DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on August 5, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending with no claims canceled, claims 19 and 20 newly presented, and claims 1-18 currently amended.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5, the claim recites, “…compare the set of initial skills to the set of requisite skills identify a set of untrained skills…”, which contains an improper sentence.
The Examiner assumes the Applicant intended to place the term “to” between the term “skills” and the term, “identify” to complete the structure of the sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses a system (i.e., machine) in claims 1-6 and 19-20, a method (i.e., process) in claims 7-12, and a system (i.e., machine) in claims 13-18 for skill development of a user. All claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of Step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant invention is broadly directed to a system and method to “identify the skills of a candidate, generate and deliver one or more courses for skill development to the candidate, and/or provide certification or other credentials for skills obtained by the candidate via the courses” (Specification, p. 1, [002]).
Claim 7 recites the following (with emphasis added):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, user metadata defining a set of initial skills of a user;
receiving, by the processor, a user goal associated with the user that includes a set of requisite skills;
comparing, by the processor, the set of initial skills to the set of requisite skills [to] identify a set of untrained skills that are included in the set of requisite skills and that are not included in the set of initial skills;
generating, by the processor, a skill path based on the set of untrained skills,
the skill path defining an ordered sequence of untrained skills of the set of untrained skills and corresponding courses;
delivering, by the processor, course content to a user device associated with the user,
the course content being associated with a first course of the corresponding courses and a first skill of the untrained skills;
determining, by the processor, that the user has progressed to an end of the first course;
upon determining that the user has progressed to the end of the course, delivering, by the processor, a summative assessment to the user via the user device;
receiving, by the processor, responses from the user device in response to the summative assessment;
analyzing, by the processor, the responses to determine a summative assessment grade;
determining, by the processor, that the user has successfully completed the first course by determining that the summative assessment grade exceeds a predetermined threshold;
issuing, by the processor, a digital credential to the user upon determining that the user has successfully completed the first course;
sending, by the processor, a first notification to an authorized third party server indicating that the user has successfully completed the first course and that the user has been issued the digital credential;
sequentially delivering, by the processor, additional course content and additional summative assessments to the user via the user device until the user has successfully completed each of the corresponding courses; and
sending, by the processor, a second notification to the user device indicating that the user has successfully completed each of the corresponding courses.
Claim 7 encompasses the abstract idea and had substantially similar features as claims 1 and 13, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-6 and 19-20, 8-12, and 14-18, respectively.
Claims 1-20 recite the steps for developing the skills of a user. The systems and method are directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. A human – using pen and paper – is capable of identifying course material for a learner and identifying information about a learner to provide the learner with a customized learning experience. These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite collecting, analyzing, and sending data pertaining to training a user. Thus, the steps are directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implemented on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include no additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a processor and a third-party server. The conventional computers over a generic network as presented are directed to the components of a system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for preparing training material and providing said training material for users.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires ‘more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words ‘apply it.’’" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims do not include the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any potentially technical aspects of the claims are well-known, generic computational components performing conventional functions (e.g., a conventional micro-processor or microcontroller (Specification, [0033])). The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination and, the instant claims do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Thus, the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a processor occasionally communicating with a third-party server. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as disclosed by Dohring [US 20180268727 A1].
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Dohring discloses:
A system comprising:
a database coupled to a network (Dohring, Figs. 23 and 24, Database 2300 and DB 1-N 2430) and storing a plurality of user metadata defining a set of initial skills of a user (Dohring, Claim 1, “d) a learning activity selection module identifying at least one current node on the map for a particular learner based on performance of the learner…”);
a server comprising a computing device coupled to the network (Dohring, [0008], “…the server-side learning activity selection application is hosted on a server, on a plurality of servers, or on a cloud computing platform or service.”) and comprising a processor executing instructions within a memory (Dohring, [0006], “…disclosed herein are non-transitory computer-readable storage media encoded with a computer program including instructions executable by a processor…”) which, when executed, cause the system to:
receive the user metadata defining the set of initial skills of the user (Dohring, Claim 1, “d) a learning activity selection module identifying at least one current node on the map for a particular learner based on performance of the learner…”);
receive a user goal associated with the user that includes a set of requisite skills (Dohring, [0005], “…the knowledge map comprising a plurality of nodes, each node representing at least one learning objective…”);
compare the set of initial skills to the set of requisite skills to identify a set of untrained skills that are included in the set of requisite skills and that are not included in the set of initial skills (Dohring, Claim 1, “d) a learning activity selection module identifying at least one current node on the map for a particular learner based on performance of the learner…”);
generate a skill path based on the set of untrained skills (Dohring, [0004], “…a plurality of learning activities, wherein activities are selected for each learner based on their individual level of mastery and their progression through each knowledge map.”),
the skill path defining an ordered sequence of untrained skills of the set of untrained skills and corresponding courses (Dohring, i.e., knowledge map);
deliver, by the processor, course content to a user device associated with the user (Dohring, [0059], “…the learning activity selection module selects one learning activity for the learner and provides the learner with access to the activity.”),
the course content being associated with a first course of the corresponding courses (Dohring, [0120], “As shown in FIG. 9A, in this example, Prudence begins at the start of the map.”) and a first skill of the untrained skills (Dohring, [0041], “In other embodiments, a level of learning is not linked to a school grade level, but instead is a proficiency level, a fluency level, a competency level, a mastery level, or a combination thereof.”);
determine that the user has progressed to an end of the first course (Dohring, [0101], “Referring to FIG. 6F, in this example, the learning activity has multiple phases, which include pretest, teaching (e.g., instructional), three levels of practice (easy, medium, and hard), and boss (e.g., final demonstration of mastery)… Also, in this example, the adaptivity of the learning activity is mapped. For example, the teaching phase is automatically passed upon completion and the learner is presented with the medium practice phase. If the learner fails the medium practice phase, they are presented with the easy practice phase. If the learner passes the medium practice phase, they are presented with the boss phase. If the learner fails the boss phase, they descend through the practice phases and may end up in back in the teaching phase.”);
upon determining that the user has progressed to the end of the course, deliver a summative assessment to the user via the user device (Dohring, i.e., the assessments where the system determines whether the user passed or failed.);
receive responses from the user device in response to the summative assessment (Dohring, [0037], “…suitable learner data includes, specific learning activities completed, successful interactions with learning activities (e.g., tasks completed successfully, questions answered successfully, assessments completed successfully, etc.)”);
analyze the responses to determine a summative assessment grade (Dohring, i.e., determining whether the user passed or failed.);
determine that the user has successfully completed the first course by determining that the summative assessment grade exceeds a predetermined threshold (Dohring, i.e., determining whether the user passed or failed.);
issue a digital credential to the user upon determining that the user has successfully completed the first course (Dohring, [0054], “Feedback is provided to inform the learner about their performance during the learning process and includes, by way of non-limiting examples, scores, indicators of success, rewards, encouragement, indicators of inadequate performance, correction, guidance, or any combination thereof.”);
send a first notification to an authorized third party server indicating that the user has successfully completed the first course and that the user has been issued the digital credential (Dohring, [0080], “…the application provision system further comprises one or more application severs 2320 (such as Java servers, .NET servers, PHP servers, and the like) and one or more web servers 2330 (such as Apache, IIS, GWS and the like). The web server(s) optionally expose one or more web services via app application programming interfaces (APIs) 2340.”);
sequentially deliver additional course content and additional summative assessments to the user via the user device until the user has successfully completed each of the corresponding courses (Dohring, [0004], “…a plurality of learning activities, wherein activities are selected for each learner based on their individual level of mastery and their progression through each knowledge map.” and Dohring, [0101], “Referring to FIG. 6F, in this example, the learning activity has multiple phases, which include pretest, teaching (e.g., instructional), three levels of practice (easy, medium, and hard), and boss (e.g., final demonstration of mastery)… Also, in this example, the adaptivity of the learning activity is mapped. For example, the teaching phase is automatically passed upon completion and the learner is presented with the medium practice phase. If the learner fails the medium practice phase, they are presented with the easy practice phase. If the learner passes the medium practice phase, they are presented with the boss phase. If the learner fails the boss phase, they descend through the practice phases and may end up in back in the teaching phase.”); and
send a second notification to the user device indicating that the user has successfully completed each of the corresponding courses (Dohring, [0054], “Feedback is provided to inform the learner about their performance during the learning process and includes, by way of non-limiting examples, scores, indicators of success, rewards, encouragement, indicators of inadequate performance, correction, guidance, or any combination thereof.”).
Regarding claim 19 (new), Dohring discloses using third party servers for sending data related to the user’s educational path (See citations above.). Although Dohring does not explicitly associate the third party server with an employer that is associated with the user, Dohring is capable of sending data related to the user’s educational path. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 20 (new), Dohring discloses utilizing digital credentials to verify that the user has developed a skill (See citations above.). Although Dohring does not explicitly mention an employer verifying a user has developed a skill, Dohring is capable of sharing data regarding the user’s educational path. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 2-3, 8-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring and Kapoor [US20140350982A1].
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Dohring discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the system to
receive a set of mentor metadata for a plurality of mentors included in a mentor pool (Dohring, [0037], “In some embodiments, suitable learner data includes learner preferences, mentor (e.g., teacher, parent, etc.) preferences, and the like.”).
Dohring does not disclose using mentor metadata to compare a plurality of mentors to assign a mentor to the user.
Kapoor, however, discloses a system caused to:
compare, for each mentor of the plurality of mentors, associated mentor metadata of the set of mentor metadata to the user metadata to generate a plurality of similarity scores (Kapoor, [0021], “…receiving tutor identity items and choices from the tutoring user, correlating identity items to databases, generating recommended learning applications, learning users and microlearning events based on correlation…”);
identify a mentor of the plurality of mentors having first characteristics that are similar to second characteristics of the user based on the similarity scores (Kapoor, [0095], “The correlation analyzer 416 is configured for determining the correlation between the plurality of identity items chosen or filled in by the tutoring user 112 and stored in the tutor identity items module 414 against the corresponding tutoring preference items modules 406, 408, 410 and 412. The correlations are then accessed by the recommendation generator 418 to determine the most relevant learning applications, learning users and microlearning events for the tutoring user based on the tutoring user's tutoring history outside the modular learning system 144 as well as the tutoring user's demographic preferences.”);
assign the mentor to the user (Kapoor, [0026], “The modular learning system 144 enables a tutoring user 112 to provide microtutoring services to learning user 102.”);
send a third notification to the user device indicating that the mentor has been assigned to the user (Kapoor, [0026], “The modular learning system 144 enables a tutoring user 112 to provide microtutoring services to learning user 102.” The users interact with each other via a user device; therefore, both users would be notified of a learning user being paired with a tutor.); and
send a fourth notification to a mentor device of the mentor indicating that the mentor has been assigned to the user (Kapoor, [0026], “The modular learning system 144 enables a tutoring user 112 to provide microtutoring services to learning user 102.” The users interact with each other via a user device; therefore, both users would be notified of a learning user being paired with a tutor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the adaptive learning path of Dohring the ability to match mentors/tutors to learners as taught by Kapoor since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of combining a mentor/tutor-to-learner matching process with an adaptive learning path would increase the efficiency of a learner to absorb information through the additional resource.
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Dohring/Kapoor discloses:
The system of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the system to:
identify, within the mentor metadata and the user metadata:
a course characteristic associated with both the mentor and the user (Kapoor, [0096], “…the microlearning events recommended are tutorials or courses involving the learning user's performance and tutoring user's preview…”); and
a geography characteristic associated with both the mentor and the user (Kapoor, [0096], “…the particulars of the microlearning events like the date, time, location, price and other particulars are retrieved from the corresponding databases like microlearning visits database 234.”); and
generate the similarity score according to the course characteristic and the geography characteristic (Kapoor, [0021], “…receiving tutor identity items and choices from the tutoring user, correlating identity items to databases, generating recommended learning applications, learning users and microlearning events based on correlation…”).
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring and Kapoor as applied to claims 2-3, 8-9, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Degeratu [US20080313000A1].
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Dohring/Kapoor discloses:
The system of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the system to:
identify within the mentor metadata and the user metadata:
the first characteristics associated with the mentor; and the second characteristics of the user (Kapoor, [0095], “The correlation analyzer 416 is configured for determining the correlation between the plurality of identity items chosen or filled in by the tutoring user 112 and stored in the tutor identity items module 414 against the corresponding tutoring preference items modules 406, 408, 410 and 412. The correlations are then accessed by the recommendation generator 418 to determine the most relevant learning applications, learning users and microlearning events for the tutoring user based on the tutoring user's tutoring history outside the modular learning system 144 as well as the tutoring user's demographic preferences.”);
Dohring/Kapoor does not explicitly disclose the generation of feature vectors from multidimensional arrays generated from various characteristics.
Degeratu, however, discloses:
A system caused to generate:
a first feature vector from a first multidimensional array generated from the first characteristics; and a second feature vector from a second multidimensional array generated from the second characteristics (Degeratu, [0055], “The matching is implemented based on a confidential text (e.g. by computing the similarity between vectors representing respective interest).”);
plot the first feature vector and the second feature vector (Degeratu, [0057], “To that end, block 322 represents a functional step of building a probabilistic generative model of an N-dimensional emergent semantic space…”); and
identify the mentor based on a distance between the first feature vector and the second feature vector (Degeratu, [0055], “…by computing the similarity between vectors representing respective interest…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store characteristics of a mentor/tutor or learner in a multidimensional array to generate feature vectors for plotting said feature vectors as taught in the improvement discussed in Degeratu to perform an algorithm for matching mentors/tutors to learners as disclosed in the teachings of Dohring/Kapoor. As in Degeratu, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the steps of utilizing arrays and feature vectors for similarity matching to Dohring/Kapoor’s mentor/tutor-to-learner matching process with the predicted result of identifying a mentor/tutor that contains sufficient credentials for assisting a learner in developing their desired skills throughout their learning path.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring and Kapoor as applied to claims 2-3, 8-9, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Pearson [US20180130156A1].
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Dohring/Kapoor discloses a multi-phase learning system, but Dohring/Kapoor does not explicitly disclose a three tier learning system and the structure of the learning phases.
Pearson, however, discloses:
a first learning phase (Pearson, [0101], “Server 102, while generating the ordered list on the UI, may identify the course delivery tag associated with each learning objective 205 data module 200, and group the learning objectives 205 into three lists, each containing the appropriate learning objectives 205 for self-study, peer-to-peer, or instructor-led activities. The list may also indicate a gateway between each stage, notifying each user that they have completed the stage and should move to the next stage.”), wherein the course content comprises
a theory (Pearson, [0051], “…one or more assets or other resources needed for the user to complete the one or more learning objectives 205…”) and
a plurality of foundational principles (Pearson, [0050], “The data modules 200 may therefore be used for any associated job description or occupation 210 within any career path for a user…”);
a second learning phase (Pearson, [0101], “…three lists…”) comprising
an application of the theory (Pearson, [0051], “…independent learning games…”), and
the plurality of foundational principles to a hypothetical scenario (Pearson, [0050], “The data modules 200 may therefore be used for any associated job description or occupation 210 within any career path for a user…”), and
a third learning phase (Pearson, [0101], “…three lists…”) comprising
an application of the theory (Pearson, [0051], “…independent learning games…”) and
the plurality of foundational principles to a live business or volunteer situation (Pearson, [0050], “The data modules 200 may therefore be used for any associated job description or occupation 210 within any career path for a user…” and Pearson, [0051], “...one or more career based tasks 210 (e.g., “socializing with foreigners”)…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have broken up the learning process into multiple phases and ensured specific learning criteria was included within each phase as in Pearson in the adaptive learning path of Dohring/Kapoor with the ability to provide further structure and transparency behind the learner’s educational path.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohring, Kapoor, and Pearson as applied to claims 5, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Abeyta [US20150088573A1].
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Dohring/Kapoor/Pearson discloses:
The system of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the system to:
generate a user dashboard user interface; present the user dashboard user interface to the user via the user device (Dohring, [0120], “As shown in FIG. 9B, in this example, Prudence's Hub (e.g., interactive online learning graphic user interface) currently provides access to two learning activities: Balloons Pretest 1-5, and Trees Pretest 1-5.”);
receive, from the user via the user dashboard user interface, a first input comprising (Dohring, [0070], “…the digital processing device includes an input device to receive information from a user.”):
a summary of the second learning phase or the third learning phase (Dohring, [0054], The following feedback is provided throughout all phases disclosed in Dohring: “Feedback is provided to inform the learner about their performance during the learning process and includes, by way of non-limiting examples, scores, indicators of success, rewards, encouragement, indicators of inadequate performance, correction, guidance, or any combination thereof.”);
a self-assessment of the user in the first learning phase or the second learning phase (i.e., Dohring’s Pretests); and
a request for a meeting with the mentor to review the first phase or the second phase (Kapoor, [0026], “The tutoring user may provide tutoring to the learning user 102 by meeting the learning user 102 in person to assist the learning user 102 in performing the learning application. As such, the modular learning system 144 facilitates the meeting and communication of tutors and learners.”);
generate a mentor dashboard user interface; present the mentor dashboard user interface to the mentor via a mentor device;
receive, from the mentor via the mentor dashboard user interface, a second input (Kapoor, [0026], “The tutoring user 112 provides input to the modular learning system 144 using a plurality of learning applications through an interface displayed on the tutoring user's 112 user device 140.”) comprising:
feedback indicative of performance of the user for the second learning phase or the third learning phase (Kapoor, [0026], “The modular learning system 144 enables a tutoring user 112 to provide microtutoring services to learning user 102.” Providing feedback on a user’s performance is customarily incorporated within tutoring services.); and
an acceptance for the request for the meeting (Kapoor, [0026], “As such, the modular learning system 144 facilitates the meeting and communication of tutors and learners.”);
store the summary, the self-assessment, and the feedback in the database (Dohring, [0007], “…the method is implemented in an offline environment, wherein in the offline environment performance data for the learner is stored locally and the identification of the at least one current node and the dynamic variation of the learning activity is based on the locally stored performance data.”).
Dohring/Kapoor/Pearson does not explicitly disclose the use of video conferencing software modules to facilitate meetings amongst learners and tutors/mentors.
Abeyta, however, discloses:
A system caused to facilitate the meeting via video conferencing software (Abeyta, [0008], “…the platform is a fully functional videoconference that incorporates additional learning tools to help the student improve their conversational skills.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have allow mentors/tutors to video conference with learners as disclosed by Abeyta in the adaptive learning path taught by Dohring/Kapoor/Pearson. As in Abeyta, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to implement video conferencing software within the learning system of Dohring/Kapoor/Pearson with the predicted result of allowing mentors/tutors to provide tutoring services via a virtual network rather than exclusively via a physical location.
Claims 7-12 and 13-18 (Currently Amended) share similar limitations to claims 1-6. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1-6 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, filed August 5, 2025, with respect to Drawing Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Figs 2, 3B, and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, filed August 5, 2025, with respect to the objection of claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1 and 13 has been withdrawn.
The Office Action filed May 6, 2025 objected to claim 7 for the same reason as claims 1 and 13; however, claim 7 was not amended to address the objection; therefore, the objection remains as cited in the Claim Objections section above.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 14-16, filed August 5, 2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant submits that the claimed invention provides a technological improvement to the field as the skills-based course approach allows for more efficient learning and synchronization of educational objectives between potential employers or other entities and learners. The Applicant further submits that the functionality pertaining to issuance and transmission of the digital credential also allows for secure and efficient verification of educational progress for both learners and potential employers or other entities.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The Applicant further submits, “at least the steps of “issue of a digital credential to the user upon determining that the user has successfully completed the first course” and "send a first notification to an authorized third party server indicating that the user has successfully completed the first course and that the user has been issued the digital credential" as recited in claim 1 should be considered because they cannot be reasonably viewed as mental processed or certain methods of organizing human activity.”
However, the Examiner respectfully submits that issuing a credential and sending a notification are fundamental aspects within the art and are not improvements therein. For further details on the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, see the corresponding section above.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 16-18, filed August 5, 2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that various elements of the claimed invention are not taught by the prior art.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits the citations in the corresponding section above as evidence against said argument.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that Dohring does not explicitly teach a digital credential as the “discussion of providing feedback to the learner to help the user learn about their performance during the learning process is not the same as issuing a digital credential upon completion of a course” (Remarks, page 17).
However, the Examiner respectfully submits that feedback is understood to mean, “the transmission of evaluative or corrective information about an action, event, or process to the original or controlling source” (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary). The system/method, as claimed, “issue[s] credentials to the student upon successful validation” (Specification, [0053]). In other words, the claimed invention issues the credential as feedback that the student has successfully completed the course. Furthermore, the prior art provides specific examples of what Dohring considers as feedback, which includes, “by way of non-limiting examples, scores, indicators of success, rewards, encouragement, indicators of inadequate performance, correction, guidance, or any combination thereof.” (Dohring, [0054]). As claimed, credentials are indicators of success.
The Applicant also argues that, “Dohring provides no disclosure pertaining to transmission of digital credentials to an authorized third party server” (Remarks, page 17).
However, the Examiner respectfully submits that the various servers discussed in [0080] of Dohring may be considered third-party servers and are disclosed as containing the disclosed databases (i.e., where the evaluations are stored), and “the web server(s) optionally expose one or more web services via app application programming interfaces (APIs) 2340.” (Dohring, [0080]). The specific data sent to the third-party servers amounts to intended use, and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant's arguments, see page 18, filed August 5, 2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715