6/DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 6/27/25. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite: “ such that content is delivered transparently to the students with respect to which module is selected” and “replay module launch events … to deliver content …to the students to maintain transparency to the student.” It is unclear to the examiner what the Applicant intends with the terms “transparently” and “maintain transparency.” In particular, the Examiner understands the term “transparently” or “transparency” to mean that something is clear, open and fully visible. However, applicant’s arguments suggest that the methodology in conducting trials requires that trials be “double-blind” (pg. 15 of the Applicant’s response) As understood by the Examiner, transparency in providing information would contradict the practices of a “double-blind” study.
Claim 1 has been further amended to recite “the educational modules being accessible in an on-line system such that content is delivered to students as a result of selecting a link and the on-line system providing content as a result of the user selecting the link, but where the student selecting the link in isolation has no effect on content ultimately delivered to the students.” It is unclear to the examiner the whether the “selecting” step is actively performed as a function of the claimed method. Additionally, it is unclear what applicant intends with the recitation of “where the student selecting the link in isolation has no effect on content ultimately delivered to the students.” More specifically, as drafted the current claim language suggests that the selection of a link does not trigger content to be delivered to the students.
A similar analysis applies to claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations (i.e. “such that content is delivered transparently to the students with respect to which module is selected).
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective independent claims, and are therefore also rejected.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e, a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
35 USC 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of Section 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Applicant’s claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-4 and 6-7 are drawn to a system, claims 8-11 and 13-14 are drawn to a method; and claims 15-18 and 20 are drawn to a product (i.e. computer readable medium storing instructions).
Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not complete the eligibility analysis. Claims drawn only to an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection. As described in MPEP 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The framework for this revised guidance, which sets forth the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), is described in MPEP sections 2106.03 and 2106.04.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. Moreover, this guidance explains that a patent claim or patent application claim that recites a judicial exception is not ‘‘directed to’’ the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. A claim that recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application, is directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A and must then be evaluated under Step 2B (inventive concept) to determine the subject matter eligibility of the claim.
Step 2A asks: Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? If so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception? A claim recites a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, while the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 recite(s) a method and system for certain methods of organizing human activities, which is subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described in MPEP 2106.04 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) Certain methods of organizing human activities includes fundamental economic practices, like insurance; commercial interactions (i.e. legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Organizing human activity also encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.) The recited method and system are drawn planning, conducting and analyzing data from an educational/student clinical trial. (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people)
In particular, claim 1 recites a system configured to:
receive user input defining parameters for a randomized clinical trial;
analyze data from a plurality of educational modules comprising the control educational module and the variation educational module associated with a learning management system course administered by a learning management system to generate the results of the randomized clinical trial, …wherein analyzing is performed based on user input received at the configuration interface;
randomly assign students interacting with the learning management system to one of the educational modules randomly selected from the group comprising the control educational module and the variation educational module in the plurality of educational modules based on user input
replay module launch events to the randomly selected modules to deliver content from the randomly selected modules to the students to maintain transparency to the student;
Similarly, claims 8 and 15 recite a method and product for:
receiving… user input defining parameters for a randomized clinical trial;
based on user input received…, randomly assigning students interacting with the learning management system to one educational model randomly selected from among a plurality of educational modules…, including a control educational module, and at least one variation educational module correlated to the control educational module comprising a variation to be tested with respect to the control educational module;
receiving educational module launch events from the learning management system as a result of a student selecting a link for educational materials…
replaying an educational module launch event back to the learning management system to a selected educational module based on the results of randomly assigning students interacting with the learning management system to one of the education modules such that content is delivered transparently to the students with respect to which module is selected;
analyzing result data generated as a result of randomly assigning the students, wherein analyzing result data is performed based on user input received at the configuration interface…
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e). (Considerations for integration into a practical application in Step 2A, prong two and for recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B)
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting by themselves, claims that integrate these exceptions into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). Thus, the second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Id. An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute Sections 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under Section 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
As described in MPEP 2106.05, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examples of insignificant extra-solution activity include mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and insignificant application. In the instant case, claims 1 also recites “to output, to a user, results of the randomized clinical trial, wherein the results are correlated by educational modules comprising at least one correlation between a control educational module…” and “provide the results of the randomized clinical trial … to users at the learning management systems.” Similarly, Claims 8, and 15 additionally recite: reporting results of analyzing the result data to a dashboard interface, where the results of analyzing the result data is presented to a user at the learning management system…. This step amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite additional limitation(s), including: at a configuration interface; a user interface; random clinical trial management system, an analysis engine; dashboard interface; and a communications interface. Claim 15 also recites “a physical non-transitory storage medium comprising computer executable instructions” and “one or more processors.” These additional components is/are generic components that perform functions well-understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The generic nature of the computer system used to carryout steps of the recited method is underscored by the system description in the instant application, which discloses: “Physical computer-readable storage media includes RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage (such as CDs, DVDs, etc.), magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store desired program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures and which can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer." (par. 47)
The disclosure also states: “the invention may be practiced in network computing environments with many types of computer system configurations, including, personal computers, desktop computers, laptop computers, message processors, hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, mobile telephones, PDAs, pagers, routers, switches, and the like. The invention may also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computer systems, which are linked (either by hardwired data links, wireless data links, or by a combination of hardwired and wireless data links) through a network, both perform tasks. In a distributed system environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.” (par. 51)
The application explains: “The analysis engine 118 may be implemented using hardware and/or software as discussed below in the description of example computer systems. (see par. 27) Such language underscores that the applicant's perceived invention/ novelty focuses on the computerized implementation of the abstract idea, not the underlying structure of the additional (generic) components.
Furthermore, the courts have recognized certain computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)). Among these are the following features:
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
- Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
- Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
- Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
Because Applicant’s claimed invention recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, the claimed invention is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are dependent from Claim 1 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 1. More specifically, claims 2-4 and 6-7 recite additional limitations which further define the abstract idea, and/or recite additional extra-solution activities, such as receiving additional data/input. These additional limitations of the claims 2-4 and 6-7 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim(s) 2-4 and 6-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 9-11 and 13-14 are dependent from Claim 8 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 8. More specifically, claims 9-11 and 13-14 recite additional limitations which further define the abstract idea, and/or recite additional extra-solution activities, such as receiving additional data/input. These additional limitations of the claims 9-11 and 13-14 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim(s) 9-11 and 13-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are dependent from Claim 15 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 15. More specifically, claims 16-18 and 20 recite additional limitations which further define the abstract idea, and/or recite additional extra-solution activities, such as receiving additional data/input. However, these additional limitations of the claims 16-18 and 20 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim(s) 16-18 and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zertuche (US 20180366021 A1).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 Zertuche teaches a random clinical trial management system for implementing randomized clinical trials in educational systems, the system comprising:
at least one processor; (par. 6, par. 123) the memory / medium storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (par. 123-125)
a user interface, wherein the user interface comprises: (par. 66-67-user interfaces; dashboard; API; par. 70- the dashboards are included (e.g., embedded) in a UI that contains a Data-Driven Continuous Quality Improvement forms task tracking system that allows users to add real-time comments and/or additional insights related to a specific data view. In these forms, the users can create, update, and complete Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) tasks. Creation of a CQI task)
a configuration interface configured to receive user input defining parameters for a randomized clinical trial; and (par. 80-81- UI includes forms to capture data that schools or other educational organizations would like to integrate with key data systems. These forms alleviate the need for schools themselves to keep track of institutional and/or academic data in the traditional manner (e.g., using spreadsheets, etc.). Example forms can be provided for curriculum map, co-curricula activities, academic infractions, mentor/mentee relationships)
a dashboard interface configured to output, to a user, results of the randomized clinical trial, (Fig. 1; par. 87- A user 128 may access the interactive dashboard(s) 126 using a user device 124 of any suitable type. As described above, in some instances, access to a dashboard 126 and/or analysis results 118 presented within a dashboard is limited to those users 128 who have permission to access the information, based on the user role), wherein the results are correlated by educational modules comprising at least one correlation between a control educational module and at least one variation educational module; (par. 89- includes one or more correlation module(s) 130 that perform an analysis to correlate outcome data 108 with assessment data 140. Such analysis can be performed to generate analysis results that include course effectiveness data, such as that presented through the course effectiveness dashboard; par. 32-individuals answer the question randomly-i.e. randomly assigned)
the random clinical trial management system further comprising an analysis engine configured to:
analyze data from a plurality of educational modules associated with a learning management system course administered by a learning management system to generate the results of the randomized clinical trial, including the control educational module, and the at least one variation educational module correlated to the control educational module comprising a variation to be tested with respect to the control educational module, (par. 31-33: variations with regard answering the questions and overall scoring of the students) wherein analyzing is performed based on user input received at the configuration interface; (Fig. 3; par. 112- learning outcome data is accessed (302) and assessment data is accessed (304). The analysis results are generated (306) based on an analysis of the assessment data with respect to the outcome data)
randomly assign students interacting with the learning management system to one of the educational modules in the plurality of educational modules based on user input received at the configuration interface; (par. 31-33: If the question was answered correctly by a similar or same proportion of both groups of students, the question may be designated a low-quality question, given that both groups of students were answering the question randomly. A low-quality question may have a point biserial that is low (e.g., negative), compared to a high-quality question that has a high (e.g., positive) point biserial.); and
report the results of the randomized clinical trial to the dashboard interface, where the results of the randomized clinical trial can be presented to a user; (Fig. 1(120, 126) Fig. 3 (par. 308, 310); par. 87-88: analysis results 118 may be presented through one or more interactive dashboards 126 as described herein, such as a course effectiveness dashboard, academic advising dashboard, administrator dashboard, student dashboard, CQI integration dashboard, gap analysis dashboard, and so forth. A user 128 may access the interactive dashboard(s) 126 using a user device 124 of any suitable type. As described above, in some instances, access to a dashboard 126 and/or analysis results 118 presented within a dashboard is limited to those users 128 who have permission to access the information, based on the user role; See also par. 112)
the random clinical trial management system further comprising a communications interface configured to be coupled to learning management systems, (par. 128-130) and configured to:
receive user input at the configuration interface from users of the learning management systems; and (Fig. 1(120, 126) Fig. 3 (par. 308, 310); par. 87-88: analysis results 118 may be presented through one or more interactive dashboards 126 as described herein, such as a course effectiveness dashboard, academic advising dashboard, administrator dashboard, student dashboard, CQI integration dashboard, gap analysis dashboard, and so forth. A user 128 may access the interactive dashboard(s) 126 using a user device 124 of any suitable type. As described above, in some instances, access to a dashboard 126 and/or analysis results 118 presented within a dashboard is limited to those users 128 who have permission to access the information, based on the user role; par. 112) and
provide the results of the randomized clinical trial through the dashboard interface to users at the learning management systems. (Fig. 1(120, 126) Fig. 3 (par. 308, 310); par. 87-88; par. 112)
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to further recite, and Zertuche teaches the random clinical trial management system, wherein: the communications interface is configured to receive educational module launch events from the learning management system as a result of students selecting links for educational materials; (par. 24- and CQI tasks (described below) may be generated, with a direct web link to the questions in the assessment system (e.g., ExamSoft™), to prompt a responsible individual (e.g., the professor teaching the course) to provide/label the missing categories for the flagged questions; par. 37; par. 52) and
the communications interface is configured to replay educational module launch events back to the learning management system to selected educational modules based on the results of randomly assigning students interacting with the learning management system to one of the education modules. (par. 19- the platform described herein integrates and analyzes data from one or more assessment services, administrated and/or recorded via a variety of software products, the data including score data for the assessment of student achievement of learning outcomes, course objectives, program outcomes and, national learning outcomes… the grading of observations can be recorded in the software through any suitable rubric. The platform provides interactive dashboards to present the results of the data integration and/or analysis, including metrics such as key performance indicators (KPIs) that are relevant to the particular outcomes of an institution and/or educator administrating the assessments.)
claims 2, 9, 16 Zertuche discloses the random clinical trial management system of claim 1, wherein the configuration interface comprises a wizard interface. ( par. 20- the assessment service(s) include digital assessment services such as ExamSoft™. The platform can extract, integrate, and/or analyze data provided by any suitable assessment service; par. 24-26: pre-processing of data; input and integration from multiple sources; See also par. 60-62)
claims 4, 11, 18 Zertuche discloses random clinical trial management system , wherein the communications interface is configured to communicate with a platform incorporating an online suite of applications configured for blended learning comprising online learning combined with traditional place-based methods. (par. 83: assessment service 110 may be an online service and/or software application that provides educational or other types of test, and that may store and provide information regarding administered assessment(s) 112. In some implementations, the assessment service 110 is an electronic assessment (e.g., testing) software package, such as that provided by ExamSoft™. The assessment service 110 may provide, to the analysis engine 104, assessment data 140 that includes category data 114 and score data 116; par. 121; par. 123-124)
claims 6, 13, 20 Zertuche discloses the random clinical trial management system, wherein the analysis engine is configured to look up information about students interacting with the learning management system to identify profile information for students correlated to links, and wherein to replaying educational module launch events back to the learning management system to selected educational modules is based on the profiles. (par. 49-review of demographic information for students- The administrator dashboard can also allow the user to view information regarding the student population within the program (e.g., demographic breakdown and/or change in breakdown over time), compare the program to other similar programs by comparing the program to peer programs at other institutions or national performance, view comparison information over any suitable period of time; par. 50- a particular student may use a student dashboard to view their own scores on assessments, and the dashboard may compare their scores to the (e.g., average, anonymized, and/or aggregated) scores of other students, and the student may not have access to other information regarding other students. Access control may be accomplished based on authentication of the user logging into the dashboard(s) and providing credentials that are verified to determine the access permissions of the particular user based on their role. )
claims 7, 14 Zertuche discloses the random clinical trial management system, wherein: the communications interface is configured to receive student evaluation information from the learning management system; and the analysis engine is configured to generate the random clinical trial results based on the student evaluation information. (par. 49-50)
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zertuche (US 20180366021 A1) in view of Possick (US 20170263141 A1)
Claim 3, 10, and 17 Zertuche discloses the random clinical trial management system of claims 1, 8, and 15 but does not expressly disclose wherein the communications interface is compliant with LTI 1.3.
Possick teaches an educational assessment system which is Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) compliant. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Zertuche with the teaching of Possick to include a communications interface that is LTI compliant (e.g. compliant with LTI 1.3). As suggested by Possick, one would have been motivated to include this feature to allow for easy product integration with other educational software solutions and to connect learning systems with external service tools in a standard way across learning systems. (par. 68)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) The rejection of claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite: “[a] physical computer readable storage medium comprising computer executable instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors”
(B) Applicant argues that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, and states that the claims at issue deliver only content to users with the goal of delivering different content to different users based on randomized assignment.
In response, the examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments. The claimed invention does not currently recite the limitations argued by the applicant. More specifically, it is not clear from the current claim language that different content is delivered to different users (See rejections under 35 USC 112(b))
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kulier et al (Kulier R, Khan KS, Gulmezoglu AM, Carroli G, Cecatti JG, Germar MJ, Lumbiganon P, Mittal S, Pattinson R, Wolomby-Molondo JJ, Bergh AM, May W. “A cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the clinically integrated RHL evidence -based medicine course.” Reprod Health. 2010 May 14; 7:8. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-7-8. PMID: 20470382; PMCID: PMC2880979.)- discusses a multi-national study assessing the effectiveness of health-based educational modules.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684