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
Claims 1, 6 and 13 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant's arguments for Double-Patenting Rejection in page 8: The Applicant arguments have been considered and the Applicant filing of an Electronic-Terminal Disclosure or e-td to obviate the Obviousness-type Double Patenting (ODP) rejection(s) has been approved. Thus, the ODP rejections is withdrawn herein.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments against the 101 rejection of pending claims on pages 8-18: Applicant’s arguments directed to Step 2A prong 1 and Step 2A prong 2 analysis were considered. However, these arguments are not persuasive and the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
For Step 2A-Prong 1 starting in p. 9: Applicant argues that the pending limitations recited in the claim set 1, 6 and 13 and its features are not directed to an abstract idea, more specifically to a method of organizing human activity under the sub-group of commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertisements when in view of a combination of case law and MPEP sections prescribed “against claims directed to using advertisements as currency” that was “not found” in those claims and because “advertising, contracts, agreements, or management of social activities are not described throughout any of Applicant's present claims”. Rather, the claims are directed to “specific methods and systems for customizing training content to improve effectiveness to the trainee”. However, the Examiner finds these arguments regarding the claims not being categorized as “advertisements” or any other subgroup unpersuasive. Because such alleged assertion was not previously or presently considered by the Examiner. Rather, the Examiner found that the claim recited (i.e. “described” or “set forth” in the claim language) at least commercial interactions in the form of “social activities” and “teaching”. Because at least, certain limitations recited steps of “generating” customized data by “altering” the source of training data with additional training data and “modifying” the customized data to “adjust” the data difficulty based on previous training results to further “provide” access to the customized data, which encompassed commercial or legal interactions related to at least handling agreements in the form of contracts and/or legal obligations when providing such training information customized to the trainee for access (i.e. providing training services related to compliance with security regulations and standards as disclosed above).
Additionally, at least the steps of “updating…and based on inputs received during the communication session, a role attribute to include a second user account…”, the steps of “identifying” contextual information that “identifies additional training content” such as “the role for the trainee and a training topic” and “providing…access to the customized training content” also falls under the abstract idea sub-group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. Because such training data related to the user to access customized training content requires managing user’s social activities. Finally, the claim steps are encompassing teaching when “generating…customized training content…”, “modifying…the customized training content to adjust a difficulty of the customized training content” based on trainee’s prior training results and “providing…access to the customized training content to the trainee” with the purpose of offering teaching services/courses.
Further the Applicant also asserts in p. 12, that the claims are not directed to “mental processes” because “the limitations of those claims could not practically be performed in the mind”, more specifically because “the human mind is not equipped to customize training content based on prior training results of a trainee”. However, the Examiner disagrees because these functional steps could still be interpreted and read as a human being capable of at least performing such functions of “generation” and “customization” of the “customized training content” with a physical aid such as pen and paper. But also, this claim language in the steps lacks details of how such content is being specifically “modified” and “altered” and fails to mention which particular technological components (i.e special/particular technology improving the computer claimed) were used to perform these functions. In other words, these functional steps and the general computer claimed are broad or recited in a high level of generality. Moreover, such functions can still fall under the abstract idea of mental process while using the computer as a tool (e.g. invoking “apply it”) to obtain the customized training data. Because, these steps can either be done with the help of physical aid such as pen and paper when altering images with brands, logos or generic text, as well as some “altering” steps can be performed with the help of a computer to alter video/audio to integrate an individual’s face/voice. Thus, the physical aid used does not negate the mental nature of the limitation(s), even when using other generic computer components to “alter” such specific content in the different ways later claimed in subsequent dependent claims, which are not further specified as to how some of this “altering” steps were performed for voice and face data (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)). Moreover, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 101 rejection for these pending claims.
For Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step B starting in p. 14: Applicant argues that the pending claim limitations recited in the claims 1, 6 and 13 and its features are improving technology by providing “efficiencies and improvements to generating customized content” including amended functions that “defines a particular configuration of interoperating software systems that produces an improvement in how customized training content is generated and delivered” wherein these limitations are not “conventional training operations and cannot be practically carried out by a human” and the “system behavior is rule-based and dynamic”. However, the Examiner disagrees because the identified limitations in the claims did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application since the steps were merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(I)). Specifically, the claims’ limitations are reciting the use of a generic computer that is generally/broadly recited, and performs the functions of “establishing a communication session” between devices and systems, “update” a role attribute, “modifying” a “data map” with other related user information identified, “generating…customized training content by altering source training content…” with additional training data and “modifying…the customized training content to adjust a difficulty of the customized training content” to achieve the intended result of “providing…access to the customized training content”. At the very least, such “alteration” and “adjustment” lacks details as to how is implemented by the computer. As for the establishment of a “communication session” between devices/systems and data updates and modifications, these are still considered nothing more than links to computer for implementing the use of ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (refer to MPEP 2106.05 f (2)). Thus, and in response to Applicant’s arguments in pp. 16 – 17 from Remarks, these limitations and their additional elements, individually and in combination, are not “significantly more” as these are recited in a high level of generality that cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B, and are not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05), regardless of Applicant’s assertion that the claimed invention is “not merely conventional training practices”. Thus, for these reasons, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 101 rejection for these pending claims.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments of rejection under 35 USC § 103 for the pending claims on pages 18 – 21: Applicant’s general allegations regarding the combination of Dion and Sundaresh teachings maintained herein for the pending claims are not persuasive. Because the Applicant is focusing on each prior art teaching, rather than focusing on the actual language claimed in each claim limitation and how their corresponding limitation steps are different from the prior art teachings while considering the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of each claim. Thus, under the BRI of the claim limitations pointed by the Applicant are still reasonably taught by at least the combination of Dion and Sundaresh. Because the establishment of a “communication session” between devices/systems is still at least taught by Dion when organizations that are connected with students can access content from “external course 113 supplier” such as “training videos, seminars, etc.” that are provided to students as well as being scheduled for meetings/webinars (see ¶0041 – 42 and ¶0061; Dion). Further, Dion teaches the role attribute updates and data map modifications as setting up profiles employees that can be further selected with a “profile role” from a list using “add button 149 a” and then “a pressing an update button 143 a will update the organizations records” which is directed to modifying the data map associated with a trainee to indicate role attribute updates (see ¶0056; Dion). Finally, Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to general allegations that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the combination of these references. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 103 rejection for these pending 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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claim 1, the most representative claim of the independent claims set 1, 6 and 13, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 1 - 5 fall under statutory category of a process, while claims 6 – 20 are directed to machines.
At Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 (representative of claim 6 and 13) recites an abstract idea in the following limitations:
establishing...and based on a credential associated with a first user account, a communication session between…;
updating,…and based on inputs received during the communication session, a role attribute to include a second user account, wherein the role attribute is associated with a risk or other operation associated with a particular process;
modifying…a data map associated with a trainee to indicate an update to the role attribute, wherein the data map is accessible by…and training software with data;
identifying…and based on the role for the trainee and a training topic, contextual information, that identifies additional training content;
generating…customized training content by altering source training content with the additional training content, wherein the additional training content corresponds to the training topic that the trainee had difficulty mastering as indicated by prior training results;
modifying…the customized training content to adjust a difficulty of the customized training content based on prior training results of the trainee; and
providing…access to the customized training content to the trainee…
Generally, these limitations, describe a method and a system for identifying user information and contextual and topic information related to a particular training content to provide a customized training content. As disclosed in the specification in ¶006, this invention provides “effective training to ensure that employees and/or vendors are compliant with applicable privacy and security regulations and standards.” However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) is recited in the representative claim 1 in the forms of “commercial or legal interactions” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in at least the steps of “generating…customized training content by altering source training content…” with additional training data, “modifying…the customized training content to adjust a difficulty of the customized training content” and “providing…access to the customized training content”. Because “generating” customized data by “altering” the source of the data with additional data and “modifying” the customized data to “adjust” the data difficulty based on previous training results to further “provide” access to the customized data at least encompasses commercial or legal interactions related to at least handling agreements in the form of contracts and/or legal obligations when providing such training information customized to the trainee for access (i.e. providing training services related to compliance with security regulations and standards as disclosed above).
Similarly, the steps of “updating…and based on inputs received during the communication session, a role attribute to include a second user account…”, the steps of “identifying” contextual information that “identifies additional training content” such as “the role for the trainee and a training topic” and “providing…access to the customized training content” also falls under the abstract idea sub-group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. Because such data updates of role attributes to include a second user and identification of trainee’s role and training topic to access customized training content requires managing user’s social activities. Finally, the claim steps are also encompassing teaching when “generating…customized training content…”, “modifying…the customized training content to adjust a difficulty of the customized training content” based on trainee’s prior training results and “providing…access to the customized training content to the trainee” with the purpose of offering teaching services/courses.
The steps of “modifying…a data map associated with a trainee to indicate an update to the role attribute…”, the steps of “identifying” the data map, trainee’s role, a training topic, contextual information (i.e. that identifies additional training content), “generating…customized training content by altering source training content…” with additional training data, “modifying…the customized training content to adjust a difficulty of the customized training content” and “providing…access to the customized training content” fall under the abstract idea of within the mental process grouping that can be practically be performed in the human mind or in pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Because modifying a data map that indicate the role attributes of a trainee to then “generating” a customized training content based on the identification of the data map, the trainee role and the contextual information identifying the particular training content by “altering” the source data with additional training data and “modify” the customized training data to adjust a difficulty and provide access to the customized training content requires evaluation and judgement which can be further performed by a human with at least pen and paper. Moreover, the “generating…customized training content” step that suggests “altering the source data with the additional training data” is not specifically reflected in the independent claim, based on all the types of alteration later claimed in the dependents. For instance, such alterations include altering “image or video content” or “audio content of the source training content” to integrate a “face of a particular individual” (see claims 3, 8 and 16), a “voice of a particular individual” (see claims 4, 9, and 17), “a brand, a logo, or a motto for the organization” (see claims 10, and 18), or “replace a generic term with a name of the organization” (see claims 10, and 18). Thus, such integrations can still fall under the abstract idea of mental process while using the computer as a tool (e.g. invoking “apply it”) to obtain the customized training data. Because, these steps can either be done with the help of physical aid such as pen and paper when altering images with brands, logos or generic text, as well as some “altering” steps can be performed with the help of a computer to alter video/audio to integrate an individual’s face/voice. In other words, the physical aid used does not negate the mental nature of the limitation(s), even when using other generic computer components to “alter” such specific content in the different ways claimed which are not further specified as to how some of this altering steps were performed for voice and face data (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)).
Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1, 6 and 13, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of a computing hardware, (from claim 1); a risk management system software and a first computing device, and a graphical user interface (from claims 1, 6 and 13); one or more processing devices and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (from claims 6 and 13). These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These element features are being performed by a computer and are recited at a high level of generality that is applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how these steps are performed distinctively from other generic computer components and without having each function to generally “apply it” to the computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As for the steps of “establishing, by computing hardware and based on a credential associated with a first user account, a communication session between a risk management system software and a first computing device”, “updating, by the computing hardware and based on inputs received during the communication session, a role attribute…”, “providing…access to the customized training content” to the trainee via a GUI in the claims are really nothing more than links to computer for implementing the use of ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (refer to MPEP 2106.05 f (2)).
Step 2B: For independent claims 1, 6 and 13, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: a computing hardware, (from claim 1); a risk management system software and a first computing device, and a graphical user interface (from claims 1, 6 and 13); one or more processing devices and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (from claims 6 and 13). These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the recitation of a computer to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 2-5, 7-12 and 14 - 20, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 2-5, 7-12 and 14 - 20: further describes the abstract idea of the customizing privacy training method and how customized training content are retrieved based on user requests, the types of alterations done to the source training content and its corresponding multimedia later integrated and replaced, the identification of user’s completion status, their attributes and contextual information. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea groups of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, “engaging in commercial or legal interactions” as well as these steps cover concepts of training content that includes agreements in the form of contracts and/or legal obligations for the trainee to follow the rules or instructions needed to complete and comply with the training material (e.g. including “a completion status for the trainee with respect to training requirements”), while the customization of the training content can be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper, including at least observation, evaluation and judgment.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 2, 7 and 15, these claims recite the additional elements of: a browser application and a user device. These additional elements recited are invoking computers merely used as a tool to perform or “apply” the abstract idea(s) to the existing process of providing customized training content upon request. which are also recited to be merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea to retrieve and present the customized training content to the user. Thus, amounting to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (f)(2)). Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, these additional element(s) claimed cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Finally, the additional elements previously mentioned above, are nothing more than descriptive language about the elements that define the abstract idea, and these claims remain rejected under 101 as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dion (U.S. Pub No. 20080318197 A1) in view of Sundaresh (U.S. Pub No. 20130203026 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 13:
This claim set is represented by claim 6
Dion teaches:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions; and a processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein, the processing device is configured to execute the instructions and thereby perform operations comprising: (In Fig. 1 (125, 133 and 129) and Fig. 2: See ¶0042 – 43 for more details about the “computer program product” and the “provider 121 processor functions from the organization 101 connected local network” which are directed to the processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium. Refer to ¶0084 wherein an embodiment of “education competency and compliance management system will be configured as depicted in FIG. 1 with computer support hardware as shown in FIG. 2”)
establishing, by computing hardware and based on a credential associated with a first user account, a communication session between a risk management system software and a first computing device; (In ¶0042; Fig. 1 (101, 103, 105 and 117); Fig. 2 (121, 101 and 123): teaches under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in “FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of an education competency and compliance management system” wherein “the provider 121 is typically at a remote location that is connected to the sponsoring organization 101 and a students 123” wherein the “sponsoring organization 101” is the risk management system software since it can be “a recognized group, a government agency (state, federal, local, etc.) or a collective non-profit” and “there can be multiple organizations 103 that an organization 101 desires to achieve and maintain accreditation or certification with” (see ¶0041). Moreover, in ¶0041 “Organization 101 can generate their own content or access content from an external course 113 supplier. Also, an organization 101 can access external 117 for such as supporting materials, articles, and documents. Additionally, organization 101 can access local 115 content to satisfy specific regional and organizational unique requirements. Additionally, organization 101 can access other 119 content for additional materials such as surveys, training videos, seminars, etc.” which are other examples of how an organization can establish a communication session with another “external course 113 supplier” or a risk management system software and a student or a first computing device. Refer to ¶0061 for scheduling meetings, webinars and audio conferences.)
updating, by the computing hardware and based on inputs received during the communication session, a role attribute to include a second user account, wherein the role attribute is associated with a risk or other operation associated with a particular process; modifying, by the computing hardware, a data map associated with a trainee to indicate an update to the role attribute, wherein the data map is accessible by the risk management system software and training software with data; (In ¶0056; Fig. 3c: teaches updating role attributes to include a second user account when “the comprehensive system design implementing the present invention is illustrated in a screen 149 a which facilitates an administrators' set up for user profiles. By setting up user profiles employees with similar functions can be grouped into a profile and through a simple group functional assignment and can use the same training plan”. The “contained in profiles 141 a is a complete list of the organizations profiles administrators can select the profile role the employee is assigned to by the following actions; pressing add button 149 a which will place the selected profile in the selected user profiles 151 a, when multiple profiles are selected pressing the add all button 153 a which will place the multiple profiles into profiles 151 a” as shown in Fig. 3C which “when an administrator is satisfied with the associated user profiles currently selected on screen 149 a pressing an update button 143 a will update the organizations records” which is directed to modifying the data map associated with a trainee to indicate role attribute updates. See ¶0043 for “system privileges for specific types of access to organization 101 approved individuals (by organizational role) is also assigned by sponsoring organization's system administrator with coordination with provider 121 system administrator”.)
identifying a data map associated with a trainee; (In ¶0060; Figs. 3c and 5c: teaches that the administrator can select any “pre-test that may be required for the course, post course test with a drop down box to the right to select the type of post course test required, survey with a drop down box to the right to select the type of survey required to complete the course, minimum user type with a drop down box to the right to select the course minimum user type” among other types of criteria and information that can be identified by the system to be linked and included in the final course design as shown in Fig. 5c, in accordance to ¶0674 from Applicant’s specs. Refer to ¶0012 wherein the reference invention system allows “sponsoring organizations administrators” to “create their own content and load the modules or courses onto the education competency and compliance management servers” and “create from the education competency and compliance management interface for local or internet links to content residing on other systems”. Also, see ¶0041 wherein the organization can “generate their own content or access content from an external course 113 supplier” wherein these examples are directed to the system being able to connect and identify data maps from external systems.)
identifying, based on the data map, an organization for the trainee; (In ¶0059; Fig. 5b (323): teaches that the system identifies and presents “an area 323 displaying “Organization and Facility Courses”. Below are 323 are instruction for area 323 (Your organization or facility has created these course[s] for you” in which the organization name is displayed to the second user or trainee.)
identifying, based on the organization for the trainee and a training topic, contextual information, that identifies additional training content; (In ¶0059; Fig. 5b (319); Fig. 5c: teaches that the system identifies and presents “an area 319 displaying “Regulatory Courses (OSHA, JCAHO, HIPPA, etc.)”. Below area 319 are instruction for area 319 (Your organization or facility has created these course[s] for you” and that these “are mandatory courses assigned to you by your hospital.)” as shown in Fig, 5b, in accordance to ¶0346 and ¶0682 from Applicant specs. Refer to ¶0060 and Fig. 5c wherein the administrator can enter “course information” and the “minimum user type” and in ¶0073 and Fig. 3b – 3c wherein “shows a personal training plan for a specific organizational role that an employee is assigned” which is directed to contextual information identifying training content. Lastly, additional training content can be assigned to a user trainee as “individual specific items” that can be additionally included in the “courses, tests, and surveys” interface screen as shown in Fig. 5b.)
generating customized training content by altering with the additional training content comprising the particular training content, wherein the additional training content corresponds to the training topic that the trainee had difficulty mastering as indicated by prior training results; (In ¶0083; Fig. 3b – 3c and Fig. 5c: teaches that the alteration of source training content (e.g. such as including the organization logo in the page) made by an administrator to generate the customized training content which is directed to the system allowing “administrators” to “seamlessly import and implement content for their organization's operation and training” as well as “Institutions and organizations” to “import existing employee data bases and be operating in very short order”. But also, and more specifically, “Organizations and institutions can import their logos in addition to their preferred look and feel of report formats to enhance compliance and operations” (see ¶0073), in accordance to ¶00680 from Applicant specs. Refer to ¶0042 wherein the “organization 101 establishes through access assignment which staff will be organization approved individuals allowed to add to, delete, modify, and adapt course content and testing” and refer to ¶0059 - 60 wherein the administrator can “additionally include individual specific items” as well as modify or “bring in” and save courses and content as shown in Fig. 5c.)
providing access to the customized training content to the trainee via a graphical user interface. (In ¶0043; Fig. 3a – 3b: teaches that “when the correct login ID and password are entered correctly the user is directed to their specific personal training interface screen” as shown in Fig. 3b.)
Dion teaches that the system allows administrative users to be able “to add to, delete, modify, and adapt course content and testing to keep an organization improving and growing through improved task performance” (see ¶0042, ¶0060 and Fig 5c; Dion). However, Dion does not explicitly teach the abilities of having additional training content that specifically relates to topics that the trainee had difficulty mastering and modifying the customized training content, specifically to adjust its difficulty based on prior training results. However, Sundaresh teaches:
…wherein the additional training content corresponds to the training topic that the trainee had difficulty mastering as indicated by prior training results; (In ¶0040; Fig. 8B (815); Figs. 8C – 8D: teaches an example wherein “virtual instructor may point the user to training materials”, or “focus on certain fields of a document”. Also, the system may “receive information through the external systems interface 220 and transmit information through the virtual environment generator 250 or alternatively may transmit information outside of the virtual environment when appropriate. The interaction engine 210 may interface with a learning management system to direct an employee to relevant training sources.” Also, refer to ¶0011 wherein the system can provide “additional training materials from the stored application program modules when the user fails to successful complete an initial level” (see also prior art’s claim 13).)
modifying the customized training content to adjust a difficulty of the customized training content based on prior training results of the trainee; and (In ¶0059 – 60: teaches that the reference system’s “risk management training program 269 may provide information to the virtual environment generator 250 including a program or programs executed to place a user's avatar in a virtual environment where random numbers are used to generate market scenarios and risk positions”. But generally, the system may “allow users to progress through multiple levels or tiers upon successful completion of each preceding tier” which derives from modifications to a “previously implemented virtual environment” wherein the “new level would not be available for the user to play until he successfully completes the current level” which is directed to adjusting a difficulty of the customized training content based on prior training results of the trainee. Refer to ¶0028 – 29 wherein the system is scalable and “adaptable to incorporate any virtual training program”, as well as “a particular business unit within the firm may choose to have its employees” to play particular games to assess employees in different areas such as “accounting concepts” or “the basics of derivatives” and refer to ¶0054 wherein a “trainer” can be introduced in a “virtual environment” generated for a “virtual classroom”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dion to provide the abilities of having additional training content that specifically relates to topics that the trainee had difficulty mastering and modifying the customized training content, specifically to adjust its difficulty based on prior training results, as taught by Sundaresh in order to engage “an employee”, facilitate “interactive training for a given subject matter”, and provide “better means for evaluating the development of the employee's skills” to effectively maintain “an employee's attention” with a “more immersive and interactive learning approach” (¶0007 – 8; Sundaresh).
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 15:
The combination of Dion and Sundaresh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 13, respectively.
Dion further teaches:
receiving, by the computing hardware, a training content request for the customized training content, wherein the training content request originates from the graphical user interface; and responsive to receiving the training content request, transmitting, by the computing hardware, an instruction to a browser application executing on a user device causing the browser application to retrieve the customized training content and present the customized training content on a second graphical user interface on the user device. (In ¶0058 – 59; Fig. 5a (183); Fig. 5b: teaches that the system allows users to “select courses (by clicking their mouse over the course) directly from the list in area 183 for course selection”. For example, the user can click the “area 309 displaying “Online Courses and Exams” which will “launch the browser to the education online courses and exams screen for review and selection” directed to the second graphical user interface (see ¶0059).)
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 16:
The combination of Dion and Sundaresh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 13, respectively.
Dion teaches that its system allows the “organization 101” to include “external content that are created, purchased, or selected” wherein the “external content can be text, video, audio, presentations, or any material that will aide in student/staff understanding and retention of operational and task related information” (see ¶0042 and ¶0083; Dion). However, Dion does not explicitly teach the ability of altering source training content, for image/video content that specifically integrates a face of a particular individual into the customized training content. However, Sundaresh further teaches:
wherein altering the source training content with the additional training content further comprises altering at least one of an image or video content of the source training content to integrate a face of a particular individual into the customized training content. (In ¶0025; Fig. 5 (512): teaches that the “system users may select avatars to represent themselves within the environment” (e.g. directed to integrating a face of a particular individual) as well as selecting” a particular region, country, or language in which the training experience can be conducted” in accordance to ¶00680 and ¶0686 in applicant specs. Refer to ¶0061 and Fig. 5 for more details)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dion to provide the ability of altering source training content, for image/video content that specifically integrates a face of a particular individual into the customized training content, as taught by Sundaresh in order to engage “an employee”, facilitate “interactive training for a given subject matter”, and provide “better means for evaluating the development of the employee's skills” to effectively maintain “an employee's attention” with a “more immersive and interactive learning approach” (¶0007 – 8; Sundaresh).
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 17:
The combination of Dion and Sundaresh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 13, respectively.
Dion further teaches:
wherein altering the source training content with the additional training content further comprises altering audio content of the source training content to integrate a voice of a particular individual into the customized training content. (In ¶0042; Fig. 2 (131): teaches that the system can allow the “organization 101” to include “external content that are created, purchased, or selected” wherein the “external content can be text, video, audio, presentations, or any material that will aide in student/staff understanding and retention of operational and task related information” (see ¶0083 for more details), which is directed to altering the source training content with the additional training content to integrate voice of an individual in a customized training content, in accordance to ¶00680 and ¶00685 from Applicant specs. Refer to ¶0012 for more details regarding to “sponsoring organizations administrators can create from the education competency and compliance management interface for local or internet links to content residing on other systems” which can include content as “media delivery to include text, video, and voice” with different capabilities incorporated in content courses and modules.)
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 20:
The combination of Dion and Sundaresh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 13, respectively.
Dion further teaches:
identifying, by the computing hardware the prior training results of the trainee, wherein the prior training results comprises a completion status for the trainee with respect to training requirements (In ¶0055; Fig. 3b (159): teaches the system identification of training data for the trainee including a completion status is shown in Fig. 3b wherein the system’s “CPU 125 (FIG. 2) will track expiration dates and through selectable choices of lead times alert the individual and administrators with scheduled alert by email and through on screen, attention getting notices” such as an “expires soon” warning or “expired” is displayed when a user is required to update or recertify a required course” and a “status column is also associated with bar 159 courses” that can display “need to complete” statuses. Refer to ¶0044 and Fig. 3b wherein the system records the user’s “courses in progress” and provides a “a list of courses (both on-line and off-line education) the user has started but has not completed and passed” and when these courses are passed, they will appear in “My Transcript section” which is directed to prior training results of the trainee.)
Regarding claims 10 and 18:
The combination of Dion and Sundaresh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 6 and 13, respectively.
Dion further teaches:
wherein altering the source training content comprises altering at least one of video content or audio content of the source training content to integrate at least one of a brand, a logo, or a motto for the organization into the customized training content. (In ¶0073; Fig. 2 (131 Figs. 3b and 5c: teaches that “Organizations and institutions can import their logos in addition to their preferred look and feel of report formats to enhance compliance and operations”, in accordance to ¶00685 and ¶00693 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0012 for more details regarding to “sponsoring organizations administrators can create from the education competency and compliance management interface for local or internet links to content residing on other systems” which can include content as “media delivery to include text, video, and voice” with different capabilities incorporated in content courses and modules.)
Regarding claims 11 and 19:
The combination of Dion and Sundaresh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 6 and 13, respectively.
Dion further teaches:
wherein altering the source training content comprises altering at least one of video content or audio content of the source training content to replace a generic term with a name of the organization in the customized training content. (In ¶0042; Fig. 2 (131), Figs. 3b and 5b: teaches this descriptive subject matter which is directed to the system can allow the “organization 101” to include “external content that are created, purchased, or selected” wherein the “external content can be text, video, audio, presentations, or any material that will aide in student/staff understanding and retention of operational and task related information”, which under BRI it directs to replacing a generic term with the organization name in a customized training content, in accordance to ¶00693 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0012 for more details regarding to “sponsoring organizations administrators can create from the education competency and compliance management interface for local or internet links to content residing on other systems” which can include content as “media delivery to include text, video, and voice” with different capabilities incorporated in content courses and modules.)
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Dion and Sundaresh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13.
Dion further teaches:
wherein the trainee attribute comprises at least one of a role or an organization for the trainee. (In ¶0056; Fig. 3b and 3c: teaches the trainee attributes since the administrator can associate and group “similarly functional employees” and their user profile with a “role” or an “organizational role” (see ¶0065 and¶0073) as shown in Fig. 3c.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nelson (U.S. Pub No. 20050158697 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to systems and methods for presenting training or information on a computer. More particularly, the present invention relates to providing training courses and information concerning corporate ethics and compliance over the Internet in a manner that is customized, risk based, and effective.”
Sadeh-Koniecpol - b (U.S. Pub No. 20120258437 A1) is pertinent because it “pertains generally to context-aware training and, particularly to training systems, apparatuses, and methods that select and provide training to a user based on action of a user.”
Depaolo (U.S. Patent No. 11783724 B1) is pertinent because it is a “security training apparatus uses augmented reality to facilitate customized cybersecurity training for each user by presenting an interface of a cybersecurity threat within a more relatable environment for the user. The cybersecurity training web application may be executed by a processor of the electronic device or a server, and allows the user to complete an interactive cybersecurity training using the cybersecurity training web application executed on the electronic device.”
Pennington (U.S. Pub No. 20100233663 A1) is pertinent because it “concerns a way to quickly and efficiently assess an organization's workforce capability maturity, generate a workforce transformation roadmap, and locate and map relevant educational content to job and competency profiles”
Martucci (U.S. Pub No. 20170098385 A1) is pertinent because it is “a processor-implemented method is provided for enhancing cognitive abilities of a user by personalizing cognitive training regimens through difficulty progression.”
Sims (U.S. Pub No. 20060204948 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a method of training and rewarding employees, and in particular to a method of training and rewarding employees using a kiosk placed in a plant/industrial environment.”
Perreault (U.S. Pub No. 20110055100 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to the provision of professional services and to related education products, services and tools. More particularly, the invention relates to an integration of services and products related to developing, delivering, monitoring and reporting continuing education courses and materials.”
Sadeh-Koniecpol (U.S. Patent No. 9558677 B2) is pertinent because it “pertains generally to context-aware cybersecurity training and, particularly to training systems, apparatuses, and methods that select and provide cybersecurity training to a user based on action of a user.”
Schuster (U.S. Pub No. 20050228685 A1) is pertinent because it “pertains to the field of rule-base compliance, certification, and risk mitigation and loss prevention, as it relates to rules of authoritative bodies to which one or more entities are, may be, are believed to be or have agreed to be subject.”
Clarke (U.S. Pub No. 20190189021 A1) is pertinent because it “provide[s] domain specific learning management systems that can be dynamically configured for a specific course by (1) selecting learning content contained in the environment, and (2) using various embedded learning and engagement strategies to support pedagogy. Embodiments of the subject invention provide educational content and learning management systems that enhance the learning experience for students through learning objects, course materials, educational tutorials, virtual problem-based environments, and gamification elements.”
Delfing (U.S. Pub No. 20040241627 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to the field of interactive electronic methods and systems for providing orientation, training and certification of employees, and for controlling employee access to a jobsite. More particularly, the present invention relates to methods and systems for interactive computer-aided orientation, training and certification that provides instruction using multimedia content and obtains feedback from a plurality of trainees via a computer network.”
Meyer (U.S. Pub No. 20040115608 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a system and method for collecting, disseminating and managing information from one or more users and systems through a voice transmission, data transmission and data storage network. The information collected, disseminated and managed permits an end user to obtain continuing educational and training content and services via a variety of multimedia sources.”
Fox (U.S. Pub No. 20110047224 A1) is pertinent because it is “pertains to an apparatus and a method for processing and/or for providing education information and/or education related information and, in particular, to an apparatus and a method for processing and/or for providing education information and/or education related information for a variety of education and education related applications.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights