (Document ID US 20050191605 A1; 2005-09-01).
Regarding claim 14, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the student module comprise:
a. devices for training session recording (Para. [0063]-[0064] and fig. 3, show that the trainee interface, i.e. student module, contains webcam and screen share options, i.e. devices for recording the training session);
b. devices connecting to the storage module (Para. [0058]-[0059], show that the trainee computing device 102a is connected to the memory component 140, i.e. storage component );
c. an information deployment device (Para. [0058]-[0059], show that information functionality is deployed to the trainee through trainee computing device 102a, i.e. an information deployment device);
d. theoretical assessment modules (Para. [0087], shows that students have interfaces for the user to self-evaluate submissions, i.e. a theoretical assessment module, as well as a system in place for the student to receive feedback on submissions from an evaluator, i.e. another theoretical assessment module); and e. a gamification approach to training (Para. [0033], further shows that the system may be evaluating a user engaged with a serious game with the purpose of developing a skill, i.e. gamification elements in and educational environment).
Nguyen teaches:
A gamification approach to training (Para. [0010], [0018], [0033], and [0077], all demonstrate a gamification approach to a training system).
Regarding claim 15, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the student module is configured to be installed on mobile devices with video recording and viewing capabilities, and wherein the student module comprises a screen interface for navigating throughout course content (Para. [0059], shows that the trainee computing device may take the form of a mobile device with recording and display capabilities; Para. [0062] and Figs. 2-3, further show examples of screen interfaces for the trainee and some navigational tools for curriculum activities, i.e. course content).
Regarding claim 16, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the control module corresponds to a computer that performs all the necessary actions for the training system to work, (Para. [0061] and [0095], shows that remote computing device 104 may store the content logic and processing hardware to enact the various methods of the system) and is communicatively coupled to mobile devices and the storage module (Para. [0059]-[0061] and fig. 1, show that the device is commutatively coupled to devices 102, which may be mobile devices, and memory component 140).
Regarding claim 20, Stuckey teaches
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the modules or devices requires a specific configuration of the hardware, memory interactions, or processing power (Para. [0058]-[0061], para. [0095]-[0104], fig. 1, and fig. 2, show a specific configuration of hardware and memory interactions), thus allowing faster responsiveness of the system, and therefore providing a smooth experience in the interaction between either teacher(s) or pupil(s) (Para. [0062], describes a rapid review feedback tool component 210, i.e. a faster responsiveness of the system when providing instructor’s feedback).
Regarding claim 21, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluator or teacher module comprises: devices connecting to the storage module(Fig. 1, shows that trainer computing device 102b, i.e. devices, are connected to the memory component 140 of remote computing device 104); a display interface (Figs. 6 and 17b, show examples of trainer user interfaces; Para. [0059], further denotes that the trainer computing device 102b may take the form of a tablet or computer, i.e. device with a display interface); and logging devices (Para. [0059], shows that the trainer computing device 102b may include a camera, i.e. a device the logs movement or a logging device).
Regarding claim 22, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluator or teacher module includes a visualization interface configured to allow the at least one evaluator to design a personalized exercise session, selecting from a variety of options, including, but not limited to, a prescription of categorized video files stored in the storage module that show demonstrative movements (Para. [0086], shows that for mock interviews the trainee may include specifically chosen recordings, i.e. prescription of video files, or interview questions, i.e. a personalized exercise session; Para. [0035]-[0037], shows that an instructor’s feedback can incorporate personalized comments; Para. [0078], shows that videos that demonstrate proper movements can be added in feedback; Para. [0095], shows that remote computing device 104, may store video content in data storage component 2036, i.e. a storage module).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuckey (Document ID US 20220013025 A1; 2022-01-13) in view of Gauglitz et al. (Document ID WO 2020242590 A1; 2020-12-03) and Nguyen et al. (Document ID US 20050191605 A1; 2005-09-01) in further view of Sirhall (Document ID US 20020178212 A1; 2002-11-28).
Regarding claim 3, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 2, wherein the administrator module is configured to permit the at least one administrator to (Para. [0038] and Para. [0062], shows that various features may be provided to any user type and that administrators can view, edit, and create various functionalities) creates course, upload tutorials (Para. [0078], shows that examples for what a proper interview looks like may be provided to a trainee,), video-feedback, or capsules of common mistakes (Para. [0068] and [0087], shows that trainer interface’s content video option 632 and feedback option 636 allow for the uploading of video-feedback to a trainee’s submission; Para. [0087], further shows that the trainer may create template comments for comments that are most often used, i.e. video-feedback of common mistakes), assign evaluation guidelines (Para. [0042], shows that “good” and “bad” interview behaviors can be determined, i.e. evaluation guidelines; Para. [0030]-[0031], additionally shows that the instructor can attach a scoring metric to a user to track trainee progress based on a variety of factors), and enroll at least on evaluator and the at least one student to a specific center or institution (Para. [0071]-[0072], show that the administrative interface allows for the movement and addition of trainers and trainees to different schools and districts, i.e. a specific center or institution).
Stuckey fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the administrator module is configured to permit the at least one administrator to create courses.
Sirhall teaches:
wherein the administrator module is configured to permit the at least one administrator to create courses (Para. [0015]).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Sirhall, regarding course creation, to the similar device of Stuckey, an assessment platform that utilizes trainer, administrator, and teacher user types, to yield the predictable result of producing a number of different courses. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Sirhall with the similar device of Stuckey as the utilization of course creation would allow student to take a plethora of different courses.
Regarding claim 17, Stucky teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the administrator module is configured to add and distribute evaluators (Para [0047], shows that the system allow for the mass creation, distribution and management of user accounts, which includes teacher accounts; Para. [0071], further shows that administrators can add teachers to the various staff member lists for different organizations/districts), allow teaching users to design personalized courses and exercises, with multiple evaluation guidelines (Para. [0042], shows that “good” and “bad” interview behaviors can be determined, i.e. evaluation guidelines; Para. [0030]-[0031], additionally shows that the instructor can attach a scoring metric to a user to track trainee progress based on a variety of factors), and to evaluate the performance of students (Para. [0042], further shows that the trainees are evaluated based on performance; Para. [0062], further shows that performance data may be stored in component 212 and that this component may be viewed and edited by an administrator).
Stucky does not explicitly teach:
Wherein he administrator module is configured to allow the at least one evaluator to design personalized courses and exercises.
Sirhall teaches:
Wherein he administrator module is configured to allow the at least one evaluator to design personalized courses and exercises (Para. [0015]).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuckey (Document ID US 20220013025 A1; 2022-01-13) in view of Gauglitz et al. (Document ID WO 2020242590 A1; 2020-12-03) and Nguyen et al. (Document ID US 20050191605 A1; 2005-09-01) in further view of Smolover (Document ID US 20030036046 A1; 2003-02-20).
Regarding claim 3, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 2, wherein the administrator module is configured to permit the at least one administrator to (Para. [0038] and Para. [0062], shows that various features may be provided to any user type and that administrators can view, edit, and create various functionalities) creates course, upload tutorials (Para. [0078], shows that examples for what a proper interview looks like may be provided to a trainee,), video-feedback, or capsules of common mistakes (Para. [0068] and [0087], shows that trainer interface’s content video option 632 and feedback option 636 allow for the uploading of video-feedback to a trainee’s submission; Para. [0087], further shows that the trainer may create template comments for comments that are most often used, i.e. video-feedback of common mistakes), assign evaluation guidelines (Para. [0042], shows that “good” and “bad” interview behaviors can be determined, i.e. evaluation guidelines; Para. [0030]-[0031], additionally shows that the instructor can attach a scoring metric to a user to track trainee progress based on a variety of factors), and enroll at least on evaluator and the at least one student to a specific center or institution (Para. [0071]-[0072], show that the administrative interface allows for the movement and addition of trainers and trainees to different schools and districts, i.e. a specific center or institution).
Stuckey fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the administrator module is configured to permit the at least one administrator to create courses.
Smolover teaches:
wherein the administrator module is configured to permit the at least one administrator to create courses (Para. [0039], [0136] and fig. 11, show that the teacher creates lesson tracks, i.e. courses) and upload tutorials (Para. [0136] and fig. 11, show that the lesson tracks are composed of multiple lessons meant to teach the user how to perform a skill, i.e. tutorials).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Smolover, regarding course creation and personalization, to the similar device of Stuckey, an assessment platform that utilizes trainer, administrator, and teacher user types, to yield the predictable result of producing a more personalized assessment platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Smolover with the similar device of Stuckey as the utilization of course creation and personalization would allow for programs that are better suited towards individual trainees or groups of trainees with a specific learning style (Smolover, para. [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Stucky teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the administrator module is configured to add and distribute evaluators (Para [0047], shows that the system allow for the mass creation, distribution and management of user accounts, which includes teacher accounts; Para. [0071], further shows that administrators can add teachers to the various staff member lists for different organizations/districts), allow teaching users to design personalized courses and exercises, with multiple evaluation guidelines (Para. [0042], shows that “good” and “bad” interview behaviors can be determined, i.e. evaluation guidelines; Para. [0030]-[0031], additionally shows that the instructor can attach a scoring metric to a user to track trainee progress based on a variety of factors), and to evaluate the performance of students (Para. [0042], further shows that the trainees are evaluated based on performance; Para. [0062], further shows that performance data may be stored in component 212 and that this component may be viewed and edited by an administrator).
Stucky does not explicitly teach:
Wherein he administrator module is configured to allow the at least one evaluator to design personalized courses and exercises.
Smolover teaches:
Wherein he administrator module is configured to allow the at least one evaluator to design personalized courses and exercises (Para. [0039], shows that the teacher creates lesson tracks, i.e. courses, and that the lesson tracks are composed of multiple lessons, i.e. exercises).
Claims 5, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Stuckey (Document ID US 20220013025 A1; 2022-01-13) in view of Gauglitz et al. (Document ID WO 2020242590 A1; 2020-12-03), and Nguyen et al. (Document ID US 20050191605 A1; 2005-09-01) and in further view of Cunninghame et al. (Document ID US 20040076941 A1; 2004-04-22).
Regarding claim 5, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 4, wherein the student module or the administrator module is configured to upload the recording to the storage module, and wherein the storage module is configured to compress and maintain copies of the recording made by the at least one student, generating a register (Para. [0095], shows that remote computing device 104, may store video content in data storage component 2036; Para. [0079] and fig. 14, show an accessible register of submitted videos associated with different lessons and students).
Stucky fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein the storage module is configured to compress and maintain copies of the recording made by the at least one student.
Cunningham et al. teaches:
Wherein the storage module is configured to compress and maintain copies of the recording made by the at least one student (Para. [0015] and fig. 1, show that OLTP 60 may contain performance data 80 and student data 82 and may take the form of an XML database that compresses files).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Cunningham et al., regarding the use of data compression, to the similar device of Stuckey, an assessment platform that utilizes data storage, to yield the predictable result of producing an assessment platform that can hold more data. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Cunningham et al. with the similar device of Stuckey as the utilization of file compression would reduce the demand for file storage space.
Regarding claim 7, Stuckey further teaches:
The training system according to claim 5, wherein the control module is configured to take data from the register and distribute the data it to the at least one evaluator (Para. [0087], shows that recording data is communicated, i.e. distributed, to the instructors after the trainee submits it) , and wherein the control module is configured to centrally manage the different administrators for different institutions and courses (Para. [0047], show that the backend system allows for the bulk creation, distribution, and management of user accounts ).
Regarding claim 8, Stuckey further teaches:
The training system according to claim 7, wherein the evaluator or teacher module is configured to correct the procedure performed by the at least one student using the tools that allow feedback to be delivered in the recording of the at least one student (Para. [0075], shows that the trainer is provided the trainee’s submitted video and can provide feedback via recorded comments that may be added to the trainee’s submitted video, i.e. multimedia tools), the feedback is delivered with the option of being incorporated at the exact moment when the at least one evaluator detects an error or mistake during the execution of the procedure in the at least one video of the at least one student the feedback is given in a format of insertion of videos of examples showing how to fix the detected error, or how to point out the detected error to make detected error explicit, drawings on the video, texts on the video or separately, and audios generating the commented record (Para. [0075]-[0076], show that the instructor may insert recorded comments, i.e. video inserts, into the submitted video at the specific times that the trainee makes an error such as using filler words in a mock interview, i.e. pointing out specific errors at specific times in the video in an explicit way), and the evaluator module is configured to upload the commented record to the storage module and save the commented records with feedback, timestamps and evaluations (Para. [0092] and fig. 18, show that the trainer’s comments are made accessible to the trainee; Para. [0095], further shows that remote computing device 104, may store video content in data storage component 2036).
Regarding claim 10, Stuckey further teaches:
The training system according to claim 8, wherein the control module is configured to distribute the commented records to the at least one student wherein the student module is configured to allow the at least one student to review the commented records (Para. [0092] and fig. 18, show that the trainer’s comments are made accessible to the trainee; Para. [0095], further shows that remote computing device 104, may store video content in data storage component 2036).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Stuckey (Document ID US 20220013025 A1; 2022-01-13) in view of Gauglitz et al. (Document ID WO 2020242590 A1; 2020-12-03), Nguyen et al. (Document ID US 20050191605 A1; 2005-09-01), and Cunninghame et al. (Document ID US 20040076941 A1; 2004-04-22) and in further view of Johnson et al. (Document ID US 20090286218 A1; 2009-11-19).
Regarding claim 9, Stuckey teaches:
The training system according to claim 8, wherein the results of the at least one evaluator are compared with a result obtained with by artificial intelligence image analysis (Para. [0034]-[0035], Para. [0039]-[0045], and Para. [0089]-[0094], show that both AI and evaluator analyses are used and an evaluation is provided to the trainee, i.e. the evaluation is confirmed).
Stucky fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein the results of the at least one evaluator are compared with a result obtained with by artificial intelligence image analysis
Johnson et al. teaches:
Wherein the results of the at least one evaluator are compared with a result obtained with by artificial intelligence image analysis (Para. [0083]-[0091], show that a teachers evaluations results are compared with the obtained with artificial intelligence).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Johnson, regarding the comparison of evaluations performed by trainers and ai, to the similar device of Stuckey, an assessment platform that utilizes trainer and ai evaluations, to yield the predictable result of producing a more consistent assessment platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Johnson with the similar device of Stuckey as the utilization of this comparison would allow for an additional means of quality control for both the ai evaluations and the trainer evaluations.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuckey (Document ID US 20220013025 A1; 2022-01-13) in view of Gauglitz et al. (Document ID WO 2020242590 A1; 2020-12-03), Nguyen et al. (Document ID US 20050191605 A1; 2005-09-01), Cunninghame et al. (Document ID US 20040076941 A1; 2004-04-22), and Johnson et al. (Document ID US 20090286218 A1; 2009-11-19) and in further view of Smolover (Document ID US 20030036046 A1; 2003-02-20).
Regarding claim 11, Smolover further teaches:
The training system according to claim 9, wherein the student module is configured to allow the at least one student to give feedback and evaluate the at least one evaluator after each commented record is received via the student module (Para. [0086], shows that the student can evaluate his experience and teacher, i.e. give feedback and evaluate, after the completion of a lesson track, i.e. after evaluations; Para. [0087], further shows that the teacher may be evaluated by factors that include the students test scores, i.e. after an evaluation).
Regarding claim 13, Stucky teaches:
The training system according to claim 11, wherein the student module is configured to require the at least one student to take into consideration recommendations made by the at least one evaluator in the commented records (Para. [0030]-[0031], shows that the instructor’s comments and feedback, i.e. recommendations, are used to track the progress of the trainee)
Stucky fails to explicitly teach:
The student module is configured to require the at least one student to reperform the selected training program until the at least one student passes the selected training program
Nguyen et al. teaches:
The student module is configured to require the at least one student to reperform the selected training program (Para. [0057] and fig. 11, shows that if a student fails to get a problem correct the student must repeat attempts until the student provides the correct answer) until the at least one student passes the selected training program (Para. [0087]-[0089] and fig. 30, show an iterative process of skill improvement to a threshold, i.e. achieving a level of skill to approve the training or exercise program, before moving onto a higher difficulty).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuckey (Document ID US 20220013025 A1; 2022-01-13) in view of Gauglitz et al. (Document ID WO 2020242590 A1; 2020-12-03) and Nguyen et al. (Document ID US 20050191605 A1; 2005-09-01) and in further view of Smith (Document ID US 20130004935 A1; 2013-01-03).
Regarding claim 18, Stucky teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the control module ins configured to allow communication between administrators and end users (Para. [0061], shows that remote commuting device 104, i.e. the control module, facilitates communication between administration device 102c, i.e. the administrators, and trainee computing device 102a, i.e. the end users).
Stucky fails to explicitly teach:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the control module allows communication (as in messages/texts) between administrators and end users.
Smith teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the control module allows communication between administrators and end users (Para. [0088], shows administrator, instructor, and student users; Para. [0093], further shows that the users can communicate with each other via a messaging system).
Regarding claim 19, Stucky fails to explicitly teach:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the storage module corresponds to a specialized hardware or service in the cloud that allows the saving of the information of each student .
Smith teaches:
The training system according to claim 1, wherein the storage module corresponds to a specialized hardware or service in the cloud (Para. [0071], shows that the system takes the form of a cloud service, contains a membership database, and includes students as users) that allows the saving of the information of each student (Para. [0091]-[0092], further shows that the membership database stores information on all users, which includes students).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Smith, regarding the utilization of cloud services, to the similar device of Stuckey, an assessment platform that utilizes memory storage, to yield the predictable result of producing a more distributed assessment platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Smith with the similar device of Stuckey as the utilization of cloud storage would allow for ease of storage expansion if needed and would allow for storage to be carried out by a third-party.
Summary
No claim is allowed
Claims 1-11, 13-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 USC § 103
Response to Arguments
The Applicants arguments filed on December 2, 2025 related to claims 1-11, 13-19, 21, and 22 are fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended the objected to claims 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11 to remove the parentheses and to add “at least one” to replace “(s)” where applicable and has canceled objected to claim 20.
Examiner respectfully removes the prior objections.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant has canceled to only claim rejected under 35 USC § 112(b), i.e. claim 23, as such Examiner has respectfully removed the prior rejection under 35 USC § 112(b).
Rejections under Rejections under 35 USC § 102
Examiner agrees that the amended independent claim 1 is no longer fully anticipated by Stucky, thus the prior rejections 35 USC § 102 are withdrawn. However, in light of a new search, which was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, new rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been made, see said rejections above.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Regarding claim 3, Applicant respectfully argues that Smolover fails to teach wherein an administrator creates courses and uploads tutorials.
Examiner respectfully agrees that Smolover alone fails to teach wherein an administrator creates courses and uploads tutorials. However, Stuckey in view of Smolover teaches wherein an administrator creates courses and uploads tutorials. Smolover teaches wherein a teacher creates courses and uploads tutorials (Para. [0039], [0136] and fig. 11); Stuckey teaches that various features may be shared between user types (Para. [0038] and Para. [0062]).
Regarding the other claims that were rejected under 35 USC § 103, Examiner agrees that the prior art listed, alone or in combination, fail to teach the limitations of the amended claim 1. However, in light of a new search, which was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, new rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been made, see said rejections above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY JAMES BULTHUIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30-5:30.
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, 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715