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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 11/18/2025.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/18/205, with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner withdraws 35 USC 101 rejection.
In addition, the claimed invention provides limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application since the limitations provide applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
For example, the claims recite
determining by a workflow management server, that the one or more users requires real- time contextual assistance to execute the workflow of the at least one selected task when the one or more current actions of the user reaches a pre-defined threshold; retrieving and transmitting a contextual video content from a video repository to the one or more users, wherein the video repository is communicatively coupled to the workflow management server, wherein the contextual video content is automatically rendered as a recommended next action of the user, and wherein the recommended next action of the user is an intended action of the user for completing the workflow of the at least one selected task
which provide more than just general linking the judicial exception to a particular environment. The limitations of real time monitoring in combination with rendering a video that is embedded in a user’s interface are central to the invention.
35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 10
However, Quinones fails to provide any mechanism for real-time, context-sensitive multimedia assistance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One cannot attack references individually, when the rejection is premised on the combination of the references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). (Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.)
Examiner relies on Kratzer to teach the limitation of real time determining and not Quinones as seen in the updated rejection below. Examiner states,
However even though Quinones teaches the concept of real time correlations as taught above, it doesn’t teach the concept of real time with respect to determining when a user requires assistance, however Kratzer teaches real- time (See para 0077- In embodiments, the term real time is meant to indicate that the training recommendation is based on current employee performance reflected in performance data for the employee from a current time period, such as the most recent month, two months or three months.).
Applicant argues on page 12
Also, Quinone is silent on determining when a user needs help during workflow
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Quinone determines when a user needs help since it looks at the user’s performance with respect to tasks as seen below.
Determining by a workflow server that the one or more users requires… contextual assistance to execute the workflow of the at least one selected task when the one or more current actions of the user reaches a pre-defined threshold (See para 0117-0126- On a Monthly basis the employee is required… for indicators not in compliance the employee must identify, and document suggested corrective actions… if no corrective actions were identified and documented by the employee for indicators not in compliance the supervisor must ask for actions to improve the non-complying indicators, if no actions are identified the supervisor can suggest improvement ideas.)(See figure 7) This shows the system determines if the tasks (i.e. performance indictors) met expectations/are in compliance with respect to a threshold such as less than or equal to 98 percent as seen in figure 7.
Applicant argues on page 12 that Kratzer doesn’t teach the following
however, does not provide for context-sensitive video interventions within the workflow itself Furthermore, Kratzer does not disclose a mechanism where a video is automatically and contextually embedded within the workflow application itself that is, as an in-line, real-time intervention that appears precisely when a user’s actions indicate a need for help during the execution of a workflow step.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant states limitations that are not found in the claims such as an in-line real time video that appears precisely when a user’s actions indicate for help. However Kratzer does teach a video when a user needs assistance as seen here
retrieving and transmitting a contextual video content from a video repository to the one or more users…wherein the contextual video content is automatically rendered as a recommended next action of the user (See para 0033- Embodiments may deliver training recommendations automatically to the end-user within the systems the end-user uses every day. ) (See para 0046- In accordance with some embodiments, micro-learning courses that are shown to improve specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are automatically sent and recommended to individual employees within an organization that are failing to meet desired outcomes within those performance indicators) (See para 0050- The learning content library 201 may include a course content library available for recommendation to learners. The learning content library 201 may store any suitable information about courses and other training materials… The courses may include any suitable type of content items such as video files for display on a device such as data terminals 114 or mobile devices 124 (FIG. 1)) This shows the recommended next action should be training that includes video files from the content library (i.e. video repository). The video files can also be from the training content database that also stores trainings with respect to videos as seen here (See para 0066- Subsequently, after recording and preparation of the video by a trainer, the video may be added to the training content database 210 for access by future learners based on recommendations of the learning system infrastructure 205 and the rules engine 206. ) This is given to the user automatically for display since this is done on a computer.
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, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinones (US20220327459A1) in further view of Kratzer (US20220292999A1).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claim 11 and 20, Quinones teaches
A method (See para 0004- The invention relates to the field of Performance Management Business Method.)
A system…comprising: a processor; a memory storing program instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to (See para 0313- In some embodiments the method or methods described above may be executed or carried out by a computing system including a tangible computer-readable storage medium, also described herein as a storage machine, that holds machine-readable instructions executable by a logic machine (i.e. a processor or programmable control device) to provide, implement, perform, and/or enact the above described methods, processes and/or tasks.) This shows system with processor and memory.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions… when executed, perform the steps of (See para 0313- For example, the storage machine may include memory devices such as various hard disk drives, CD, or DVD devices. The logic machine may execute machine-readable instructions via one or more physical information and/or logic processing devices. For example, the logic machine may be configured to execute instructions to perform tasks for a computer program. The logic machine may include one or more processors to execute the machine-readable instructions.) This teaches a memory.
selecting at least one task to be performed by one or more users through a workflow application executed on one or more client devices (See para 0251-Step 80 of the instant invention receives information from step 75 and Supervisor adds Primary Responsibilities using the “VWWER” Methodology and Performance Indicators if Necessary to better understand the level of execution and loads the information into the instant invention. The VWWER*Verb—Who or What—Expected Results.) (See para 0253-Step 90 of the instant invention receives information from step 85 and supervisor assigns primary responsibilities to employees if applicable and loads the information into the instant invention.) This teaches the supervisor selects tasks (i.e. performance indicators) for their employees to perform and then assigns them. Performance indicators are seen in fig. 7 such as keeping expenses under the budget on monthly basis. These steps are done with respect to a workflow application such as a management application that is run on a client device such as a supervisory computer. (See para 0286- The supervisory computer system being connected to at least one management computer with the management application )
identifying the profile of the one or more users based on the selected task using data stored in a user database (See figure 5-7) This shows The system identifies a profile of the user and displays it to the user who is trying to manage their performance. This is based on the supervisor assigning performance indicators/responsibilities to them. The system uses a database to show the user employee data as seen here (See para 0297- supervisor computer system database stores the at least one known location data with the at least one employee data ) In addition, the fact that this is being done on a computer system means that computer storage is also being used to carry out the steps of identifying profiles for users.
assessing one or more current actions of the user on the workflow to obtain real time correlations generated by workflow application between the one or more current actions and historical workflow metrics of the user (See fig. 7) This shows current actions of the user such as actions in June on the workflow assigned to them (i.e. Responsibilities/Objective). This shows correlations of current actions of June vs historical actions of the workflow from January-May. This information is obtained in real time such as when a user wants to see their metrics. This is generated by the workflow application such as the management application that is being run in figure 7.
wherein the historical workflow metrics comprises one or more previous actions or preferences of the user for executing the workflow of the at least one selected task; (See fig. 7) This shows previous actions of the user from January-May. This also shows current actions of June. This is respect to workflow (i.e. Responsibilities/Objective) and tasks (i.e. performance indicators).
Determining by a workflow server that the one or more users requires… contextual assistance to execute the workflow of the at least one selected task when the one or more current actions of the user reaches a pre-defined threshold (See para 0117-0126- On a Monthly basis the employee is required… for indicators not in compliance the employee must identify, and document suggested corrective actions… if no corrective actions were identified and documented by the employee for indicators not in compliance the supervisor must ask for actions to improve the non-complying indicators, if no actions are identified the supervisor can suggest improvement ideas.)(See figure 7) This shows the system determines if the tasks (i.e. performance indictors) met expectations/are in compliance with respect to a threshold such as less than or equal to 98 percent as seen in figure 7. This also shows that if the task is not in compliance, corrective actions need to be implemented (i.e. contextual assistance). (See para 0181-0183- The instant invention highlights those indicators not in compliance and the employee must identify and document suggested corrective actions. The instant invention formalizes the corrective actions which must be agreed upon and documented. The instant invention can also provide a method to track agreed upon corrective actions from prior review sessions that were not executed.) This is done by the system such as supervisory/management computer that corresponds to the workflow server.
recommended next action of the user The examiner interprets the recommended next action to be the corrective action the user needs to take to get the tasks in compliance.
and wherein the recommended next action of the user is an intended action of the user for completing the workflow of the at least one selected task The corrective actions are in place to bring the performance indicators all back in compliance to fulfill the responsibility/objective (i.e. complete workflow). (See fig. 7 and 11) These shows tasks that are in compliance.
However even though Quinones teaches the concept of real time correlations as taught above, it doesn’t teach the concept of real time with respect to determining when a user requires assistance, however Kratzer teaches real- time (See para 0077- In embodiments, the term real time is meant to indicate that the training recommendation is based on current employee performance reflected in performance data for the employee from a current time period, such as the most recent month, two months or three months.)
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also be able to have real time monitoring of what a user is doing with respect to a task/workflow. Providing this real time concept will help the system dynamically determine when a user needs help and provide the appropriate actions. This makes the system of Quinones more sophisticated since it would prevent delays in performing tasks.
In addition, Quinones doesn’t teach the recommended next action is a contextual video, but Kratzer teaches
retrieving and transmitting a contextual video content from a video repository to the one or more users…wherein the contextual video content is automatically rendered as a recommended next action of the user (See para 0033- Embodiments may deliver training recommendations automatically to the end-user within the systems the end-user uses every day. ) (See para 0046- In accordance with some embodiments, micro-learning courses that are shown to improve specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are automatically sent and recommended to individual employees within an organization that are failing to meet desired outcomes within those performance indicators) (See para 0050- The learning content library 201 may include a course content library available for recommendation to learners. The learning content library 201 may store any suitable information about courses and other training materials… The courses may include any suitable type of content items such as video files for display on a device such as data terminals 114 or mobile devices 124 (FIG. 1)) This shows the recommended next action should be training that includes video files from the content library (i.e. video repository). The video files can also be from the training content database that also stores trainings with respect to videos as seen here (See para 0066- Subsequently, after recording and preparation of the video by a trainer, the video may be added to the training content database 210 for access by future learners based on recommendations of the learning system infrastructure 205 and the rules engine 206. ) This is given to the user automatically for display since this is done on a computer.
wherein the video repository is communicatively coupled to the workflow management server The content library/training content database are also coupled to servers just like the server already taught in Quinones. (See fig. 2) This shows the content library/training content database (i.e. items 201 and 210) are coupled to the servers (item 205) via a network.
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also be able to provide video trainings for the user. These videos can be in addition to the corrective actions that the user is already recommended to do. In addition, the user of Quinones would also have access to a database of these video trainings. This would provide the user of Quinones a convenient location coupled to the server to see all the video trainings and see which ones need to be provided.
In addition, Kratzer also teaches assessing by the workflow management server the one or more actions of the user on the recommended contextual video content to update the video repository (See para 0022-receiving subsequent performance data for a time period following completion of the one or more recommended training courses by the particular employee; evaluating effectiveness of the one or more training courses based on the subsequent performance data; and modifying at least one recommended training course of the one or more recommended training courses, wherein the modifying is responsive to the evaluating effectiveness.) (See para 0050-Moreover, the content may be supplemented by features that collect data about the learner's interaction with the content, such as how long the learner spends interacting with the content including total duration, dwell time on any given web page of the content, and other interactions such as mouse inputs. Such data may be processed to determine the quality of the content and the success of the training and may be used to modify content including entire courses of the learning content library 201 or portions of respective courses.) This shows assessing actions (i.e. performance) after the user has taken the video training and assessing actions during the video training. This information is used to update the training library/repository. This data processing is done with respect to server in item 205 as seen here (See para 0050- The learning system infrastructure 205 receives input information from the learning content library 201, the model creation module 202, and the key performance indicator libraries 203, 204.)(See para 0056- The learning system infrastructure 205 may be embodied as a server which receives the inputs from the learning content library 201, the model creation module 202, and the key performance indicator libraries 203, 204. In embodiments, the learning system infrastructure 205 includes the ML model, one or more servers and a data pipeline for communication of data. The learning system infrastructure 205 uses the ML model, the KPI information from the KPI libraries 203, 204, and the course catalog from the learning content library 201 and develops a training recommendation for a learner.)
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also be able to implement video trainings as corrective actions for employees. Having a training library in Quinones would expand the type the trainings/corrective actions the user would have access too. In addition, Quinones can also assess how effective the corrective actions are and would be able to use that data for future recommendations for trainings. This would make the art of Quinones more sophisticated and make the training process for users more effective.
In addition, even though Kratzer teaches updating the video repository, it doesn’t teach updating with the optimized workflow, however Quinones already teaches with the optimized workflow (See figure 11-12) Which shows optimized workflow (i.e. favorable conditions with respect to the responsibility/objective.)
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also be able to implement video trainings as corrective actions for employees. Having a training library in Quinones would expand the type the trainings/corrective actions the user would have access too. In addition, Quinones can also assess how effective the corrective actions are and would be able to use that data for future recommendations for trainings. This would make the art of Quinones more sophisticated and make the training process for users more effective. In addition, Kratzer could also use the limitation of Quinones to update the training library with results such as optimized workflows. This would be part of the feedback data already taught in Kratzer and would give the user of Kratzer more insight on what trainings led to these optimized results.
Regarding claim 2 and similarly claim 12, Quinones and Kratzer teach the limitations of claim 1, however Kratzer further teaches
comprising transmitting the recommended contextual video content based on the type of user, workflow metrics of the one or more users, the type of department, the type of products and/or the enterprise. (See para 0033- Embodiments may deliver training recommendations automatically to the end-user within the systems the end-user uses every day. )(See para 0054-The learners involved with the real time training system 200 may be involved in any role within an organization. In some applications, such learners are employees of the organization. Generally, the real time training system 200 is well-suited for transactional jobs that generate a lot of data about employee performance. In addition, the real time training system 200 can be applied to any job that has related training and some measurable job performance. Examples include retails sales jobs, where data about job performance may be collected by sales equipment such as handheld devices operated by the retails sales consultants; call center jobs, where data about job performance may be collected by the call center equipment; ) This shows that transmitting the training is based on type of user such as users that work in retail sales.
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also be able to implement video trainings as corrective actions for employees. Having a training library in Quinones would expand the type the trainings/corrective actions the user would have access too. In addition, Quinones can also assess how effective the corrective actions are and would be able to use that data for future recommendations for trainings. This would make the art of Quinones more sophisticated and make the training process for users more effective.
Regarding claim 3 and similarly claim 13, Quinones and Kratzer teach the limitations of claim 1, however Kratzer further teaches
comprising transmitting the recommended contextual video content based on the current configuration of the enterprise, data sources, one or more objects and schema relationships. The trainings are sent to users with respect to current configuration of the enterprise such as being involved in retail and a schema relationship such as an employee to the enterprise. (See para 0054- The learners involved with the real time training system 200 may be involved in any role within an organization. In some applications, such learners are employees of the organization. Generally, the real time training system 200 is well-suited for transactional jobs that generate a lot of data about employee performance. In addition, the real time training system 200 can be applied to any job that has related training and some measurable job performance. Examples include retails sales jobs). The trainings are also sent with respect to data sources and an object (i.e. MAB data model) as seen here (See para 0114- Other data sources collected for the MAB model include training history data 240, course data 241 and target learner identification data 242). (See para 0035- The MAB model is used to generate training recommendations for users.)
Regarding claim 4 and similarly claim 14, Quinones and Kratzer teach the limitations of claim 1, however Kratzer further teaches
comprising updating the video repository…for providing subsequent workflow assistance to the one or more users. (See para 0063- The training may then be delivered before the worker begins the task so that the training is timely for the worker. As the task is performed, performance data may be collected and used by the ML model for future recommendations for the particular worker and for other workers.) (See para 0065- The learning system infrastructure 205 uses such information for the learner to modify future recommendations for the learner in a subsequent recommendation process.) (See para 0066- In some embodiments, the aggregated information is used to modify the content in the training content database 210.) This shows the training content/database is updated. This updating is to provide future recommendations for the user and other users.
In addition, even though Kratzer teaches updating the video repository, it doesn’t teach updating with the optimized workflow, however Quinones already teaches with the optimized workflow (See figure 11-12) Which shows optimized workflow (i.e. favorable conditions with respect to the responsibility/objective.)
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also be able to implement video trainings as corrective actions for employees. Having a training library in Quinones would expand the type the trainings/corrective actions the user would have access too. In addition, Quinones can also assess how effective the corrective actions are and would be able to use that data for future recommendations for trainings. This would make the art of Quinones more sophisticated and make the training process for users more effective. In addition, Kratzer could also use the limitation of Quinones to update the training library with results such as optimized workflows. This would be part of the feedback data already taught in Kratzer and would give the user of Kratzer more insight on what trainings led to these optimized results.
Regarding claim 5 and similarly claim 15, Quinones and Kratzer teach the limitations of claim 1, however Kratzer further teaches
wherein the processor is configured to assess the one or more actions of the user by monitoring the user…and session identifier of the user. (See para 0085- The reported information may include information collected about the employee's interaction with the training materials, such as dwell time on a web page or mousing activities or information about repeated viewing of pages or the entire item.) This teaches monitoring the user and session identifier information such as mousing activities when taking the trainings.
Even though Kratzer teaches web access platforms as seen in para 0059, it doesn’t not teach user account, however Quinones teaches user account (See Fig. 5) Figure 5 shows an employee profile/user account.
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also be able to implement video trainings as corrective actions for employees. Having a training library in Quinones would expand the type the trainings/corrective actions the user would have access too. In addition, Quinones can also assess how effective the corrective actions are and would be able to use that data for future recommendations for trainings. This would make the art of Quinones more sophisticated and make the training process for users more effective. In addition, Kratzer could also use the limitation of Quinones to provide figure 5 of Quinones to the user of Kratzer. This would allow the worker to see information about themselves and would help the worker manager their performance to see where they stand.
Regarding claim 7 and similarly claim 17, Quinones and Kratzer teach the limitations of claim 1 and 11, however Kratzer further teaches
wherein the pre-defined threshold comprises one or more actions of the user including amount of time spent on a screen, number of clicks occurring in a current workflow, the number of times the user has logged for completing the workflow of the at least one selected task (See para 0050- Moreover, the content may be supplemented by features that collect data about the learner's interaction with the content, such as how long the learner spends interacting with the content including total duration, dwell time on any given web page of the content, and other interactions such as mouse inputs.) This teaches amount of time spent on screen (i.e. dwell time/total duration).
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also determine characteristics about the corrective actions to see how the user is interacting with them and if the corrective actions are effective. For example, longer dwell times may mean the training is confusing or not engaging for the user.
Regarding claim 8 and similarly claim 18, Quinones and Kratzer teach the limitations of claim 1 and 11, however Kratzer further teaches
comprising providing automated contextual video content based on the usage pattern of the video content and based on the type of users, products, workflows and/or enterprise. (See para 0088- The feedback may provide the course creators with information about a specific target audience, how effective the course has been and a degree of confidence in that course's effectiveness. The feedback may thus enable a conclusion such as “a learner in population of learners A seems to learn better with shorter-duration content delivered over a mobile device, for example.” This may be useful for revising a specific course of for developing future courses.) This shows that trainings can be given automatically based on how effective the course has been with respect to degree of confidence (i.e. usage pattern). The trainings can automatically be given also based on type of users such as retail users. (See para 0099- For the example of a retail sales employee ) (See para 0046- In accordance with some embodiments, micro-learning courses that are shown to improve specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are automatically sent and recommended to individual employees within an organization that are failing to meet desired outcomes within those performance indicators. ) This shows automatically giving trainings. The trainings include video content as already taught above.
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also be able to implement video trainings as corrective actions for employees. Having a training library in Quinones would expand the type the trainings/corrective actions the user would have access too. In addition, Quinones can also assess how effective the corrective actions are and would be able to use that data for future recommendations for trainings. This would make the art of Quinones more sophisticated and make the training process for users more effective.
Regarding claim 9 and similarly claim 19, Quinones and Kratzer teach the limitations of claim 1 and 11, however Kratzer further teaches
comprising enhancing the recommended contextual video content based on the usage pattern of the video content by the one or more users. (See para 0088- In some embodiments, feedback may be provided to course content creators. Such feedback may inform the course creators as to how successful their courses are doing for target audiences. In an example, course creators may have access to a dashboard using a computing device. The training system and method may collect data about course effectiveness that may be reported to and accessible through the dashboard. The course effectiveness data may be based on comparisons of learner data before taking the course and after taking the course… The feedback may provide the course creators with information about a specific target audience, how effective the course has been and a degree of confidence in that course's effectiveness. The feedback may thus enable a conclusion such as “a learner in population of learners A seems to learn better with shorter-duration content delivered over a mobile device, for example.” This may be useful for revising a specific course of for developing future courses.) Course creators will look at usage patterns of the courses (i.e. how effective the course have been with respect to degree of confidence) and enhance the courses accordingly (i.e. revising courses).
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also be able to implement video trainings as corrective actions for employees. Having a training library in Quinones would expand the type the trainings/corrective actions the user would have access too. In addition, Quinones can also assess how effective the corrective actions are and would be able to use that data for future recommendations for trainings. This would make the art of Quinones more sophisticated and make the training process for users more effective.
Regarding claim 10, Quinones and Kratzer teach the limitations of claim 1, however Kratzer further teaches
comprising storing the enhanced contextual video content in the video repository for providing subsequent workflow assistance to the one or more users. (See para 0088- The feedback may provide the course creators with information about a specific target audience, how effective the course has been and a degree of confidence in that course's effectiveness. The feedback may thus enable a conclusion such as “a learner in population of learners A seems to learn better with shorter-duration content delivered over a mobile device, for example.” This may be useful for revising a specific course of for developing future courses.) (See para 0068- A modified course may be added to the learning content library 201 or the training content database 210. For example, after evaluating the effectiveness of training for the respective learner…) This shows courses that are modified such as those that are enhanced can be stored in the library/database.
Quinones and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management/performance and both arts belong to G06Q10/06393 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones invention by incorporating the method of Kratzer because Quinones would also be able to implement video trainings as corrective actions for employees. Having a training library in Quinones would expand the type the trainings/corrective actions the user would have access too. In addition, Quinones can also assess how effective the corrective actions are and would be able to use that data for future recommendations for trainings. This would make the art of Quinones more sophisticated and make the training process for users more effective.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinones (US20220327459A1) in further view of Kratzer (US20220292999A1)in further view of D'Heedene (US20070073565A1)
Regarding claim 6 and similarly claim 16, Quinones and Kratzer teach the limitations of claim 1 and 11, however they do not teach
wherein the recommended contextual video content is accepted or declined by the one or more users.
However D'Heedene teaches wherein the recommended contextual video content is accepted or declined by the one or more users. (See para 0053- The learning development plan 218 involves identifying target representatives who may input their knowledge into the learning plan. These people may be human resources experts, business unit managers, executives or specialist trainers. The plan is built using the input of the representatives. The business rejects certain learning development requirements when the plan is offered for global acceptance within the business. Certain of the learning development plan requirements may be rejected subsequently when the globally accepted plan is sent for local, regional, approval at business units. This may be because of the incompatibility of the plan with cultural or language requirements in a locale.) This teaches the learning plan is declined by users of a business. The learning plan corresponds to training courses. Kratzer already teaches trainings that include video trainings as taught above.
Quinones, Kratzer, and D'Heedene are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of user management, performance, and training. In addition, all arts belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinones’ and Kratzer’s invention by incorporating the method of D'Heedene because Quinones and Kratzer would also be able to accept or decline trainings/corrective actions. This would allow more flexibility to workers/users when seeing which trainings/corrective actions are most beneficial to complete tasks an be in compliance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ellison (US20050192831A1) Discloses a method and system facilitates management of sales activities of sales associates.
Armstrong (US20080103876A1) Discloses a method for evaluating opportunities in a sales funnel management system. The method includes selecting one or more filters from one or more respective filter categories.
Minter (US20150371172A1) Discloses management of employees that allows for ranking via balanced scorecard, heatmap based on performance to goal, with integrated processes and systems to allow managers to improve performance for any specific category or metric via system generated improvement knowledge base suggestion and tracking of timing and actual metric of improvement.
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 MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625