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 .
Claims 1-7, 9, 13-23, 27 are pending.
Claims 8, 10-12, 24-26, 28-29 have been canceled by a preliminary amendment.
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 1-7, 9, 13-23, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of patentability of claim 1:
Step 1: claim 1 recites a method thus is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites: identifying a content object..., identifying metadata.., These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human user, but for the recitation of generic electronic educational system. That is, other than reciting “an electronic educational system to provide electronic learning”, the claimed elements fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human user with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element “retrieving the metadata...” is considered mere insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of retrieving metadata does not integrate the mental process into a practical application, does not improve any technology or technical field, does not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, does not add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, does not include other meaningful limitations beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element “storing a harvested content object…” is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (iv). Note the wherein clause at the last line of the claim merely describes the learning content as “comprises usage information for the content object” thus does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 14, 15 essentially corresponds to a computer program product and server to apply the abstract idea of method claim 1 thus are non-statutory for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Claims 2, 16 merely further include “generating information …” considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Note the “if the harvested content object…” seems to be mere hypothetical thus does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 17 merely further describe the metadata retrieving operation, considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 4, 18 merely further describe the learning content, considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 5, 19 merely recite recognizing a LMS type of harvested content and performing a corresponding action, considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 6, 20 merely further describe the LMS type, considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 7, 21 merely further describe the action, considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 9, 23 merely further describe the learning content, considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 13, 27 merely further describe the learning content as “comprising at least one of….”, considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above, no claim is patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “substantially” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9, 13-23, 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of parent U.S. Patent No. 18198574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are mere obvious variations of each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application merely differs from claim 1 of the U.S. Patent by omitting the last limitation of claim 1 of the U.S. Patent and by reciting “wherein the learning content comprises usage information for the content object”. However it is obvious to remove limitations to broaden a claim.
Note the last limitation of claim 1 of the instant application “wherein the learning content comprises usage information for the content object” is recited in claim 8 of the U.S. Patent. Thus claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 8 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 2-7, 9 of the instant application are duplicates of claims 2-8 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 13 of the instant application merely differs from claim 18 of the U.S. Patent by reciting a method instead of s server in the preamble.
Claim 14 of the instant application merely corresponds to a computer program product for method claim 1 without the last limitation thus similarly map to claim 1 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 15-23, 27 of the instant application recite limitations similar to claims 1-9, 13 in form of servers, thus similarly map to claims 12-18 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims of the instant application
Claims of U.S. Patent 12198574
c1. A method of obtaining metadata for content stored in a first repository, the method to be performed at a second repository, the method comprising:
identifying a content object stored in the first repository, the content object comprising learning content usable in an electronic educational system to provide electronic learning;
identifying metadata for the content object stored in the first repository, the metadata associated with the learning content of the content object;
retrieving the metadata associated with the learning content from the first repository; and
storing a harvested content object corresponding to the content object, wherein the harvested content object comprises the metadata associated with the learning content of the content object stored in the first repository, wherein the learning content comprises usage information for the content object.
c1. A method of obtaining
metadata for content stored in a first repository, the method to be performed at a second repository, the method comprising:
identifying a content object stored in the first repository, the content object comprising learning content usable in an electronic educational system to provide electronic learning;
identifying metadata for the content object stored in the first repository, the metadata associated with the learning content of the content object;
retrieving the metadata associated with the learning content from the first repository; and
storing a harvested content object corresponding to the content object, wherein the harvested content object comprises the metadata associated with the learning content of the content object stored in the first repository and the one or more types of metadata that are not stored by the first repository with regard to the content object.
c2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating information from the metadata associated with the learning content of the content object; and if the harvested content object is located in a search for content objects performed at the second repository,
providing the generated information along with the harvested content object in the search results so that when the search results are displayed, the generated information for the harvested content object is displayed in the same manner as when corresponding information is displayed for local content objects stored at the second repository.
c2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating information from the metadata associated with the learning content of the content object; and if the harvested content object is located in a search for content objects performed at the second repository,
providing the generated information along with the harvested content object in the search results so that when the search results are displayed, the generated information for the harvested content object is displayed in the same manner as when corresponding information is displayed for local content objects stored at the second repository.
c3. The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieving of the metadata 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 metadata associated with the learning content.
c3. The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieving of the metadata 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 metadata associated with the learning content.
c4. The method of claim 1, wherein the learning content comprises a Learning Management System (LMS) type of the content object.
c4. The method of claim 1, wherein the learning content comprises a Learning Management System (LMS) type of the content object.
c5. The method of claim 4, further comprising:
recognizing the LMS type of the harvested content object as being the LMS type of the content object;
determining an action that can be performed for the harvested content object based on the LMS type; and
performing the action for the harvested content object.
c5. The method of claim 4, further comprising:
recognizing the LMS type of the harvested content object as being the LMS type of the content object;
determining an action that can be performed for the harvested content object based on the LMS type; and performing the action for the harvested content object.
c6. The method of claim 5, wherein the LMS type comprises an assessment, and wherein the action comprises integrating the harvested content object into a LMS gradebook.
c6. The method of claim 5, wherein the LMS type comprises an assessment, and wherein the action comprises integrating the harvested content object into a LMS gradebook.
c7. The method of claim 5, wherein the action is the same as that which would be performed for a local content object that is also of the LMS type, stored at the second repository.
c7. The method of claim 5, wherein the action is the same as that which would be performed for a local content object that is also of the LMS type, stored at the second repository.
c9. The method of claim 1, wherein the learning content comprises
relationship information for the content object with respect to one or more other content objects.
c8. The method of claim 1, wherein the learning content comprises usage information for the content object and
relationship information for the content object with respect to one or more other content objects.
c13. The method of claim 1, wherein the learning content comprises at least one of: information indicating an instructor using the content object; information about a student who is able to access the content object; information indicating a course using the content object; and information indicating an institution using the content object.
c18. The server of claim 12, wherein the learning content comprises at least one of: information indicating an instructor using the content object; information about a student who is able to access the content object; information indicating a course using the content object; and information indicating an institution using the content object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hochwarth et al (US 8571462 B2) teach a method for constraining learning strategies for a training course includes determining learning strategies available for the training course in a learning system. A subset of the learning strategies available in the learning system may be selected as learning strategies valid for the training course.
Krebs; Andreas S. (US 8121985 B2) teaches a method for versioning learning objects comprises identifying learning content, which includes a plurality of learning objects, for storage in a content repository. Each learning object comprises or contains at least one content file. The method then includes comparing first version information of a first of the content files to versioning information obtained from an object version file identifying a prior version of the particular learning object. In response to at least a portion of the first version information of the first content file matching a corresponding portion of the versioning information stored in the object version file, a pointer to a corresponding content file in the prior version of the learning object is stored in a new object version file.
PACKARD et al (WO 2011020003 A2) teach a method includes receiving data associated with a characteristic of a set of students from a educational delivery system. The characteristic can include, for example, a demographic characteristic, a geographical location, a score of an assessment associated with a learning objective from the plurality of learning objectives, a time to complete the assessment, a number of attempts to complete the assessment and/or an indicator of knowledge of the learning objective based on prior educational experience. A first group of students and a second group of students are automatically selected from the set of students based on the data such that first group of students is substantially identical to the second group of students. A first educational material is delivered to the first group of students. A second educational material is delivered to the second group of students.
TRICKLEBANK (GB 2370907 A) teaches an educational presentation system comprises a resource repository and a metadata repository. The metadata repository includes data designating the type of each resource and position of the resource in a predetermined sequence. A resource launcher is configured to extract the resource type and position in the sequence and present the selected resource on a screen. A user can interact with a simple user input such as a mouse click or button push to display either a preceding or subsequent resource in the sequence.
Klemke, Roland, Stefaan Ternier, Marco Kalz, and Marcus Specht. "Implementing infrastructures for managing learning objects." British Journal of Educational Technology 41, no. 6 (2010): 873-882.
Abstract- Making learning objects available is critical to reuse learning resources. Making content transparently available and providing added value to different stakeholders is among the goals of the European Commission's eContentPlus programme. This article analyses standards and protocols relevant for making learning objects accessible in distributed data provider networks. Types of metadata associated with learning objects and methods for metadata generation are discussed. Experiences from European projects highlight problems in implementing infrastructures and mapping metadata types into common application profiles. The use of learning contents and its associated metadata in different scenarios is described and concluded with lessons learned and pitfalls to avoid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 571-272-4215. 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.
/UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2162 30 October 2025