DETAILED ACTION
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
This Final Office Action is in reply to the amendments/remarks filed on 11 June 2025.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-2, and 4-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
rules engine module is configured to in claim 16
course recommendation module is configured to in claim 16
compliance module is configured to in claim 16
course recommendation module is further configured to in claim 18
course recommendation module is further configured to in claim 19
course recommendation module being configured to in claim 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 16 recite, identifying, by the course recommendation module, a second set of requirements associated with a second certification type of a second license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs, wherein at least some requirements of the first set of requirements are the same as at least some requirements of the second set of requirements; generating an aggregate set of requirements associated with the first certification type of the first license and certification information input and the second certification type of the second license certification information input; receiving each CE content data object of the CE content library; analyzing each CE content data object to determine a maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements satisfied by each respective CE content data object; and selecting a minimum number of CE content data objects as the plurality of CE content data objects responsive to the respective CE content data object satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements; ranking, by the course recommendation module, the plurality of CE content data objects by determining a respective relevance score for each of the CE content data objects based on user personal preference information, credit information, and satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements. The specification at best describes at [0110]: but by aggregating relevant task data across at least a portion of the licenses/certifications that the user currently holds, and by gathering one or more relevant CE content that the user could consume, the recommendation engine may determine one or more CE courses/content that may apply to multiple tasks, and the system may present the end user with an efficient path to staying compliant with CE. Thus, in some embodiments, the system may include streamlining and providing an efficient CE management system. However, the specification as originally filed does not provide adequate support for the limitations: identifying, by the course recommendation module, a second set of requirements associated with a second certification type of a second license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs, wherein at least some requirements of the first set of requirements are the same as at least some requirements of the second set of requirements; generating an aggregate set of requirements associated with the first certification type of the first license and certification information input and the second certification type of the second license certification information input; receiving each CE content data object of the CE content library; analyzing each CE content data object to determine a maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements satisfied by each respective CE content data object; and selecting a minimum number of CE content data objects as the plurality of CE content data objects responsive to the respective CE content data object satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements; ranking, by the course recommendation module, the plurality of CE content data objects by determining a respective relevance score for each of the CE content data objects based on user personal preference information, credit information, and satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites, identifying, by the course recommendation module, a third set of requirements associated with a third certification type of a third license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs, wherein at least some requirements of the first set of requirements or the second set of requirements are the same as at least some requirements of the third set of requirements; and generating, by the course recommendation module, the aggregate set of requirements associated with the first certification type of the first license and certification information input, the second certification type of the second license and certification information input, and the third certification type of the third license and certification information input. The specification at best describes at [0110]: but by aggregating relevant task data across at least a portion of the licenses/certifications that the user currently holds, and by gathering one or more relevant CE content that the user could consume, the recommendation engine may determine one or more CE courses/content that may apply to multiple tasks, and the system may present the end user with an efficient path to staying compliant with CE. Thus, in some embodiments, the system may include streamlining and providing an efficient CE management system. However, the specification as originally filed does not provide adequate support for the limitations. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-15, and 17-21 is similarly rejected for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claims 1, 9 and 16.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 18 and 19 depend on claim 17 and recite the limitation "the course recommendation module". However, claim 17 does not recite a course recommendation module. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Further clarification is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims fall within any statutory category. Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 21 recite a method (i.e. a process), claims 9-20 recite a system (i.e. a machine). Thus the claims fall within at least one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Claims 1, 9 recites the abstract idea, generating,…a plurality of task data objects for the user based on the respective set of requirements associated with each certification type of the plurality of license and certification information inputs, wherein each task data object of the plurality of task data objects includes a name and a due date; and a number of credits; selecting,…, a plurality of CE content data objects based on the plurality of task data objects and metadata associated with the CE content data objects, wherein selecting the plurality of CE content data objects further comprises: identifying a first set of requirements associated with a first certification type of a first license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs; identifying… a second set of requirements associated with a second certification type of a second license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs, wherein at least some requirements of the first set of requirements are the same as at least some requirements of the second set of requirements; generating an aggregate set of requirements associated with the first certification type of the first license and certification information input and the second certification type of the second license certification information input; receiving each CE content data object of the CE content library; analyzing each CE content data object to determine a maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements satisfied by each respective CE content data object; and selecting a minimum number of CE content data objects as the plurality of CE content data objects responsive to the respective CE content data object satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements; ranking… the plurality of CE content data objects by determining a respective relevance score for each of the CE content data objects based on user personal preference information, credit information, and satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements; connecting each CE content data object of the plurality of CE content data objects with at least one task data object of the plurality of task data objects.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations, the limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity because they cover steps of determining and providing tasks to be completed by a user based on license or certification requirements. This is an example of managing personal behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II, C.
Additionally, claims 1 and 9 can be considered to fall within the mental process grouping because the limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The “generating” step encompasses a human making judgments and creating tasks to be completed, perhaps with pen and paper. The “selecting” step encompasses a human mentally identifying and choosing CE content data objects based on the tasks and metadata associated with the CE content data. The “ranking” step encompass a human thinking how the CE content data objects is ranked based on relevance score. The “connecting” step encompasses evaluating each CE content data object and matching the CE content data with at least one task data object. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Claim 16 recites the abstract idea, generate a plurality of task data objects for the user based on the respective set of requirements associated with each certification type of the plurality of license and certification inputs, wherein each task data object of the plurality of task data objects includes a name and a due date, and a number of credits, …select, a plurality of CE content data objects based on the plurality of task data objects and metadata associated with the CE content data objects, wherein selecting the plurality of CE content data objects further comprises: identifying a first set of requirements associated with a first certification type of a first license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs; identifying a second set of requirements associated with a second certification type of a second license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs, wherein at least some requirements of the first set of requirements are the same as at least some requirements of the second set of requirements; generating an aggregate set of requirements associated with the first certification type of the first license and certification information input and the second certification type of the second license certification information input; receiving each CE content data object of the CE content library; analyzing each CE content data object to determine a maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements satisfied by each respective CE content data object; and selecting a minimum number of CE content data objects as the plurality of CE content data objects responsive to the respective CE content data object satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements; ranking…, the plurality of CE content data objects by determining a respective relevance score for each of the CE content data objects based on user personal preference information, credit information, and satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements; connect each CE content data object of the plurality of CE content data objects with at least one task data object of the plurality of task data objects, and present, a visual representation of the plurality of task data objects, and the plurality of the CE content data objects, and receive a task completion evidence from the user, extract metadata, calculate a credit amount based on the extracted metadata, and apply the credit amount to a task data object of the plurality of task data objects.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations, the limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity because they cover steps of determining and providing tasks to be completed by a user based on license or certification requirements and applying credits to the tasks completed by the user. This is an example of managing personal behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II, C.
Additionally, claim 16 can be considered to fall within the mental process grouping because the limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind. The “generating”, “selecting”, “identifying”, “analyzing”, “ranking”, “connecting”, and “connecting” steps encompass a human observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Claim 8 recites, the abstract idea, calculating a credit amount based on the extracted metadata, and applying the credit amount to a task data object of the plurality of task data objects. The “calculating” step encompass a human observing the metadata and performing an evaluation of the credit amount to apply to a task. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Claim 10 recites wherein the license and certification information inputs includes an expiration date associated with a medical license or certification. Claim 12 recites, wherein a CE content data object of the plurality of CE content data objects includes a number of credits. Claim 13 recites wherein a CE content data object of the plurality of CE content data objects includes a credit type. Claim 14 recites wherein a CE content data object of the plurality of CE content data objects includes a link to a continuing medical education course. Claim 15 recites, wherein the metadata of a CE content data object of the plurality of CE content data objects includes metadata indicating course subject matter. Dependent claims 10, 12-15 further narrow the abstract idea as identified in claims 1 and 9 with further embellishments on the types of license and certification information inputs, CE content data objects and the metadata of a CE content data object. The additional limitations of the claims 10 and 12-15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11 further recites the abstract idea wherein: a first task data object of the plurality of task data objects includes a lead cyclic task type; generate a second task data object, wherein the second task data object includes a due date based on the expiration date of the license or certification information and a cycle period. . The “generating” step encompasses a human making judgments and creating tasks to be completed, perhaps with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Claim 17 recites the abstract idea, select the plurality of CE content data objects comprises searching the CE content library using one or more keywords. Claim 18 recites the abstract idea, filter out one or more CE content data objects of the plurality of CE content data objects based on the one or more CE content data objects failing to meet a credit type criteria. Claim 19 recites the abstract idea, filter out one or more CE content data objects of the plurality of CE content data objects based on the one or more CE content data objects failing to meet a specialty type criteria. Claim 20 recites the abstract idea, sorting the plurality of CE content data objects based on a number of credits of each of the CE content data objects. Claim 21 recites wherein selecting the plurality of CE content data objects further comprises: identifying… a third set of requirements associated with a third certification type of a third license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs, wherein at least some requirements of the first set of requirements or the second set of requirements are the same as at least some requirements of the third set of requirements; and generating,…the aggregate set of requirements associated with the first certification type of the first license and certification information input, the second certification type of the second license and certification information input, and the third certification type of the third license and certification information input.
Claims 17-21 can be considered to fall within the mental process grouping because the limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The “searching” step encompasses a human evaluating keywords to find CE content library. The “filtering” step encompasses a human evaluating and eliminating CE content data objects failing to meet a credit type criteria. The “sorting” step encompasses evaluating CE content data objects and thinking about arranging them based on the credit amount. The “selecting” step encompasses a human mentally identifying requirements associated with a certification type of a license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs and “generating” step encompasses a human mentally aggregating requirements associated with the first certification type of the first license and certification information input, the second certification type of the second license and certification information input, and the third certification type of the third license and certification information input. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements, data network, user interface, data storage that stores a continuing education (CE) content library, task driven dashboard. However, the additional elements are computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform the generic functions of receiving, storing, generating, selecting and presenting data. The computing components perform the abstract idea such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Claim 1 also recites the additional elements, receiving, over a data network and from a user interface, license and certification information inputs, storing, at a rules engine stored in a computer memory of a server, a plurality of certification types, wherein each of the plurality of certification types is associated with a respective set of requirements and presenting, via a second user interface, a task-driven dashboard to the user, wherein the dashboard includes a visual representation of the plurality of task data objects; and the plurality of the CE content data objects, wherein an order of the plurality of the CE content data objects is based on the ranking. However, these limitations are mere data gathering, storage and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, storage and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the executable instructions, when executable by a processor, cause the processor to perform the claimed steps, a data network, user interface, rules engine, data storage that stores a continuing education (CE) content library and a task-driven dashboard. However, the additional elements are computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform the generic functions of receiving, storing, generating, selecting, ranking and presenting data. The computing components perform the abstract idea such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Claim 9 also recites the additional elements, receive, over a data network and from a user interface, license and certification information inputs and present, via a second user interface, a task-driven dashboard to the user, wherein the dashboard includes a visual representation of the plurality of task data objects. However, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 recites the additional elements including, a server comprising a rules engine module, a course recommendation module, and a compliance module; and a data storage module comprising a file storage and a database, wherein the rules engine module is configured to perform the claimed steps, a data network, user interface, and a task-driven dashboard. However, the additional elements are computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform the generic functions of receiving, storing, generating, selecting, presenting data, extracting, calculating and applying. The computing components perform the abstract idea such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Claim 16 also recites the additional elements, receive, over a data network and from a user interface, license and certification information inputs and present, via a second user interface, a task-driven dashboard to the user, wherein the dashboard includes a visual representation of the plurality of task data objects, receive a task completion evidence file from the user, store the file in the file storage. However, these limitations are mere data gathering, storage and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Dependent claim 2 recites the additional elements, wherein the first user interface comprises the user interface of a web browser executing on a computing device of the user. However, these limitations merely limit the use of the abstract idea to technological environment and therefore do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim.
Dependent claims 4-7 recites the additional elements, “receiving, over the data network and from the user interface…” However, these limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Similar to claims 1, 9 and 16, the additional elements of dependent claims 3, 8, 10-15 and 17-21 are computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform the generic functions of the abstract idea such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components.
The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1, 2, 4-21 as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the receiving, storing and presenting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions indicate that mere collection, storge or transmission of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claim do not add anything further than when they are considered separately. Thus, under Step 2B, the claims are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-16, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupple et al (US 2015/0242862 A1) in view of Kim (US 20050108030 A1), in view of Wang et al (US 2014/0186817 A1).
Claims 1 and 9: Rupple discloses a computer-implemented method for improving efficiency of a continuing education management computer platform, comprising and a system for improving the efficiency of a continuing education management computer platform, the computer-implemented method comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the executable instructions, when executable by a processor, cause the processor (see [0007]: a plurality of instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium is provided. The plurality of instructions configured to, be executed by a processor):
receiving, over a data network and from a first user interface, a plurality of license and certification information inputs, wherein each of the plurality of license and certification information inputs includes a license number, a license expiration date, and a certification type (see [0065]: The LCMP 400, employing communications via the network 405, provides a mobile portal that allows professional businesses and practitioners to effectively and efficiently manage license and compliance information. A user, such as a practitioner or a supervisor of multiple practitioners can enter compliance requirements and associated expiration or renewal information. [0069] The user can register, or otherwise setup an account, with the LCMP 400 via the client device 300. If a payment is required, the user also can provide payment to the LCMP 400 via the client device 300. The client device 300 prompts the user to enter account information, such as one or more of: user identifier (ID), name, state, license number, policy number, and so forth. The client device 300 stores the account information in memory. [0152] The user is also able to enter Active Credentials information for Federal Certifications 1208 by selecting a drop down arrow and selecting type 1228 of credential (for example, a License, Permit, Certificate), and, based on Profession 1160, appropriate Name 1230 (for example Controlled Substance) is displayed by selecting a drop down arrow);
storing, at a rules engine a plurality of certification types, wherein each of the plurality of certification types is associated with a respective set of requirements (see [0076]: The server 200 further is able to analyze the stored information and provide one or more actions based on such analysis. [0077]: in response to the user entering a license, the server 200 identifies the appropriate credential authority based on the type of license and jurisdiction for the license. The server 200 can communicate with the credential authorities to obtain the license requirements or the server 200 can retrieve the license requirements from storage device 215. Based on the license information received from client device 300, the PD 410, or both, and the license requirements, the server 200 identifies the critical dates for renewal and any continuing education requirements, such as required hours, required courses, and the critical dates the hours or courses are due. The server 200 sends the client device a notification regarding the critical dates for renewal and any continuing education requirements);
generating, at the rules engine, a plurality of task data objects for the user based on the respective set of requirements associated with each certification type of the plurality of license and certification information inputs, wherein each task data object of the plurality of task data objects includes a name and a due date; (see [0076]: The server 200 further is able to analyze the stored information and provide one or more actions based on such analysis. [0077]: in response to the user entering a license, the server 200 identifies the appropriate credential authority based on the type of license and jurisdiction for the license. The server 200 can communicate with the credential authorities to obtain the license requirements or the server 200 can retrieve the license requirements from storage device 215. Based on the license information received from client device 300, the PD 410, or both, and the license requirements, the server 200 identifies the critical dates for renewal and any continuing education requirements, such as required hours, required courses, and the critical dates the hours or courses are due. The server 200 sends the client device a notification regarding the critical dates for renewal and any continuing education requirements);
selecting, by a course recommendation module from a data storage that stores a continuing education (CE) content library, a plurality of CE content data objects based on the plurality of task data objects (see [0120]: the server 200 suggests courses by analyzing the portfolio of credentials and suggests a CE plan with the fewest unique courses. In certain embodiments, the user can select one or more courses from the listing of courses displayed by the client device 300);
identifying a first set of requirements associated with a first certification type of a first license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs; identifying, by the course recommendation module, a second set of requirements associated with a second certification type of a second license and certification information input of the plurality of license and certification information inputs, wherein at least some requirements of the first set of requirements are the same as at least some requirements of the second set of requirements; generating an aggregate set of requirements associated with the first certification type of the first license and certification information input and the second certification type of the second license certification information input; receiving each CE content data object of the CE content library; analyzing each CE content data object to determine a maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements satisfied by each respective CE content data object; and selecting a minimum number of CE content data objects as the plurality of CE content data objects responsive to the respective CE content data object satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements (In light of the 35 USC 112a first paragraph rejection and Applicant’s specification at [0110]. Rupple teaches the limitations at [0120]: In certain embodiments, since a particular CE course can satisfy the requirements for multiple credentials, the LCMP 400 is able to optimize a current education portfolio by suggesting one or more CE courses. In certain embodiments, the server 200 suggests courses by analyzing the portfolio of credentials and suggests a CE plan with the fewest unique courses. In certain embodiments, the client device 300 suggests courses by analyzing the portfolio of credentials and suggests a CE plan with the fewest unique courses. In certain embodiments, the practice device 410 suggests courses by analyzing the portfolio of credentials and suggests a CE plan with the fewest unique courses).
digitally connect each CE content data object of the plurality of CE content data objects with at least one task data object of the plurality of task data objects (See [0119]: When the server 200 identifies that a current date is within a predefined threshold of an expiration renewal date, the server 200 sends a notification to the client device 300 indicating the approaching date and corresponding course or skill. When the server 200 identifies a change in continuing education requirement, such as in response to a change in a compliance law or regulation, the server 200 sends an informational message to the client device 300. For example, in response to a change in the law or regulation, the server 200 sends a continuing education update message to the client device 300 informing the client device 300 regarding one or more of: 1) a change in law or regulation has occurred; 2) a location where the change in law can be found; 3) full text of the change in law or regulation; 4) a summary of the change in law or regulation; and 5) a change in continuing education requirements.), and
present, via a second user interface, a task-driven dashboard to the user, wherein the dashboard includes a visual representation of the plurality of task data objects, and the plurality of the CE content data objects, (see Fig. 12, [0074]: The user also is able to select and upload continuing education information via the PD 410. The PD 410 displays continuing education requirements for one or more licenses or certifications for one or more practitioners associated with a Practice, namely associated with a GID. The PD 410 displays information regarding one or more continuing education courses offered by a continuing education provider. In certain embodiments).
Rupple does not expressly disclose task data objects includes a number of credits but Kim in the same field of endeavor teaches, task data objects includes a number of credits (see Fig. 11: credit units, [0054] Certification Credit information relates to a user's completed, in progress or planned activities that may refine certification requirements, if allowed by the certification authority. For example, certification goals may be reduced, because the user qualifies for credit for having completed or intending to complete a course or program in the field of endeavor).
Therefore, 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 course suggestion method and system of Rupple, certification requirements activities includes number of credits as taught by Kim because it would “refine[s] certification requirement based on Needs Assessment and/or Certification Credit information to determine goals of the certification plan” (Kim, [0054]).
Rupple and Kim do not expressly disclose selecting a plurality of CE content data objects based on metadata associated with the CE content data objects, and ranking, by the course recommendation module, the plurality of CE content data objects by determining a respective relevance score for each of the CE content data objects based on user personal preference information, credit information, and satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements, wherein an order of the plurality of the CE content data objects is based on the ranking but Wang teaches, metadata associated with the CE content data objects,([0028]: extract learning-specific features from the learning materials 104. As used herein, "learning-specific features" may include features such as metadata that are specific to and/or describe a corresponding one of the learning materials) and ranking, by the course recommendation module, the plurality of CE content data objects by determining a respective relevance score for each of the CE content data objects based on user personal preference information, credit information, and satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements, wherein an order of the plurality of the CE content data objects is based on the ranking (see [0049]: some users 108 may have a preference for the latest learning materials. [0061]: the ranking and recommendation engine 322 may be configured to rank each of the learning materials 104 based on both the content similarity measurement and one or more additional measurements such as the freshness measurement, the academic credit measurement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rupple and Kim with the system and method of metadata associated with the CE content data objects and ranking, by the course recommendation module, the plurality of CE content data objects by determining a respective relevance score for each of the CE content data objects based on user personal preference information, credit information, and satisfying the maximum number of requirements among the aggregate set of requirements, wherein an order of the plurality of the CE content data objects is based on the ranking as taught by Wang because it would “provide an effective approach for ranking and recommendation of online open education learning materials” (Wang, [0018]).
Claim 2: The combination of Rupple, Kim and Wang discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Rupple further teaches, wherein the first user interface comprises the user interface of a web browser executing on a computing device of the user ([176]: the user can access the LCMP 400 by executing software or an APP on PD 410, accessing a web-portal via the PD 410, activating an APP on the client device 300 coupled to PD 410, accessing a web-portal via the client device 300. Upon executing the APP or accessing the web-portal, the LCMP 400 provides a login and register screen display).
Claim 4: The combination of Rupple, Kim and Wang discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Rupple further teaches, receiving, over the data network and from the user interface, the user personal preference information (see [0144], [0154] When a current date is within predefined days prior to "Expiration" date, the server 200 automatically notifies the user using their preferred method of communication as entered in their Account Page).
Claim 5: The combination of Rupple, Kim and Wang discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Wang further discloses wherein selecting the plurality of CE content data objects is further based on the user personal preference information (See [0049]: some users 108 may have a preference for the latest learning materials).
Claim 6: The combination of Rupple, Kim and Wang discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Rupple further teaches, further comprising receiving, over the data network, task completion evidence information (see [0120]: After attending or completing the course, the user uploads proof of completion into the client device 300. The proof of completion can include a course completion certificate, a roster of s