DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-22 recite a method, which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
Step 2A Prong 1
Under this step of analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, independent claim 9 recites the abstract idea of:
(a) receiving a request for the teacher to provide the instruction on the skill to the learner;
(b) in response to the request, debiting funds from a first funds wallet associated with the learner;
(c) permitting the teacher to provide the instruction to the learner; and
(d) depositing the funds into a second funds wallet associated with the teacher; wherein the teacher is a member of a first organization and the learner is a member of a second organization.
The above-recited claim limitations recite an abstract idea under certain methods of organizing human activity to wit a fundamental economic practice or principle and/or commercial interaction as the limitations describe an exchange of funds for a service. The preamble recites that the claim is computer implemented; however the body of the claim as written merely shows activities being engaged in by humans carrying wallets. Such process steps, if clearly described as being performed by a computer, still merely show an automation of a process that would be performed by a human, and does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong 1: Yes)
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under this step, recited additional elements are evaluated to determine whether
they provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
(MPEP §2106.05)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional elements being used to implement the abstract idea, and hence fails to indicate a practical application; however, in the interest of compact prosecution, and as recited in the preamble, a computer is interpreted as performing the steps and the claims are analyzed accordingly. An additional element of a computer, recited at a high level of generality, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (the abstract idea) using generic computer components. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Thus the claim does not indicate an integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
Under this step, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more’ than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (i.e., provide an inventive concept). (MPEP §2106.05)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers and thus does not provide something significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 as follows: further describing participants in the transaction – claims 2, 3; further describing the service and the request for the service – claims 4, 5, 19; further describing the order of steps performed – claims 6-9; further describing the funds for payment for the requested service – clms 10, 13, 14.
Dependent claim 11 recites an additional limitation that describes the storing of information: wherein the funds are registered on a ledger.
Such limitation recites storing of data which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): (buySAFE, Inc.; OIP Techs., Inc.). Thus the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A, Prong 2: No) This additional limitation described as insignificant extra-solution activity are reevaluated in Step 2B. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of mere data storing to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs.). (Step 2B: No).
Dependent claim 12 recites an additional element - decentralized ledger (interpreted as a digital record maintained by a network of nodes(computers)) - recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (abstract idea) using generic computers. Thus, the claim, viewed individually and as a whole, does not add any additional element that indicates an integration into a practical application or provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed.
Dependent claims 15-18, 20-22 recite additional limitations that describe the displaying of information and the receiving of data (inputs):
claim 15 - prior to (a), displaying, to the learner, a list of available instructions, the list of available instructions comprising the instruction.
claim 16 - receiving, from the learner, a selection of the instruction from the list of available instructions.
claim 17 - prior to (a), displaying, to the learner, a list of available teachers, the list of available teachers comprising the teacher.
claim 18 - receiving, from the learner, a selection of the teacher from the list of available teachers.
claim 20 - displaying, to a member of the first organization or the second organization, the first skills wallet.
claim 21 - displaying, to a member of the first organization or the second organization, a comparison between the first skills wallet and at least one second skills wallet associated with another member of the second organization.
claim 22 - displaying, to a member of the first organization or the second organization, a metric associated with the first skills wallet, the metric based on a comparison between the first skills wallet and a plurality of other skills wallets.
The additional limitations recite process steps that display or receive data, such limitations reciting forms of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): (buySAFE, Inc.; OIP Techs., Inc.). Thus the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A, Prong 2: No) These additional limitations described as insignificant extra-solution activity are reevaluated in Step 2B. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of mere data display or receiving to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs.). (Step 2B: No).
In sum, as the analysis above shows, dependent claims 2-22 do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Thus, neither the independent claim nor the dependent claims, including consideration of all the limitations of each claim viewed both individually and in combination, add any additional element or recite any subject matter that indicates an integration into a practical application that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter. Nor do the claims provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed.
For the reasons set forth above, claims 1-22 are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews et al. (U.S. 2004/0048233) in view of Krasnyansky (WO01/35304).
Re claim 1: Matthews shows a computer-implemented method for enabling a teacher to provide instruction on a skill to a learner, comprising:
(a) receiving a request for the teacher to provide the instruction on the skill to the learner (para 20 - The requester can select on a help object on the requester's display screen, thereby sending a message or establishing a link to the facilitator organization and sending some help request attributes indicating the nature of the help requester, the subject matter in question, and a help request identifier; para 24 In a broad use of the present invention, the help requester at the digital device display may be requesting help with a subject matter unrelated to digital devices, where the subject matter may be any subject matter.; para 28 – showing instant routing to available personal tutor);
(c) permitting the teacher to provide the instruction to the learner (para 22 - Over the course of a help session, the student helper can provide instantaneous and responsive audio, visual, screen sharing, application sharing and data input to the help requester to both solve the immediate problem and provide carefully tailored training to the help requester); and
(d) … wherein the teacher is a member of a first organization and the learner is a member of a second organization (para 27 - The present invention provides methods for receiving requests for information, help, or training, and for supplying the requested information by employing students in a supervised setting from within the classrooms of educational institutions. The present invention methods include receiving help requests from consumers digital hardware, software, services and/or web sites and para 62 -Another example of a user organization may be found in employer organization 52 (fig 1), having employee end users 54 coupled through communication links 53. In this example of a user organization, employee end user 54 may be coupled through any suitable communication link, for example, a corporate LAN to a corporate server, which is coupled through communication link 51 to help facilitator 40. In one example of the invention, communication link 51 can be a high speed connection to the help facilitator through the Internet. In the employer user organization, employees 54 may be requesting help with software products used by the employees, where the employer wishes to have the help or information requests sent outside of the organization).
Regarding the limitations (b) in response to the request, debiting funds from a first funds wallet associated with the learner and (d) depositing the funds into a second funds wallet associated with the teacher, Matthews shows a help requestor can be billed for the amount of help received (para 22 and para 62 - In the employer user organization, where the employer wishes to have the help or information requests sent outside of the organization, the employer organization may be responsible for paying for the information or help provided to employee end users).
Matthews does not expressly show debiting funds from a first funds wallet associated with the learner and depositing the funds into a second funds wallet associated with the teacher.
Krasnyansky shows debiting funds from a first funds wallet associated with the learner and depositing the funds into a second funds wallet associated with a service provider (interpreted as teacher) (pg 4 of 59, lines 19-23 The present invention provides a system for on-line payment and transfer of funds. The system includes one or more payservers connected through a network to payers and payees. Examples of payees include vendors and service providers. Examples of payers include consumers. In the system, payers use a Wallet to access an account on a payserver, which will perform all or part of the desired financial transaction; pg. 8 of 59, lines 20-26 payserver 130 is the third party that stands between the payee and the payer in each transaction and actually performs it; is a computer server system, independent of any seller-site, to which the Wallet application and seller-site connect via Internet. During each transaction the payserver 130 receives data from the paying party and, at that party's request,
transfers funds from the paying party's account to another account. Each account is associated either with a Wallet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service by Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification as an alternative to using a credit card over a network.
Re claim 3: Matthews further shows wherein the first organization and the second organization are different (para 27 - The present invention provides methods for receiving requests for information, help, or training, and for supplying the requested information by employing students in a supervised setting from within the classrooms of educational institutions. The present invention methods include receiving help requests from consumers digital hardware, software, services and/or web sites and para 62 -Another example of a user organization may be found in employer organization 52 (fig 1), having employee end users 54 coupled through communication links 53. In this example of a user organization, employee end user 54 may be coupled through any suitable communication link, for example, a corporate LAN to a corporate server, which is coupled through communication link 51 to help facilitator 40. In one example of the invention, communication link 51 can be a high speed connection to the help facilitator through the Internet. In the employer user organization, employees 54 may be requesting help with software products used by the employees, where the employer wishes to have the help or information requests sent outside of the organization).
Re claim 4: Matthews further shows wherein the request is received from the learner (para 20 - The requester can select on a help object on the requester's display screen, thereby sending a message or establishing a link to the facilitator organization and sending some help request attributes indicating the nature of the help requester, the subject matter in question, and a help request identifier).
Re claim 5: Matthews further shows wherein the request is received from the second organization (para 27 - The present invention provides methods for receiving requests for information, help, or training, and for supplying the requested information by employing students in a supervised setting from within the classrooms of educational institutions. The present invention methods include receiving help requests from consumers digital hardware, software, services and/or web sites and para 62- Another example of a user organization may be found in employer organization 52 (fig 1), having employee end users 54 coupled through communication links 53. In this example of a user organization, employee end user 54 may be coupled through any suitable communication link, for example, a corporate LAN to a corporate server, which is coupled through communication link 51 to help facilitator 40. In one example of the invention, communication link 51 can be a high speed connection to the help facilitator through the Internet. In the employer user organization, employees 54 may be requesting help with software products used by the employees, where the employer wishes to have the help or information requests sent outside of the organization).
Re claim 6: Matthews further shows wherein (b) occurs before (c) (interpreted as pre-payment) (para 59 - retail end user 50 can have a prepaid, individual account, paid for by a personal credit card or electronic cash equivalent. This prepayment can authorize retail end user 50 to request help directly through help facilitator 40.)
Re claim 7: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky shows the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Regarding the limitation, wherein (c) permitting the teacher to provide the instruction occurs before (b) in response to the request, debiting funds from a first funds wallet associated with the learner (interpreted as a postpaid service): Matthews further shows, in response to a request, the help requester can be billed for the amount of help received and the funds used to pay provider of the help service (para 22), which indicates a service has been received before a payment, said payment which requires debiting from wallet funds of the receiver of the service, is made. Krasnyansky further shows debiting funds from a wallet of the individual to which a service is provided (pg 8 of 59, lines 23-25 During each transaction the payserver 130 receives data from the paying party and, at that party's request, transfers funds from the paying party's account to another account. Each account is associated either with a Wallet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service after the service has been provided by Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification as associated with a service having been already provided for which a payment is now due.
Re claim 8: Matthews further shows wherein (c) occurs before (d) (interpreted as instruction is provided before provider is paid e.g. postpaid) (para 22, in response to a request, the help requester can be billed for the amount of help received and the funds used to pay provider of the help service, which indicates a service is received before a payment). Krasnyansky further shows debiting funds from a wallet of the individual to which a service is provided (pg 8 of 59, lines 23-25 During each transaction the payserver 130 receives data from the paying party and, at that party's request, transfers funds from the paying party's account to another account. Each account is associated either with a Wallet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service after the service has been provided by Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification as associated with a service having been already provided for which a payment is now due.
Re claim 13: Matthews further shows wherein the funds are associated with a card-based electronic funds transfer system (para 59 - Help facilitator 40 may be seen linked to an individual user, end user, or help requester 50, as these terms are used in the present application. User or requester 50 is coupled through data communications link 49 to help facilitator 40. Help requester 50 may also be referred to as a direct end user or retail end user as they are coupled directly to help facilitator 40. In one example of the invention, retail end user 50 can have a prepaid, individual account, paid for by a personal credit card or electronic cash equivalent. This prepayment can authorize retail end user 50 to request help directly through help facilitator 40.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Nishikawa (JP2003140540).
Re claim 2: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky shows the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not expressly show wherein the first organization and the second organization are the same.
Nishikawa shows wherein the first organization and the second organization are the same (paras 10 and 19 showing learner and provider of training/instruction/answer to questions are employees of same company.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets by Nishikawa that shows a same employer of a provider of services and user of the services. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification in order to utilize in-house expertise to provide services associated with the employer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Bartlett (WO2013/168093).
Re claim 9: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky shows the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not expressly show wherein (d) occurs before (c).
Regarding the limitation, Bartlett shows a prepaid system for the service provider since it is provided with funds in the bank before a service is provided (pg 2 of 21, 3rd paragraph A prepaid system is extremely convenient and safe for the service provider since it is provided with funds in the bank before it has to provide the service.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets by Bartlett that shows provision of funds before service performed. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to provide a benefit to service provider that a consumer will follow through with requested service.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Grassadonia et al. (U.S. 2019/0034888).
Re claim 10: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky shows the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not expressly show wherein the funds are associated with a digital currency, coin, or token.
Regarding the wherein clause, and as relates to transactions between entities, Grassadonia shows funds for a purchase transaction may be associated with digital currency (para 21 The disclosed technology addresses the need in the art for a payment service capable of accepting a greater diversity of currencies including fiat currencies (US dollars, Euro, Rupee, etc.), and non-fiat currencies including virtual currencies including cryptocurrencies (bitcoin, ether, etc.); para 22 - Specifically, the present technology permits a first party to pay in any currency, while permitting the second party to be paid in any currency. And para 39 In transactions involving cryptocurrency, payment service 108 can communicate over networks network(s) 110 with cryptocurrency network 145.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets by Grassadonia showing payment funds may be digital . One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to provide flexibility in manner of payment to users.
Re claim 11: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky shows the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but do not expressly show wherein the funds are registered on a ledger.
Grassadonia shows wherein the funds are registered on a ledger (para 26 referencing cryptocurrencies recorded on blockchain; para 39 - In transactions involving cryptocurrency, payment service 108 can communicate over network(s) 110 with cryptocurrency network 145. Such networks can include for example, the Bitcoin network, the Ethereum network, etc. Cryptocurrency networks are commonly associated with a network of parties that cryptographically verify and validate transactions and record transactions on copies of a distributed ledger commonly called the blockchain. Once a transaction has been validated, cryptocurrency network can approve the transaction by writing the transaction to the blockchain; para 48 showing allowing a customer to pay with virtual currency, especially a cryptocurrency that utilizes a blockchain to record transactions and para 52 -Once a miner has verified the block, the block is written to a public, distributed block chain 220 where payment service 108 can then verify that the transaction has been confirmed and can credit customer's cryptocurrency ledger 204 with the transferred amount.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service by Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets by Grassadonia that shows use of digital currency and recording use thereof for payment. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to provide flexibility in payment methods to a user and to record such for audit purposes.
Re claim 12: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Grassadonia shows the computer-implemented method of claim 11.
Grassadonia further shows wherein the ledger comprises a decentralized ledger (para 48 showing allowing a customer to pay with virtual currency, especially a cryptocurrency that utilizes a blockchain to record transactions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service, Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets and Grassadonia that shows use of digital currency and recording use thereof for payment by the use of blockchain as shown in Grassadonia. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to provide flexibility to a user and to utilize blockchain functionality to verify transactions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Rosch et al. (U.S. 2017/0345068).
Re claim 14: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky shows the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Krasnyansky further shows, from above, wherein an amount of the funds debited from the first funds wallet and deposited to the second funds wallet (pg 4 of 59, lines 19-23 The present invention provides a system for on-line payment and transfer of funds. The system includes one or more payservers connected through a network to payers and payees. Examples of payees include vendors and service providers. Examples of payers include consumers. In the system, payers use a Wallet to access an account on a payserver, which will perform all or part of the desired financial transaction; pg. 8 of 59, lines 20-26 payserver 130 is the third party that stands between the payee and the payer in each transaction and actually performs it; is a computer server system, independent of any seller-site, to which the Wallet application and seller-site connect via Internet. During each transaction the payserver 130 receives data from the paying party and, at that party's request, transfers funds from the paying party's account to another account. Each account is associated either with a Wallet).
Matthews and Krasnyansky do not expressly show but Rosch shows a determined amount to be paid based on a rating (feedback) of a provider of a service (paras 2, 12, figs 3A-3C examples).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets by Rosch that shows paying for a service based on a rating thereof. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to incorporate a means to provide the most direct way to show appreciation for a provider of a service (Rosch para 2).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Kapoor (U.S. 2014/0344178).
Re claim 15: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky shows the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not expressly show prior to (a), displaying, to the learner, a list of available instructions, the list of available instructions comprising the instruction.
Regarding this limitation, Kapoor shows choosing application services and tutor through metadata supplied as part of a learning application (para 35 – showing employer establishing learning applications available to employees; para 65 - Each learning application 300 comprises a plurality of kinds of application metadata in addition to the instructional content and associated media for a particular topic or subject. The instructional content and media of each learning application 300 may comprise a specific unit of instruction for a particular portion of knowledge or a skill, and may vary widely in scope. the application services metadata like tutor metadata 336, tools metadata 322 and learning facility metadata 316 indicates tutors, tools, and facilities which the learning user may choose to perform the learning application's instructions; para 83 showing information about tutor metadata.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets by Kapoor that shows a user ability to choose a provider (tutor). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to incorporate a means to provide flexibility in the choice of a provider that will likely provide a better learning experience.
Re claim 16: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Kapoor shows the computer-implemented method of claim 15. Kapoor further shows receiving, from the learner, a selection of the instruction from the list of available instructions (para 65 - Each learning application 300 comprises a plurality of kinds of application metadata in addition to the instructional content and associated media for a particular topic or subject. The instructional content and media of each learning application 300 may comprise a specific unit of instruction for a particular portion of knowledge or a skill, and may vary widely in scope. the application services metadata like tutor metadata 336, tools metadata 322 and learning facility metadata 316 indicates tutors, tools, and facilities which the learning user may choose to perform the learning application's instructions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets by Kapoor that shows a user ability to choose what he want to learn (i.e., the application). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to incorporate a means to provide flexibility in the choice of learning desired that will likely provide a better learning experience.
Re claim 17: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky shows the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Matthews and Krasnyansky do not expressly show but Kapoor shows, prior to (a), displaying, to the learner, a list of available teachers, the list of available teachers comprising the teacher (para 65 para 65 - Each learning application 300 comprises a plurality of kinds of application metadata in addition to the instructional content and associated media for a particular topic or subject. The instructional content and media of each learning application 300 may comprise a specific unit of instruction for a particular portion of knowledge or a skill, and may vary widely in scope. the application services metadata like tutor metadata 336, tools metadata 322 and learning facility metadata 316 indicates tutors, tools, and facilities which the learning user may choose to perform the learning application's instructions; para 83 showing information about tutor metadata.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets by Kapoor that shows a user ability to choose a provider (tutor). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to incorporate a means to provide flexibility in the choice of a provider that will likely provide a better learning experience.
Re claim 18: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Kapoor shows the computer-implemented method of claim 17. Kapoor further shows receiving, from the learner, a selection of the teacher from the list of available teachers (para 35 – showing employer establishing learning applications available to employees; para 65 - Each learning application 300 comprises a plurality of kinds of application metadata in addition to the instructional content and associated media for a particular topic or subject. The instructional content and media of each learning application 300 may comprise a specific unit of instruction for a particular portion of knowledge or a skill, and may vary widely in scope. the application services metadata like tutor metadata 336, tools metadata 322 and learning facility metadata 316 indicates tutors, tools, and facilities which the learning user may choose to perform the learning application's instructions; para 83 showing information about tutor metadata.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets by Kapoor that shows a user ability to choose a provider (tutor). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to incorporate a means to provide flexibility in the choice of a provider that will likely provide a better learning experience.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Kapoor269 (U.S. 2014/0351269).
Re claim 19: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky shows the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not expressly show, subsequent to (c), including the instruction in a first skills wallet associated with the learner.
Regarding this limitation, Kapoor269 shows recording learned skills of a user (paras 97, 98 showing learning applications performed by a user or users and scores for an ability metric determined from performance of learning applications (para 87) are accessed and retrieved, which indicates the information has been stored).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets by Kapoor269 that shows recording information about the provided learning services. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification as a record of the effectiveness of the provided services for future potential use.
Re claim 20: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Kapoor269 shows the computer-implemented method of claim 19. Kapoor269 further shows displaying, to a member of the first organization or the second organization, the first skills wallet (paras 88 (individual learning user may be chosen), 89, 96, 97 (determines the learning applications performed by the learner), 98 showing learning applications performed by a user or users is requested, accessed and retrieved and displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets and Kapoor269 that shows recording information about the provided learning services by Kapoor269 that shows display of learning information for a user. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification for easy access and viewing of the record of the effectiveness of the provided services for future potential use.
Re claim 21: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Kapoor269 shows the computer-implemented method of claim 19. Kapoor269 further shows displaying, to a member of the first organization or the second organization, a comparison between the first skills wallet and at least one second skills wallet associated with another member of the second organization (paras 96 – showing subset of users consists of users in the organization and paras 98-99 showing comparing learning ability information of multiple learners).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets and Kapoor269 that shows recording information about the provided learning services by Kapoor269 that shows display of learning information for a user. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification for easy access and viewing of the record of the effectiveness of the provided services for future potential use.
Re claim 22: Matthews in view of Krasnyansky and further in view of Kapoor269 shows the computer-implemented method of claim 19. Kapoor269 further shows displaying, to a member of the first organization or the second organization, a metric associated with the first skills wallet, the metric based on a comparison between the first skills wallet and a plurality of other skills wallets (paras 17 - The method of generating ability banks in a modular learning system environment may comprise a plurality of steps like receiving ability bank generation request from organizational administrator, receive learning user subset choice, determining learning applications performed by learning users subset, determining ability metrics to be compared, generating summation of common ability metrics scores for learning users subset, determining ability metrics to be compared, rank ability metrics, display ability bank to organizational administrator and para 99 -the ability bank interface generator 406 generates an interface item for the organizational administrator to determine whether a particular ability metric or the entire ability bank is to be compared by ranking the same relative to other organizational ability metrics or entire ability banks. At step 514, the organizational administrator confirms or declines the generation of relative ranking. At step 516, if the organizational administrator confirms the relative ranking request, the ranking module 414 retrieves summation items of the subset of learning users chosen by the organizational administrator as well as summation items from ability banks of other organizations. In some embodiments, an organizational filter may be applied by the modular learning system 144 or preferred by the organizational administrator to rank the ability metrics or entire ability bank relative to a predetermined or preferred subset of organizations associated with the modular learning system 144 (e.g., Company A may wish to compare the organizational ability bank of all learning users on the modular learning system 144 who also work at Company A against the ability banks of Company B, Company C, and Company D only). ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Matthews that shows a user requesting instructions and paying for that service and Krasnyansky that shows transfer of funds between a purchaser and provider of services using wallets and Kapoor269 that shows recording information about the provided learning services by Kapoor269 that shows display of learning information among multiple learners. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification to provide a gauge of effectiveness of provided learning instruction and determine types of instruction that may require improvement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL A SEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
/CAROL A SEE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696