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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to communications regarding the applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed on 11/27/2025.
Claims 21-24 have been canceled.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is held in abeyance until allowable subject matter has been determined (Remark, Page 7, filed 11/27/2025).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS provided U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070122791 to Robin U. Sperle (hereinafter “Sperle”), IDS provided U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090291426 to George Bryan Polivka (hereinafter “Polivka”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130018812 to Cherner et al. (hereinafter “Cherner”).
As to claim 1, Sperle teaches a method of communicating between a first repository and a second repository, the method to be performed at a second repository, the method comprising (Fig. 1, 5A-6, par. 0011, 0014, 0015, 0018, computer implemented method in a system comprising a processor and non-transitory computer readable storage medium such as ROM or RAM):
identifying a content object stored in the first repository (Fig. 5A, par. 0011, 0054, the second server Learning Management System 140 identifying a content object “Calculus” stored in the first repository of External Management System 145);
identifying metadata for the content object stored in the first repository (par. 0054, identifying metadata for the content object stored in the External Management System 145 such as “COURSE ID 222; DATE 10.12.2004; TIME 09:00-12:00; LANGUAGE ENGLISH”);
retrieving the metadata from the first repository (Figure 5A, paragraphs 0036, 0054, retrieving metadata for the content object stored in the External Management System 145 such as “COURSE ID 222; DATE 10.12.2004; TIME 09:00-12:00; LANGUAGE ENGLISH”);
storing a harvested content object corresponding to the content object (Figure 5A, paragraphs 0036, 0054, storing metadata for the content object stored in the External Management System 145 such as “COURSE ID 222; DATE 10.12.2004; TIME 09:00-12:00; LANGUAGE ENGLISH”.)
While Sperle inherently discloses the metadata comprising a link to an interface associated with the content object, the interface being provided by the first repository (paragraphs 0036, content comprising links in an interface, e.g. “...Links to this content assist the training administrator 105 in retrieving suitable course content when planning web-based courses. A training management component of LMS 140 may help the training administrator 105 plan and create the course offering; manage participation, resources, and courses; and perform reporting. When planning e-learning courses, the training administrator 105 uses references inserted in published courses to retrieve the appropriate content in the content management system for the courses being planned....” ); the harvested content object comprising the metadata that includes the link to the interface, wherein the interface is accessible by the second repository to communicate information related to the harvested content object to the first repository (paragraphs 0036, content comprising links in an interface, e.g. “...Links to this content assist the training administrator 105 in retrieving suitable course content when planning web-based courses. A training management component of LMS 140 may help the training administrator 105 plan and create the course offering; manage participation, resources, and courses; and perform reporting. When planning e-learning courses, the training administrator 105 uses references inserted in published courses to retrieve the appropriate content in the content management system for the courses being planned....”), Polivka further teaches the metadata comprising a link to an interface associated with the content object, the interface being provided by the first repository; the harvested content object comprising the metadata that includes the link to the interface, wherein the interface is accessible by the second repository to communicate information related to the harvested content object to the first repository (Polivka, Figures 3, 12, paragraphs 0045, 0054, 0047-0049, 0079-0084, e.g. “,..[0054] The DRAM application 260 may provide digital medial asset management platforms, as well as streaming, downloading and podcasting media and digital content services. The DRAM application 260 may be written to support defined APIs allowing the DRAM application 260 to interface with any number of other applications that facilitate the learning process. The APIs may be updated from time to time to support other applications modules, including educational and media modules that facilitate educational content delivery and student assessment. The DRAM application 260 includes a content database 262 which stores content objects 266, as well as metadata, descriptors, ownership identification (i.e. copyright information) and rights limitations. The content objects 266 in the DRAM application 260 correspond to learning units to be presented to a student in the learning environment 224. A learning unit may be a course, a Class, a seminar, a lecture, a learning task or a lesson segment. The content objects 266 may include audio, video, text, images or multimedia data objects. For example, a learning unit (task 2 in week 1 of a course) may link to a stream-lined video for the student to view for homework. ...Thus, the teacher may select the instructional content 266 for each learning unit himself/herself and may present his/her own course to his students through the student learning environments 224 ...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sperle with the teaching of Polivka because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Polivka would allow Sperle
to facilitate “...easily implement advances in learning technology for adaptation in various learning environments in a global network of campus-based and online learning environments.” (Polivka, paragraph 0011).
While the combination of Sperle and Polivka teachs providing, by the second repository, a search interface configured to allow a user to search for the harvested content object based on the metadata retrieved from the first repository (Fig. 1, 2, par. 0029, par. 0029, using find functions to search for courses based on attributes appended to courses, i.e. “The learning portal 204 often gives learner 104 access to functions such as, for example, search for courses using i) find functions: finding courses in the course catalog that have keywords in the course title or description; and ii) extended search functions: using the attributes appended to courses, such as target group, prerequisites, qualifications imparted, or delivery method. Additional functions may include self-service applications for booking courses and canceling bookings, messages and notes, course appraisals, and special (or personalized) course offering including courses prescribed for the learner 104 on the basis of his or her role in the enterprise or the wishes of the respective supervisor or trainer and qualification deficits of learner 104 that can be reduced or eliminated by participating in the relevant courses”), the combination of Sperle and Polivka does not explicitly teach wherein the search interface is configured to filter the harvested content object based on at least one of: relevance to previous searches, or user feedback associated with the harvested content object as claimed.
Cherner teaches wherein the search interface is configured to filter the harvested content object based on at least one of: relevance to previous searches, or user feedback associated with the harvested content object (Chrner, Fig. 2, par. 0057, search based on feedback such as review by others, i.e. “[0057] In accordance with various embodiments of FIG. 2, the user may have a variety of criteria to narrow their search. In one embodiment, the user may search classes by dates, which is a search for classes within a date range (step 230). In another embodiment, the user may search by cost, which is a search for classes based on a specified cost or within a cost (step 232). In another embodiment, the user may search by review, which is a search for classes that have been reviewed by others (step 234). For example, the review may be a single score or a plurality of scores with an overall aggregate score indicating the impressions of professionals who have attended the class. Additionally, the review may contain actual comments about the class written by professionals and/or providers comments in response to professionals' comments.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sperle and Polivka with the teaching of Cherner because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Cherner would allow Sperle and Polivka to “…centralizes class offerings, locations, providers, costs, and class recommendations to help professionals make more informed decisions about their continuing education requirement. Furthermore, the present invention also assists companies in ensuring that they remain compliant with various jurisdictional requirements of various governing bodies and accreditations. This helps to automate the process of complying with continuing education requirements, reducing the risk of non-compliance, saving time, and providing cost savings. Licensing bodies may also use the system to efficiently gather detailed information regarding the compliance of continuing education requirements of the companies and professionals …” (Cherner, par. 0004-0006)
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the interface comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) provided by the first repository (Fig. 5A-6, par. 0025, 0054-0058).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the API comprises a retrieval API that allows the harvested content object stored at the second repository to link to the newest version of the content object stored in the first repository, when accessed (Fig. 5A-6, par. 0054-0058).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner teaches the method of claim 2, wherein when the API comprises a usage data API that, when accessed by the second repository, allows the second repository to communicate usage data about the harvested content object, as generated at the second repository, to the first repository (Sperle, Fig. 5A-5C, par. 0022, 0036.)
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the usage data comprises at least one of: reviews about the harvested content object, feedback for the harvested content object, a ratings value for the harvested content object, and a times accessed value for the harvested content object (Cherner, Fig. 2, par. 0057, search based on feedback such as review by others, i.e. “[0057] In accordance with various embodiments of FIG. 2, the user may have a variety of criteria to narrow their search. In one embodiment, the user may search classes by dates, which is a search for classes within a date range (step 230). In another embodiment, the user may search by cost, which is a search for classes based on a specified cost or within a cost (step 232). In another embodiment, the user may search by review, which is a search for classes that have been reviewed by others (step 234). For example, the review may be a single score or a plurality of scores with an overall aggregate score indicating the impressions of professionals who have attended the class. Additionally, the review may contain actual comments about the class written by professionals and/or providers comments in response to professionals' comments.”).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the usage data comprises at least one of: information indicating an instructor using the harvested content object; information about a student who is able to access the harvested content object; information indicating a course using the harvested content object; and information indicating an institution using the harvested content object (Cherner, Fig. 2, 3, par. 0006, 0020, 0048, 0054, 0063, information about student, instructor and classes, i.e. “[0048] In various embodiments, the CERS System 2 may provide the information to the users by using the CERS Controller 12 to create content that responds to requests from the Licensing Body 34, Professional 4, Administrative Assistant 26, Provider 8, and Corporate Manager 6. As the information from the Provider 8 is placed into the CERS System 2 via the Provider Environment 20, changes may propagate throughout the CERS System 2 and in turn, making the classes or updates to classes available to the users. In order to add a class to the CERS System 2, the Provider 8 may be required to provide at least some of information relating to the geographical, physical, and/or virtual location (URI/URL) of the class, class name, number of participants, instructor name, concepts, agenda for the class, costs information, accreditation, provider, credit hours, and/or other information that is needed to determine whether a class may fit the Professional's 4 needs. Both the Corporate Environment 16 and the Professional Environment 10 may display a list of classes available to the Professional 4. After the classes become available in the CERS System 2 for registration, the Professional 4 may choose to register for classes in the lists provided in the Professional Environment 10. Additionally, the Corporate Manager 6 may also register his constituents, for example, Professional 4, for classes in the class list provided in the Corporate Environment 16. After registration, the Professional Environment 10 or the Corporate Environment 16 may send the registration information or data to CERS Controller 12. To synchronize CERS System 2 with the Provider's 8 systems, CERS System 2 may populate the registration information or data into the Professional's 4 account (not shown) and send a confirmation to the Provider 8. After a user, for example Professional 4, has completed a class, the CERS Controller 12 may be notified by Provider 8 regarding the completion of the attended class by the Professional 4. Subsequently, the CERS Controller 12 may place a completed status in the Professional's 4 account, archive or store the Certificate of Completion forwarded by the Provider 8 to the CERS Controller 12 and update the Professional's 4 current status and remaining continuing education requirements which may include, but not limited to, continuing education credits received, total continuing education credits required, total remaining continuing education credits needed, and compliance information.”).
Regarding claim 9, is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a computer-readable medium rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Regarding claim 10-15, are essentially the same as claims 1-6, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a server rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Regarding claim 18-20, are essentially the same as claims 1-3, and the claims are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sperle, Polivka, Cherner, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070266144 to Bollen et al. (hereinafter “Bollen”).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 4 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: providing the harvested content object to a
The combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner does not explicitly teach a third repository as claimed.
Bollen teaches a third respository (Bollen, Fig. 5, par. 0018-0029, 0048-0050, 0107-0115, 0122-0125, 0137-0144, collecting/sharing usage data among plurality of institutions.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner with the teaching of Bollen because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Bollen would allow combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner to facilitate “evaluating the impact of a reference work, such as a journal or an individual article. Data relating to the usage of the reference are merged together from various Digital Libraries, and these data are used to create a representation (network) of the relationships between various scholarly works. The relationships shown on the resulting network are analyzed using social network metrics to determine the impact of the particular work on other works, in a particular field or within a particular community of users” (Bollen, par. 0005-0018)
Regarding claim 16, is essentially the same as claim 7 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a server rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sperle, Polivka, Cherner, and further in view of Publication “Kepler — A Communal Digital Library” to Nelson et al. (hereinafter “Nelson”) (URL: http://www.cs.odu.edu/~min/pubs/all.html; Title: Kepler — A Communal Digital Library; Publication Date: Proceedings of ECDL 2004)
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner does not explicitly teach wherein the retrieving of the metadata from the first repository is performed using a modified version of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) protocol, the modified version comprising an Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema that extends metadata items provided in the OAI-PMH protocol to include the link to the interface associated with the content object as claimed.
Nelson teaches wherein the retrieving of the metadata from the first repository is performed using a modified version of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) protocol, the modified version comprising an Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema that extends metadata items provided in the OAI-PMH protocol to include the link to the interface associated with the content object (Page 5-7, Figure 6, including URL and persistent URL to object and providing the link to result object in a search interface). Therefore, 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 teaching of combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner with the teaching of Nelson because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Nelson would allow combination of Sperle, Polivka and Cherner to facilitate validation XML schema for document metadata while surmounting “...the technical difficulties for authors to publish as easy as to a website yet produce OAl-compliant digital libraries...” (Nelson, Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, is essentially the same as claim 8 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a server rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANHTAI V TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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.
/ANHTAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168