DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 10/17/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: content appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crabbe, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2024/0233570 (“Crabbe”), in view of Orton, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2003/0046265 (“Orton”), and in view of Guido, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0075330 (“Guido”).
With regard to Claim 1, Crabbe teaches a networked system for dynamically creating digital content links and for distributing and tracking digital content, the networked system comprising:
an Application Server (AS) ([0065] describes a computing system operating as a server) communicatively connected to an Administrative User Device (AUD) ([0053] describes an instructor modifying procedures in the training data model), a Public User Device (PUD) (Fig. 6, user device 620), a Content Storage Device (CSD) ([0106] describes the use of a storage device), a Managed Database (MDB) (Fig. 5 shows that a workflow engine stores a lesson file), and a Learning Record Store (LRS) ([0073] describes that workflow engine also includes storing data to track users’ progress through a lesson); wherein:
the AS accesses the MDB to retrieve stored link profile configuration settings ([0060] describes that a created training lesson file is received and executed);
the AS causes the PUD to retrieve the digital content from a location identified by a specified content link ([0060]-[0061] describes that a user device retrieves and executes the training lesson file in a flight simulator and interacts with the simulator);
the AS causes the PUD to monitor and detect events as they occur during content interaction ([0063] describes that the flight simulator includes a sniffer to identify events that occur which affect the aircraft being simulated); and
the AS transmits xAPI verb mappings specified in the link profile configuration settings for the PUD to translate the detected events into xAPI statements and transmit them to the LRS ([0070] describes that the event sniffer identifies when a user performs steps correctly, and [0073] describes that a trainee’s progress through the lesson, where information is stored and can be reviewed. [0027] describes that steps in a procedure are converted into xAPI actor-verb-object statements. [0028]-[0029] describe that the xAPI statements are mapped to particular components, and [0043] describes that these mappings are used to determine if a trainee performs a step correctly).
Crabbe, in view of Orton teaches that the AS causes a form to be generated dynamically based on the link profile configuration settings. Crabbe teaches a user accessing a training module at [0060]. Orton teaches at [0035] that a trainee selecting an element to access training has a form presented thereto for entering personal information. Fig. 8 shows additional objects available in the system, where a form allows a user to check boxes to access that information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system.
Orton, in view of Guido teaches that the AS causes the PUD to determine whether or not a local non-volatile memory location associated with a browser of the PUD comprises a data item comprising one or more values previously respectively entered into one or more corresponding fields of the form; responsive to determining that the local non-volatile memory location associated with a browser of the PUD comprises the data item containing the one or more values previously entered into corresponding fields of the form, the AS causes the PUD to pre-populate the one or more corresponding fields with the one or more values respectively.
Orton shows at Fig. 1 the server cluster communicating with a user device, and filling form fields at [0035]. Guido teaches at [0020]-[0022] describe that a system which receives a form can determine if the form contains matching name-value pairs. In the event the form does not, a user-entered value into a field is saved in a cookie used by the browser to populate forms. If a stored name-value pair exists for a field, the existing value is inserted into the field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Guido with Orton and Crabbe. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for auto-filling of form fields, thereby making trainings that include forms to be completed more efficiently by users.
With regard to Claim 2, Crabbe teaches that the AS accesses the MDB to retrieve corresponding stored link profile configuration settings in response to receiving a link profile request communicated via a secure connection from an AUD to create or modify the specified content link; and the AS sends configuration data back to the AUD. [0053]-[0054] describe that an instructor can access the data model, and select procedures from the model for editing. Crabbe does not describe a secure connection; Orton describes secure internet applications and a secure communications architecture at [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system, as well as to improve system functioning by enabling a secure communication environment.
With regard to Claim 3, Crabbe teaches that the corresponding stored link profile configuration settings comprise two or more data categories, the data categories selected from a list comprising branding data, LRS configuration data, xAPI verb mapping data, form field configuration data, and content metadata. [0054] describes that the instructor modifies procedure steps, which generates xAPI statements according to mappings. [0057] describes that the instructor also provides textual descriptions of steps in the procedure, thereby providing metadata describing the procedure.
With regard to Claim 4, Crabbe teaches in response to digital content submission from an AUD, the AS uploads corresponding content to the CSD; and in response to a completion of link profile configuration adjustment by the AUD, the AS generates the specified content link associated with the two or more data categories. [0058] describes that the computing system packages the steps of the procedure as changed by the instructor, including the xAPI statements and metadata, and generates and stores an executable file to carry out the training.
Crabbe does not teach in response to an external content link submission from an AUD, the AS stores the external content link in the MDB. Orton teaches at [0035] that training can include retrieving survey responses from other users to integrate into a training plan. [0068] describes that responses are collected and stored in a user’s training profile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system, including additional material submitted by others that help guide a user’s training.
With regard to Claim 5, Orton teaches that the AS causes the form to be generated in response to receiving a content link request from the PUD; and the form comprises a plurality of form fields. [0035] describes that a form with multiple fields is presented to a user, in response to a user selecting a link to access a particular professional development tool in a training service, where Fig. 1 shows a server connecting to a user device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system, including material tailored to a particular user.
With regard to Claim 6, Orton teaches that at least one value is associated with a specified public user’s session for content associated with the specified content link; and the AS causes the PUD to process form input data and to use the at least one value to associate the form input data with the specified public user’s session for tracking interactions with the content. [0068] describes that the gathered information, including that input to the form as described at [0035], are input to a user’s profile in order to enable tracking of user progress.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system.
With regard to Claim 9, Crabbe teaches a method for dynamically creating digital content links and for distributing and tracking digital content in a networked system, the method comprising: accessing, by an Application Server (AS), a Managed Database (MDB) to retrieve corresponding stored link profile configuration settings. [0060] describes that a created training lesson file is received and executed.
Crabbe, in view of Orton teaches causing, by the AS, a form to be dynamically generated based on the link profile configuration settings. Crabbe teaches a user accessing a training module at [0060]. Orton teaches at [0035] that a trainee selecting an element to access training has a form presented thereto for entering personal information. Fig. 8 shows additional objects available in the system, where a form allows a user to check boxes to access that information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system.
Orton, in view of Guido teaches causing a Public User Device (PUD) to determine whether a local non-volatile memory location associated with a browser of the PUD comprises a data item containing one or more values previously entered into corresponding fields of the form; and causing, by the AS, the form to be pre-populated by the PUD with the one or more values in response to determining that the local non-volatile memory comprises the data item containing the one or more values previously entered into corresponding fields of the form.
Orton shows at Fig. 1 the server cluster communicating with a user device, and filling form fields at [0035]. Guido teaches at [0020]-[0022] describe that a system which receives a form can determine if the form contains matching name-value pairs. In the event the form does not, a user-entered value into a field is saved in a cookie used by the browser to populate forms. If a stored name-value pair exists for a field, the existing value is inserted into the field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Guido with Orton and Crabbe. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for auto-filling of form fields, thereby making trainings that include forms to be completed more efficiently by users.
Claim 15 recites a medium comprising instructions which cause a processing device to carry out the method of Claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 10, Crabbe teaches accessing, by the AS, the MDB to retrieve corresponding stored link profile configuration settings in response to receiving a link profile request communicated from an Administrative User Device (AUD) to create or modify a specified content link; and sending, by the AS, configuration data back to the AUD. [0053]-[0054] describe that an instructor can access the data model, and select procedures from the model for editing. Crabbe does not describe a secure connection; Orton describes secure internet applications and a secure communications architecture at [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system, as well as to improve system functioning by enabling a secure communication environment.
With regard to Claim 11, Crabbe teaches that the corresponding stored link profile configuration settings comprise two or more data categories, the data categories selected from a list comprising branding data, LRS configuration data, xAPI verb mapping data, form field configuration data, and content metadata. [0054] describes that the instructor modifies procedure steps, which generates xAPI statements according to mappings. [0057] describes that the instructor also provides textual descriptions of steps in the procedure, thereby providing metadata describing the procedure.
With regard to Claim 12, Crabbe teaches uploading, by the AS, content to a Content Storage Device (CSD) in response to content submission from the AUD; and generating, by the AS, the specified content link associated with the two or more data categories in response to completion of the link profile configuration by the AUD. [0058] describes that the computing system packages the steps of the procedure as changed by the instructor, including the xAPI statements and metadata, and generates and stores an executable file to carry out the training.
Crabbe does not teach storing, by the AS, an external content link in the MDB in response to an external content link submission from the AUD. Orton teaches at [0035] that training can include retrieving survey responses from other users to integrate into a training plan. [0068] describes that responses are collected and stored in a user’s training profile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system, including additional material submitted by others that help guide a user’s training.
With regard to Claim 13, Crabbe teaches transmitting, by the AS, instructions to the PUD for accessing the digital content by the PUD; causing, by the AS, and Event Tracking Listener to be executed on the PUD to monitor and detect events as they occur during content interaction; and causing, by the AS, a Recipe Translator to be executed on the PUD to translate the detected events into xAPI statements based on xAPI verb mappings specified in the link profile configuration settings.
Crabbe teaches at [0043] that when performing a training lesson, a backend system determines whether an action maps to an xAPI statement, where [0027] describes that the statements include an actor which identified the trainee, a verb identifying the action, and an object on which the action is performed. [0063] describes that an event sniffer identifies events which occur, and forward the events to the workflow engine. [0070] describes that each event is stored and used for transmitting progress messages to a user, and [0073] describes that the workflow engine also stores events to track a user’s training progress by identifying which steps a trainee did and did not perform correctly.
With regard to Claim 14, Crabbe teaches , by the AS, the xAPI statements to be transmitted from the PUD to a Learning Record Store (LRS) for storage and reporting. [0027] describes that steps in a procedure are converted into xAPI actor-verb-object statements. [0028]-[0029] describe that the xAPI statements are mapped to particular components, and [0043] describes that these mappings are used to determine if a trainee performs a step correctly.
With regard to Claim 16, Orton teaches instructions that, when accessed by the processing device, cause the processing device to: generate the form in response to receiving a content link request from the PUD; and wherein the form comprises a plurality of form fields. [0035] describes that a form with multiple fields is presented to a user, in response to a user selecting a link to access a particular professional development tool in a training service, where Fig. 1 shows a server connecting to a user device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system, including material tailored to a particular user.
With regard to Claim 17, Orton teaches instructions that, when accessed by the processing device, cause the processing device to: associate at least one value with a specified public user's session for content associated with a specified content link; and process form input data and use the at least one value to associate the form input data with the specified public user's session for tracking interactions with the content. [0068] describes that the gathered information, including that input to the form as described at [0035], are input to a user’s profile in order to enable tracking of user progress.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system.
Claims 7, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crabbe, in view of Orton, in view of Guido, and in view of Kennett, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0401843 (“Kennett”).
With regard to Claim 7 Crabbe, in view of Orton teaches that in response to form submission by the PUD, the AS transmits instructions to the PUD for retrieving the digital content from either the CSD or a Content Delivery Network (CDN); the AS causes the PUD to execute Event Tracking Listener to monitor and detect the events; the AS causes the PUD to transmit event data for each event to the LRS.
Crabbe teaches at [0063] that an event sniffer identifies events which occur, and forward the events to the workflow engine. [0070] describes that each event is stored and used for transmitting progress messages to a user, and [0073] describes that the workflow engine also stores events to track a user’s training progress by identifying which steps a trainee did and did not perform correctly. Orton teaches at [0035] that a training system presents a form when a user selects content to access, content which becomes accessible subsequent to the user providing the information to the form.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system, including material tailored to a particular user.
Crabbe, in view of Kennett teaches wherein the event data includes a unique user identifier, interaction type, timestamp, and any relevant metadata; and the AS causes the PUD to execute Recipe Translator to translate the detected events, wherein the Recipe Translator, maps each event to a predefined xAPI verb and combines it with the one or more values, including the unique user identifier, to generate a complete xAPI statement.
Crabbe teaches at [0043] that when performing a training lesson, a backend system determines whether an action maps to an xAPI statement, where [0027] describes that the statements include an actor which identified the trainee, a verb identifying the action, and an object on which the action is performed. Kennett teaches at [0042] that an event analysis system can track instances of events by recording a user identifier and a timestamp associated with the event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Crabbe, Orton and Guido to include a user identifier and timestamp in the event data recorded by the system described in Kennett. [0014] of Kennett describes that the event recognizers enable event tracking across multiple applications, to compile and store tracked instances for reporting purposes related to an individual user. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the modification, to improve system functioning by enabling for collection and tracking of user events and training/learning progress across multiple applications.
With regard to Claim 18, Crabbe, in view of Orton teaches instructions that, when accessed by the processing device, cause the processing device to: retrieve content from either a Content Storage Device (CSD) or a Content Delivery Network (CDN) in response to form submission by the PUD; monitor and detect events during content interaction through an Event Tracking Listener executed on the PUD; and receive event data for each event.
Crabbe teaches at [0063] that an event sniffer identifies events which occur, and forward the events to the workflow engine. [0070] describes that each event is stored and used for transmitting progress messages to a user, and [0073] describes that the workflow engine also stores events to track a user’s training progress by identifying which steps a trainee did and did not perform correctly. Orton teaches at [0035] that a training system presents a form when a user selects content to access, content which becomes accessible subsequent to the user providing the information to the form.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Orton with Crabbe and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional types of training materials to be made available in a training system, including material tailored to a particular user.
Crabbe, in view of Kennett teaches wherein the event data includes interaction type, timestamp, and any relevant metadata. Crabbe teaches at [0043] that when performing a training lesson, a backend system determines whether an action maps to an xAPI statement, where [0027] describes that the statements include an actor which identified the trainee, a verb identifying the action, and an object on which the action is performed. Kennett teaches at [0042] that an event analysis system can track instances of events by recording a user identifier and a timestamp associated with the event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Crabbe, Orton and Guido to include a user identifier and timestamp in the event data recorded by the system described in Kennett. [0014] of Kennett describes that the event recognizers enable event tracking across multiple applications, to compile and store tracked instances for reporting purposes related to an individual user. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the modification, to improve system functioning by enabling for collection and tracking of user events and training/learning progress across multiple applications.
With regard to Claim 19, Crabbe teaches instructions that, when accessed by the processing device, cause the processing device to: Translate the detected events using a Recipe Translator, wherein the Recipe Translator maps each event to a predefined xAPI verb and combines it with the one or more values to generate a complete xAPI statement. [0043] teaches that when performing a training lesson, a backend system determines whether an action maps to an xAPI statement, where [0027] describes that the statements include an actor which identified the trainee, a verb identifying the action, and an object on which the action is performed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crabbe, in view of Orton, in view of Guido, and in view of Vishwakarma, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0311930 (“Vishwakarma”).
With regard to Claim 8, Crabbe, in view of Vishwakarma teaches that the AS causes the PUD to use the LRS for storing and managing user interaction data related to the digital content; and the AS causes the PUD to request the LRS to acknowledge receipt of the xAPI statements in response to receiving the xAPI statements and to store the xAPI statements in a data repository.
Crabbe teaches at [0073] that a workflow engine tracks a user progress through a lesson defined in a file. [0092] describes that the results of the lesson are stored by the workflow engine, where [0027] describes that steps in a procedure are converted into xAPI actor-verb-object statements. [0028]-[0029] describe that the xAPI statements are mapped to particular components, and [0043] describes that these mappings are used to determine if a trainee performs a step correctly. Vishwakarma teaches at [0004] that a client submits a write request, which is stored in a log. The server causes an acknowledgment to be sent back to the client which made the request when the content is written to the data store.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Vishwakarma with Crabbe, Orton and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring that user event data is confirmed as written to a data store, thereby ensuring trainee progress is properly tracked.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crabbe, in view of Orton, in view of Guido, in view of Kennett, and in view of Vishwakarma,
With regard to Claim 20, Crabbe, in view of Vishwakarma teaches instructions that, when accessed by the processing device, cause the processing device to: store the xAPI statement in a Learning Record Store (LRS), and in response to receiving the xAPI statement, cause the LRS to acknowledge receipt and store the xAPI statement in its data repository.
Crabbe teaches at [0073] that a workflow engine tracks a user progress through a lesson defined in a file. [0092] describes that the results of the lesson are stored by the workflow engine, where [0027] describes that steps in a procedure are converted into xAPI actor-verb-object statements. [0028]-[0029] describe that the xAPI statements are mapped to particular components, and [0043] describes that these mappings are used to determine if a trainee performs a step correctly. Vishwakarma teaches at [0004] that a client submits a write request, which is stored in a log. The server causes an acknowledgment to be sent back to the client which made the request when the content is written to the data store.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Vishwakarma with Crabbe, Kennett, Orton and Guido. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by ensuring that user event data is confirmed as written to a data store, thereby ensuring trainee progress is properly tracked.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057.
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. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
7/18/2026
Prosecution Insights