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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on March 10, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 is directed to a method and claim 9 is directed to a system. Thus, claims 1 and 9 are directed to statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
At step 2A, prong I, the independent claims recite, "monitoring for a request to access a course registration system by a user of the learning management system; upon receipt of a request, determining if the user is logged in to the learning management system: if so, retrieving internal information on the user from the learning management system; if not, retrieving external information on the user from sources on the Internet outside of the learning management system; parsing the internal or the external user information; determining a set of available courses based on the parsed internal user information or the parsed external user information; displaying the set of available courses and one or more informational elements for one or more courses of the set of available courses based on the parsed internal user information or the parsed external user information, wherein the one or more informational elements comprises a requirement of an approval from an approver; monitoring for a user selection from the displayed set of courses or one or more informational elements for the requirement of an approval from an approver; and, upon receiving a user selection from the user, processing the user selection by automatically sending an electronic communication via the learning management system requesting approval from an approver.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claimed invention monitors for a request, determines if the user is logged in, retrieves user information, parses user information, determines a set of courses, displays the set of courses, monitors for the user selection and processes the user selection, which can be considered following rules or instructions. Further, since enrolling in a course is often done at a cost to the user, this can be considered a sales activity as well. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
At step 2A, prong II, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “a learning management system,” "a course registration system", "a memory", "a processor", "a course registration module," and “automatically sending an electronic communication.” These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claims do 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 elements of “a learning management system,” "a course registration system", "a memory", "a processor", "a course registration module," and “automatically sending an electronic communication,” are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 9 without significantly more. See previous Office Action for detailed analysis.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskay (AU 2010/286921) in view of Refila (US 2020/0134759), further in view of Guler (TR 2022/000075).
With reference to claims 1 and 9, Koskay teaches
1. A method for course registration in a learning management system, the method comprising automatically ([0016]):
9. A system for course registration in a learning management system, the system comprising: a memory storing computer readable instructions; a processor which executes the computer readable instructions to provide a course registration module, the course registration module configured to ([0016], [0083], and [0087]):
monitoring for a request to access a course registration system by a user of the learning management system ([0016] "In one embodiment the present invention provides a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving by a computer a request to register for a CPE course." [0012] "education delivery and management system");
upon receipt of a request, determining if the user is logged in to the learning management system ([0085] "For instance, using SSO, a user at system 108 may log onto and access, either directly or through PMS 104, primary education services system 125 by entering an authorized account login profile either recognized by application software running at computer 110 or at system 125. Preferably, the system 125 includes a user authentication system (UAS) that processes user login credentials and enables access to recognized, as authorized user accounts presented from system 108. The UAS, described further herein below, preferably uses a single-sign-on or similar process to coordinate authorization and access across the additional education services systems 134, which may be done using database structures and associations."):
if so, retrieving internal information on the user from the learning management system ([0087] "In addition, the Professional Resource software also includes a professional learning (education, training, and reporting) software component 224, which, for instance, when accessed by an authorized user, such as user system 108, presents a personalized learning web-page or portal directed to presenting a user interface or dashboard directed to the individual associated with the user account logged on." Since it presents a personalized learning web-page, it is retrieving internal information about the logged user.);
if not, retrieving external information on the user ([00100] "In Fig. 8, illustrates an account creation screen 800 in which a user account for an individual, "Roy Martin," is created by inputting information in fields presented. Also included in this user interface screen are professional practice related fields 802 for "Area of Practice (specialty)", "Type of Training I'm Most Interested in", and''# of Years of Practice Experience." All of the information in these fields are external information that is being retrieve from the user. See also Fig.9.);
parsing the internal or the external user information; determining a set of available courses based on the parsed internal user information or the parsed external user information; displaying the set of available courses and one or more informational elements for one or more courses of the set of available courses based on the parsed internal user information or the parsed external user information ([00106] "Fig. 18 depicts a user interface screen 1800 associated with the Courses completed (not started) function 1014 of Fig. 10. A list 1802 of courses purchased but not started is presented with information about the course such as described hereinabove. Fig. 19 depicts a user interface screen 1900 associated with the Courses in progress function 1016 of Fig. 10. A list 1902 of courses purchased is presented to the user with information concerning the score thus far achieved, expiration date for the course, number of attempts, and status with a link to retry the exam associated with successful completion of the course. The system generates a message 1906 to the individual user, Roy Martin, indicating that after completion of the listed course the individual has an additional 20 hours of CPE to complete in order to meet minimum requirements for a jurisdiction, in this case New York State Board of Accountancy. The system further generates and presents via user screen 1900 a list 1904 of recommended additional courses, preferably at least enough to meet minimum requirements and derived from information maintained in the user profile and/or learning path, for the individual to consider in meeting his requirements." Fig. 18 shows "information elements" about the courses since it shows "Credit Hours", the "Delivery Format", and the "Level'. See also Fig. 19.);
monitoring for a user selection from the displayed set of courses or one or more informational elements; and, upon receiving a user selection, processing the user selection ([00101] "The "My CPE" homepage 1000 is presented upon login on the system or upon linking to the webpage via a professional resource application adapted to automatically, such as by way of an SSO process, enable access to this education services system and associated user interface. The personalized user interface screen 1000 includes tabs 1002, including My CPE 1004 and My Bookshelf 1006. The screen displays personalized content and links such as for My Curriculum 1008, My Courses 1010, My CPE Reporting 1020, and My Certificates 1022. User interface screen 1000 also displays Search functionality, including CPEFINDER 1024, CPE and training newsletters, and new CPE and training related offerings. Associated with My Courses 101 is My Schedule 1012 (see Fig. 15), Courses Purchased (not started) (see Fig. 18), Courses in Progress (online) (see Fig. 19), Courses complete (see Fig. 20), and MyExams." See also [00115] and [00122].).
Koskay fails to teach retrieving external information on the user from sources on the Internet outside of the learning management system.
Refila teaches retrieving external information on the user from sources on the Internet outside of the learning management system ([0036] “Demographic data 104 may be collected from one or more sources, such as from educational institutions, social networks, internet service providers (ISPs), email services, and/or other sources that have access to a student's personal data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the learning management system of Koskay with the step of gathering user data from the internet as taught by Refila, as they are both in the same field of endeavor, and gathering data from the internet would allow the system to optimize outcomes (Refila, [0002]).
Koskay and Refila fail to teach wherein the one or more informational elements comprises a requirement of an approval from an approver; monitoring for the requirement of an approval from an approver; and upon receiving a user selection from the user, processing the user selection by automatically sending an electronic communication via the learning management system requesting approval from an approver.
Guler teaches wherein the one or more informational elements comprises a requirement of an approval from an approver; monitoring for the requirement of an approval from an approver; and upon receiving a user selection from the user, processing the user selection by automatically sending an electronic communication via the learning management system requesting approval from an approver (see page 4, paragraph 11 “After determining the course contents, the user requests to download this training in audio, written or video format and this request is transmitted to the server (5) via the user interface (1). The server (5) transmits the course content request that the user wants to take to the authorized/administrator account via the administrator interface, and after the approval request, the course content registered in the database (4) is transmitted to the user's smart device (2) via the application.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the approval feature of Guler with the learning management system of Koskay and Refila, as they are both in the same field of endeavor, and an approval requirement enhances the system by ensuring that courses are not overfilled, and that only appropriate users maybe enrolled in the courses.
With reference to claims 2 and 10, Koskay, Refila, and Guler teach what is required by claims 1 and 9, and Koskay further teaches wherein the retrieving internal user information comprises searching for at least one of enrolled program, courses taken, marks received, friend groups, member of a group or sub-group authorized to take the one or more courses (Fig. 25, "The year-by-year summaries may be expanded, 2504 and 2506, to reveal the particular courses taken and completed by the individual and the number of hours for which credit was received as well as additional information.").
With reference to claims 4 and 12, Koskay, Refila, and Guler teach what is required by claims 1 and 9, and Koskay further teaches further comprising, if the user is logged in, retrieving external information on the user (Fig. 10 "click here to upload certificates from other vendors" [retrieving external information on the user after the user is logged in since Fig. 10 is labeled "Welcome, Roy M. Martin, Jr.").
With reference to claims 5 and 13, Koskay, Refila, and Guler teach all that is required by claims 1 and 9, and Koskay further teaches wherein the one or more informational elements further comprise at least one of: a first informational element for a course that can be registered without further information by the user selecting the informational element ([00122] "Upon a user selecting a displayed course link, the system may either direct the user interface to a new screen representing the course selected or may open a new, separate window related to the selected course for further action by the user, e.g., registering for the course." Since the user can register for the course, the registration can be done without further information.); and
a second informational element for a course that requires additional information before registration ([00151] "The detail description of the course displayed includes a narrative explaining topics covered by the course, objectives of the course, any prerequisites of the course, whether the course qualifies for credits, and other related information as shown in the Figure 47 example.").
With reference to claims 6 and 14, Koskay, Refila, and Guler teach all that is required by claims 5 and 13, and Koskay further teaches wherein the additional information further comprises at least one of: evidence of completion of a pre-requisite; and evidence of an achieved skill level ([00106] "The system generates a message1906 to the individual user, Roy Martin, indicating that after completion of the listed course [evidence of achieved skill level] the individual has an additional 20 hours of CPE to complete in order to meet minimum requirements for a jurisdiction, in this case New York State Board of Accountancy. The system further generates and presents via user screen 1900 a list 1904 of recommended additional courses, preferably at least enough to meet minimum requirements and derived from information maintained in the user profile and/or learning path, for the individual to consider in meeting his requirements.").
With reference to claims 8 and 16, Koskay, Refila, and Guler teach all that is required by claims 1 and 9, and Guler further teaches wherein the processing the user selection further comprises: upon receipt of approval, registering the user in a selected course (see page 4, paragraph 11 “After determining the course contents, the user requests to download this training in audio, written or video format and this request is transmitted to the server (5) via the user interface (1). The server (5) transmits the course content request that the user wants to take to the authorized/administrator account via the administrator interface, and after the approval request, the course content registered in the database (4) is transmitted to the user's smart device (2) via the application.”).
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskay, Refila, and Guler as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Maipady (US 2015/0220880).
With reference to claims 3 and 11, Koskay, Refila, and Guler teach what is required with reference to claims 1 and 9, and Koskay further teaches wherein the retrieving external user information comprises:
determining if external user information was provided when the user accessed the course
registration system ([0088] "UAS 304 may include a pre-validation [determine if external user information was provided] process to determine the specifics of a particular user's or student's system subscription.");
if not, displaying a predetermined set of courses and requesting external user information from the user ([0083 and [0087]).
Koskay does not specifically teach if so, searching social media based on the external user information for additional external user information.
However, Maipady teaches if so, searching social media based on the external user information for additional external user information ([0038] "Also as shown, recommendation service 112 may use social trend analyzer 114B to determine social trend characteristics of enrollment items. For example, more friends of candidate student 100 may be taking one course instead of another course. As another example, friends who took the course may have been more successful, in terms of employment rate or salary, than friends who did not take the course.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the learning management system of Koskay, Refila, and Guler by adding if so, searching social media based on the external user information for additional external user information, as taught by Maipady, since Koskay, Refila, Guler, and Maipady are analogous art, and in order for the user to select courses for which friends have been more successful in terms of employment rate or salary (Maipady, [0038]).
With reference to claims 7 and 15, Koskay, Refila, and Guler teach all that is required by claims 1 and 9, and Koskay discusses career paths but not specifically wherein the one or more informational elements further comprise at least one of:
friends of the user who have taken the course; careers available to those that take the course; and salary ranges for the careers.
However, Maipady teaches wherein the one or more informational elements further comprise at least one of: friends of the user who have taken the course ([0038] "As another example, friends who took the course may have been more successful, in terms of employment rate or salary, than friends who did not take the course."); careers available to those that take the course; and salary ranges for the careers (Fig. 4 "software developers with java skills are expected to make 5% more salary with 10% better job placement than software developers with assembly skills").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the learning management system of Koskay, Refila, and Guler by adding wherein the one or more informational elements further comprise at least one of: friends of the user who have taken the course; careers available to those that take the course; and salary ranges for the careers, as taught by Maipady, since Koskay, Refila, Guler, and Maipady are analogous art, and in order for the user to select courses for which friends have been more successful in terms of employment rate or salary (Maipady, [0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims should follow the same analysis for a Mental Process grouping as for Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. However, this is not in accordance with the MPEP, and therefore this argument is not persuasive. The examiner has applied the standard set forth in the MPEP, which does not require that a method be able to be performed without the surrounding system.
Applicant further argues that the claims are improperly characterized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s contention that the claims are directed to “large scale data collection and automatic analysis” is not reflected in the claims. If Applicant believes that these are features that would lead to the eligibility of the claims, then the claims should be amended to include these features. However, it is not proper to read features from the specification into the claims.
Applicant further argues that the claims demonstrate a solution to a problem rooted in technology, namely choosing and registering for courses. However, this problem is not based in technology, but instead is a problem within the abstract idea of making decisions based on certain information. The solution proposed is to use technology to facilitate the management of data and the making of decisions, but there is no proposed or demonstrated improvement to technology other than using generic computers to carry out generic computing functions of organizing data and selecting data. Applicant points only to automated processing of and analysis of data, as well as taking automatic action based on the analysis. While it is agreed that a computer is able to do this job faster than a human, that is the nature of computers. There is no improvement to the technology or technical solution presented that goes beyond the basic use of generic computers. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102/103 rejections are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights