8DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering claim 1 as the representative claim, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
[collect] different academic disciplines, including a plurality of individual lesson modules;
present selected individual lesson modules to an authorized teacher and permit the authorized teacher to edit the presented, selected individual lesson module, to create a customized presentation, the customized presentation thereafter associated with a unique ID paired with the authorized teacher;
allow only authorized teachers to prepare customized lesson sessions.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the current claims correspond to social activities or teaching, wherein an authorized user(s) creates one or more lesson materials—such as, the authorized user creates a customized presentation by selecting and editing one or more lesson materials gathered from one or mroe sources, etc.
Note also that given the limitations, which recites the process of presenting selected individual lessons to the authorized user; and wherein the user edits the presented individual lessons in order to create a customized presentation, etc., the claims also overlap with a mental process; such as, an activity that can be performed in the human mind (and/or using a pen and paper), etc.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two:
The claim(s) recite additional element(s), wherein a network-based computer system, which incorporates a plurality of databases, is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: categorizing and storing information (e.g., “knowledge base including a plurality of separate databases, each database associated with a different academic discipline and including a plurality of individual lesson modules”); receiving input from the user and performing one or more tasks (e.g., “a lesson creator module, accessible only to authorized individuals, the lesson creator module in communication with the knowledge base for presenting selected individual lesson modules to an authorized teacher and permitting the authorized teacher to edit the presented, selected individual lesson module to create a customized presentation”); generating and storing one or mroe results based on tasks performed above (e.g., “the customized presentation thereafter stored at the network-based learning platform in association with a unique ID paired with the authorized teacher”); proving authorized users with access to the system (e.g., “a service management component utilized as a communication interface between individuals and the lesson creator, the service management component configured to include a validation element to allow only authorized teachers to prepare customized lesson sessions by accessing and utilizing the lesson creator module”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. When each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the process of creating and/or customizing educational materials that involve audiovisual content, including the process of making the customized material accessible to one or more authorized users (e.g., teachers, students), etc., is already directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2015/0206446; US 2013/0188887; US 2009/0018986; US 2002/0182578, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-14). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 3-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Each of claims 3-7 and 9-14 recites the term “an authorized teacher” in one or more lines of each of the above claims; however, it unclear whether the above term is referring to “the authorized teacher”, as recited per claim 1. Thus, the claims above are ambiguous at least for the reason above.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
● Claims 1-14 invoke 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph for the following reasons.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a lesson creator module . . . for presenting selected individual lesson modules
to an authorized teacher”, “a service management component . . . configured to include a validation element to allow only authorized teachers . . .” (see claim 1);
“a 3D imaging system component, in communication with the knowledge base and the lesson creator module” (see claim 8).
However, the written description fails to: (i) disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that correspond to the above claimed components, module or element, and (ii) clearly link the corresponding (if any) structure, material, or acts to the claimed function(s) associated with each components, module or element.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Gupta 2015/0206446 in view of Alcorn 2009/0018986.
Regarding claim 1, teaches the following claimed limitations: a network-based learning platform configured to provide customized instruction, comprising: a knowledge base including a plurality of separate databases, each database including a plurality of individual lesson modules ([0006]; [0031]; also FIG 8, labels “804” to “812”: e.g., a computer-based system/method that allows users, including teachers and students, to participate in one or more educational activities; and wherein the system comprises plurality of storages/databases that store various types of educational materials—such as, a quizzes data store that stores quiz objects, Labs data store that stores lab objects, etc.); a lesson creator module, accessible only to authorized individuals, the lesson creator module in communication with the knowledge base for presenting selected individual lesson modules to an authorized teacher and permitting the authorized teacher to edit the presented, selected individual lesson module to create a customized presentation ([0039]; [0043] to [0046]: e.g., the system implements a lesson creation extension that is executed in conjunction with a presentation application; and thereby the system allows an authorized user, i.e., an instructor, to prepare one or more lesson materials—such as, a slide presentation of a sequence of slides, wherein the instructor makes various customizations, including: embedding graphic objects, embedded audio objects, recording a video narration of his/her presentation of the slides, etc., wherein the instructor also edits the presentation document. The above indicates the implementation of a lesson creator module that communicates with the knowledge base for presenting selected individual lesson modules to an authorized teacher; and further permits the authorized teacher to edit the presented, selected individual lesson module to create a customized presentation), the customized presentation thereafter stored at the network-based learning platform; and a service management component utilized as a communication interface between individuals and the lesson creator, the service management component configured to include a validation element to allow only authorized teachers to prepare customized lesson sessions by accessing and utilizing the lesson creator module ([0047]; [0054]; [0066] to [0072]: e.g., once the instructor has completed the editing process, the system allows the instructor to published the customized lesson by uploading it to the system’s portal; wherein the system requires the user to log into the portal by proving a username and password—also see FIG 7, label “514”; and once the system has performed a validation process in order to correct some errors (if any), the system stores the uploaded lesson into a relevant database—such as the presentation data store—in order share the lesson with educators and students. Note that the authentication scheme that the system is implementing, which requires users, including educators, to log into the system by providing credential information—such as a username and password—indicates that the system already includes a validation element, which allows only authorized teachers to prepare customized lesson sessions by accessing and utilizing the lesson creator module).
Although Gupta does not expressly describe that each database is associated with a different academic discipline, Gupta already suggests the implementation of separate data stores for different types of educational materials—such as, a separate data store for storing quizzes, a separate datastore for storing interactive labs, etc. (see FIG 8; also [0077]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gupta’s system; for example, by incorporating, based on the number of different study fields being conducted (e.g., electronics, chemistry, carpentry, etc.), one or more additional datastores; wherein each data store is storing one or more educational materials relevant to the particular study field, etc., so that when one or more updates are available with respect to one of the particular study fields (e.g., electronics), the system updates just the relevant data store (e.g., the electronics data store) without affecting the remaining data stores; and this minimizes unnecessary interruption of operation that may occur with respect to the remaining data stores, etc.
Gupta does not expressly teach that the customized presentation above is stored in association with a unique ID paired with the authorized user.
However, Alcorn discloses a system/method that allows uses, including teachers and students, to participate in one or more educational activities ([0038]; [0039]); wherein the system allows one or more authorized users—such as teachers—to create and/or edit one or more educational courses ([0048]); and wherein each course is tagged with one or more identifiers—such as, course ID, the instructor, etc. ([0067]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gupta in view of Alcorn; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithm, so that one or more identifiers—e.g., a lesson ID, the name of the instructor, etc.—are associated with each of the one or more lesson materials being customized; so that each of the one or more users (e.g., students, other instructors, etc.) would easily recognize the instructor who customized the particular lesson(s); and this helps the users to readily determine the right individual to be contacted in case one or more issues related to the customized lesson are discovered (e.g., informing the instructor regarding one or more concepts that are missing from the customized lesson; so that the instructor makes further updates or corrections by incorporating the missing concepts, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, Gupta in view of Alcorn teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Alcorn further teaches, the validation element permits only authorized students to access a customized lesson session prepared by an identified teacher ([0038]; [0069]: e.g., the system requires users, including students, to register; and wherein, each user is required to provide credentials—such as, a username and a password—in order to be authenticated and given permission to access course materials; and furthermore, the enrolment data already identifies the users—such as, the teachers and the students—enrolled for the given course).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gupta in view of Alcorn; for example, by providing an option that requires the system to acquire enrollment data regarding each user; wherein the enrollment data identifies each user’s role and the one or more lessons relevant to each user; and wherein, each user is also required to provide credentials—such as a username and a password—in order to be authenticated and given access to each relevant lesson files according to the role of the user, etc.; and therefore, besides constraining the lesson editing and modification tasks to one or more authorized teachers only, the system also makes sure that a given lesson(s) is readily available to a student(s) who enrolled in that lesson(s), etc.
Gupta in view of Alcorn teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Gupta further teaches:
Regarding claim 3, the lesson creator module is configured to permit an authorized teacher to record an audio file in synchronization with a selected individual lesson module ([0044]; [0045]: e.g., the system already allows the authorized user, such as the instructor, to record video narration of the presentation of slides—such as, the instructor discussing each of the one or more slides, etc. Thus, the lesson creator module is already configured to permit an authorized teacher to record an audio file in synchronization with a selected individual lesson module);
Regarding claim 4, the lesson creator module is further configured to permit an authorized teacher to record multiple, different audio files in association with the selected individual lesson module, each different audio file prepared for a different purpose ([0044]; [0045]; [0053]: e.g., as already pointed out above per claim 3, the system already allows the instructor to record video narration of the presentation of slides—such as, the instructor discussing each of the one or more slides, etc. In particular, besides allowing the instructor to embed one or more audio objects, the system already allows the instructor to record the discussion—i.e., the one or more verbal expressions—that the instructor is making regarding each of the one or more slides; and thereby, the instructor creates multiple narrations, each involving similar or different verbal expressions, regarding the same slide presentation. Thus, the lesson creator module is already configured to permit the authorized teacher to record multiple, different audio files in association with the selected individual lesson module, each different audio file prepared for a different purpose);
Regarding claim 5, the different audio files are prepared for different student audiences ([0044]; [0045]; [0053]: e.g., as discussed per claim 4 above, the instructor records the discussion—i.e., the one or more verbal expressions—that the/she is making regarding each of the one or more slides; and thereby, the instructor creates multiple narrations, each involving similar or different verbal expressions, regarding the same slide presentation. The above already satisfies the intended purpose that the claim is reciting).
Regarding claim 6, Gupta in view of Alcorn teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 4.
Regarding the limitation, “each different audio file is tagged with descriptive
information identifying its purpose”, Gupta already teaches that the video objects and the audio objects are stored in their respective data store (see [0077]).
In addition, Alcorn teaches that the system allows teachers to generate course materials and content, which includes electronic documents that involve video and/or audio files (see [0044]); and furthermore, each of the courses has a course metadata that includes: the course name, the course ID, the course description, etc. (see [0067]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Gupta in view of Alcorn; for example, by associating one or more additional labels—including a relevant description—with respect to each of the one or more video and/or audio objects; so that the user(s)—such as, the teacher—can easily recognize, based on such labels (e.g., the description), the subject matter that a given video object and/or audio object is expressing, including the complexity and/or breadth of the expression, etc., so that the authorized teacher makes (if necessary) one or more modifications to the video and/or audio object(s) in order to encompass one or more concepts (if any) that are missing, etc.
Gupta in view of Alcorn teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Gupta further teaches:
Regarding claim 10, the lesson creator module is further configured to present an editing interface to an authorized teacher during the creation of the customized presentation ([0039]; [0043] to [0046]: e.g., as already pointed out per claim 1 above, the system implements a lesson creation extension that is executed in conjunction with a presentation application; and thereby, the system allows the instructor to prepare one or more slide presentations, wherein the instructor embeds audio objects, and/or record a video narration of his/her presentation of the slides, etc., and wherein the instructor also edits the presentation document. Thus, the lesson creator module is already configured to present an editing interface to the authorized teacher during the creation of the customized presentation);
Regarding claim 11, the editing interface permits the authorized teacher to modify a sequence of a recorded lesson script, including deleting selected portions of the recording lesson script ([0044] to [0046]; [0053]: e.g., besides allowing the instructor to record video narration of his/her presentation, which the system segments and associates one or more of the segments with individual slides, the interface also allows the instructor to make one or more modifications—such as, changing the sequence of slides, moving or deleting one or more of the slides, etc. Thus, the editing interface already permits the authorized teacher to modify a sequence of a recorded lesson script, including deleting selected portions of the recording lesson script);
Regarding claim 12, the editing interface is configured to permit an authorized teacher to upload and incorporate independently created lesson material within the individual lesson module selected for customization ([0044] to [0047]; [0054]: e.g., as already pointed out above, the interface allows the instructor to record a video narration regarding his/her presentation of one or more slides; and furthermore, once the instructor has completed the customization process, the interface allows the instructor to upload the customized lesson to the portal system. Thus, the editing interface is already configured to permit an authorized teacher to upload and incorporate independently created lesson material within the individual lesson module selected for customization).
● Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Gupta 2015/0206446 in view of Alcorn 2009/0018986 and in view of Murdoch 2014/0122595.
Regarding claim 7, Gupta in view of Alcorn teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 3.
Gupta does not describe that the lesson creator module is further configured to translate the audio file into a different language.
However, Murdoch discloses a system/method that allows users, such as teachers and students, to access various types of educational content items, including educational content items that one or more teachers has created ([0037]; [0045]); and furthermore, the system implements a translation engine for translating each of the one or more educational content items from one language into to one or more other languages ([0095]; [0096]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Gupta in view of Murdoch; for example, by incorporating a translation engine that automatically, and/or manually (e.g., based on an input from the instructor, the student, etc.), translates each of the one or more customized lessons from its current language (e.g., Japanese language) into one or more other languages (e.g., Korean language, Chinese language, etc.); so that the system allows a user (e.g., a student, a teacher, etc.) to easily view/study the customized lesson according to the user’s desired language preference; so that the user would have a better chance to easily comprehend the subject matter that the lesson is covering.
● Claims 8 and 9 are ejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Gupta 2015/0206446 in view of Alcorn 2009/0018986 and further in view of Chan 2013/0188887.
Regarding claim 8, Gupta in view of Alcorn teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Although Gupta’s system is already configured to implement 3D modeling applications ([0129]), Gupta does not expressly teach that the platform further comprises a 3D imaging system component, in communication with the knowledge base and the lesson creator module.
However, Chan discloses a system that allows a user to create synthesized image sequences that relate to a desired subject matter—such as, a topic discussed in a reading material ([0001]); wherein the user utilizes an image capturing device to capture at least a portion of the reading material (e.g., a book, a magazine, etc.); and the system generates to the user—based on the analysis of the captured information—one or more relevant 3D virtual objects via a display interface; such as, one or more 3D virtual objects moving and interacting in a virtual environment according to the information ([0029] to [0032]; [0034]; [0035]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Gupta in view of Chan; for example, by incorporating additional functionality that allows the instructor to incorporate one or more interactive 3D virtual objects into one or more of the lessons that the instructor is customizing; for instance, the instructor captures one or mroe portions of the textbook that he/she is using; and the system generates—based on the analysis of the captured information—one or more relevant 3D virtual objects that move and interact within a 3D virtual environment per the information in the textbook, etc., and accordingly, once the student(s) has logged into the portal to take the customized lesson, the system plays the 3D scenario above as part of the lesson being presented; and such presentation helps the student to easily comprehend and memorize the subject matter that he/she is studying.
Regarding claim 9, Gupta in view of Alcorn and in view of Chan teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 8.
The limitation regarding claim 9, “wherein an authorized teacher is permitted to incorporate movements of selected 3D objects with a lesson script to be recorded and stored in the lesson creator module, the lesson script including commands executable thereafter by a validated student to view the authorized teacher's movements of the selected 3D objects”, is already addressed above per the modification discussed with respect to claim 8. This is because the instructor, who is the authorized user, is the one who is incorporating one or mroe 3D virtual objects into the lesson that the instructor is customizing; and when the student—i.e., the student who logged into the system—is interacting with the customized lesson, the system plays the 3D virtual scenario that the instructor has incorporated into the customized lesson; such as, one or more of the 3D virtual objects moving and interacting within a virtual 3D virtual environment, etc.
Thus, the modification discussed per claim 8 already addresses claim 9 (note also that the motivation discussed per claim 8 also apples to claim 9 since claim 9 is dependent on claim 8).
● Claim 13 is ejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Gupta 2015/0206446 in view of Alcorn 2009/0018986 and in view of Gal 2014/0335497.
Regarding claim 13, Gupta in view of Alcorn teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 12.
Gupta does not expressly teach that the service management component is further configured to permit the authorized teacher to allow other selected, authorized teachers to access the customized presentation incorporating the independently-created lesson material.
However, Gal discloses a system/method that allows an authorized teacher to create one or mroe customized lesson materials; and further, the system allows the teacher to send the customized lesson to—or to share the customized lesson with—one or more other teachers that may review the lesson for approval ([0168]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Gupta in view of Gal; for example, by incorporating an option, that allows the instructor to send his/her customized lesson(s) to one or more selected teachers; such as, requesting the teachers review the quality of the customized lesson(s), etc., so that the instructor would have at least an option to get feedback from other teachers regarding his/her customized lesson(s), before the instructor publishes his/her customized lesson (e.g., the instructor would have the opportunity to make one or more corrections if needed, etc.); and this helps the instructor to maintain the quality of the customized lesson(s) that he/she is generating.
● Claim 14 is ejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Gupta 2015/0206446 in view of Alcorn 2009/0018986 and in view of Johnson 2006/0199163.
Regarding claim 14, Gupta in view of Alcorn teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 12.
Gupta further teaches, the service management component is further configured to maintain a record of access events to provide [information to] the authorized teacher on the basis of the number of access events ([0075]; [0076]: e.g., regarding a customized lesson(s) that the instructor has created, the system maintains—in its database—various parameters; including: the number of users viewed/interacted with the customized lesson, the time one spent on each portion of the lesson, etc. Thus, the service management component is already configured to maintain a record of access events to provide relevant information to the authorized teacher on the basis of the number of access events).
Gupta does not teach that the above is for remuneration of the authorized teacher.
However, Johnson teaches a system that allows instructors to provide educational materials to students; and wherein the system also provides financial incentives to one or more instructors who develop lesson materials ([0015]; [0016]; [0032]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Gupta in view of Johnson; for example, by incorporating one or more incentives (e.g., financial incentive, rewards, etc.) to each instructor who is customizing a lesson; so that such implementation inherently encourages the instructors to develop high quality lessons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715