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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 13-15 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “a predetermined hierachy” should read “a predetermined hierarchy”.
In claim 1, line 15, “system an interactive digital” should read “system the interactive digital”.
In claims 2-9, in the preambles, “generating an interactive digital presentation comprising a plurality of successive scenes” should read “generating the interactive digital presentation comprising the plurality of successive scenes” as the limitations have antecedence in claim 1.
In claim 4, line 3, “the front/back” should read “the front and back”.
In claim 5, line 3, “wherein the cards” should read “wherein the simulated cards”.
In claim 6, line 6, “to interactive resources” should read “to the interactive resources”.
In claim 10, lines 8-9, “in an interactive presentation” should read “in the interactive presentation”.
In claim 10, lines 12-13, “to one or more remote devices” should read “to the one or more remote devices”.
In claim 13, line 2, “the front/back” should read “the front and back”.
In claim 13, line 2, “which is are changeable” should read “which are changeable”.
In claim 14, line 1, “wherein the cards” should read “wherein the simulated cards”.
In claim 15, line 2, “to interactive resources” should read “to the interactive resources”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the arrangement of the selected digital resources" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 16, recites “and selected resources embedded therein”. It is unclear if these are the same “selected digital resources” of line 12 or separate resources. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 17-18, recites “for receiving input from one or more interactive resources”. The wording of the limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what input is being received “from” the resources. It appears the claim should read “for receiving input from a user to one or more interactive resources” or similar as the resource is not inputting.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the attributes are selected from the group comprising curriculum levels and levels. The specification and claim do not define the difference between curriculum levels and levels with sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the difference between the two and what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the completion of answers" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the interactive questions" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the evaluated response" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “according to specified attributes” in line 4. It is unclear if these are the same specified values/attributes of claim 1 or new specified attributes. Further, if the limitation is for new specified attributes, it is unclear what those attributes include or entail. Therefore, the limitation renders the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to determine the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the association" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the selections and arrangement" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the selection" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10, lines 13-14, recites “for receiving input from one or more interactive resources”. The wording of the limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what input is being received “from” the resources. It appears the claim should read “for receiving input from a user to one or more interactive resources” or similar as the resource is not inputting.
Claims 11-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the attributes are selected from the group comprising curriculum levels and levels. The specification and claim do not define the difference between curriculum levels and levels with sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the difference between the two and what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the completion of answers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the interactive questions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the response" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “according to specified attributes” in line 3. It is unclear if these are the same specified values/attributes of claim 10 or new specified attributes. Further, if the limitation is for new specified attributes, it is unclear what those attributes include or entail. Therefore, the limitation renders the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to determine the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the association" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 10, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mulcahy et al. (US PGPub 20090305217), hereinafter referred to as Mulcahy.
With regard to claims 1 and 10, Mulcahy teaches a computer-implemented method (Paragraphs 0042, 0049; “method of creating a presentation”) of [claim 1] and a system (Abstract; Paragraphs 0011, 0049; “computerized resource presentation and tracking system”) configured for [claim 10] generating an interactive digital presentation (Abstract; Paragraphs 0024-0025 teach the system includes a presentation generator) comprising a plurality of successive scenes (Paragraph 0026 teaches the presentation can include a slide deck and/or a plurality of educational resources presented in a desired order (successive scenes)); the method being implemented on a computer system having one or more processors programmed with computer instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (Paragraphs 0011, 0019, 0049 teach the system can include a server computer and client devices performing the functions/steps including executing computer-executable instructions by the computing device including processors), cause the computer system to perform the method, the method comprising:
storing by the computer system, a collection of digital resources (Paragraphs 0011-0013, 0020-0021 teach the system stores a collection of educational resources including digital resources), including at least some interactive digital resources (Paragraphs 0012, 0020, 0026 teach the resources include interactive resources such as an interactive quiz), each digital resource having a plurality of associated attributes having specified values (Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0028, 0034 teach the educational resources and presentations include metadata (associated attributes)), wherein the attributes are associated with each other in a predetermined hierarchy (Paragraph 0028 teaches the metadata can include organizing the resources into grade level, subject, keywords, and a description wherein grade level is an indication of the complexity of the content and subject metadata describes the particular skill or subject of the content (hierarchy));
displaying by the computer system, a subset of the digital resources corresponding to selections of at least some of the specified values of the attributes by an authorized presenter (Paragraphs 0027, 0034-0035, 0039-0041 teach a teacher (authorized presenter) can search the educational resources by entering a search query (specified values) corresponding to the metadata and the system displays a corresponding subset of the stored resources);
storing by the computer system, the arrangement of the selected digital resources from the subset of digital resources in one or more scenes of the plurality of successive scenes of the presentation (Paragraphs 0024, 0042, 0046 teach the system can create and store a new presentation including resources selected by the teacher including from the searched (subset) educational resources wherein the presentation includes the desired order (arrangement) of the resources);
generating by the computer system an interactive digital presentation comprising the series of successive scenes and selected resources embedded therein (Paragraphs 0024, 0042, 0046) for transmission to one or more remote devices operable by an authorized user and for receiving input from one or more interactive resources in the selected resources thereon (Paragraphs 0015, 0019 teach the presentations can be accessed (transmission) by one or more client devices including by students (authorized users) including the interactive quizzes/resources which would “receive input” at the client devices).
With regard to claims 7 and 16, Mulcahy further teaches wherein the arrangement of the digital resources in the plurality of successive slides is by the authorized presenter (Paragraphs 0024, 0042, 0046 teach the system can create and store a new presentation including resources selected by the teacher including from the searched (subset) educational resources wherein the presentation includes the desired order (arrangement) of the resources selected by the teacher (presenter)).
With regard to claims 9 and 18, Mulcahy further teaches wherein each successive slide comprises a frame rendered by a browser with each of the digital resources overlaid thereupon (Paragraphs 0015, 0019 teach the presentation can be interpreted (rendered) by a client device using a browser including a pane (frame) wherein the presentation can include a slide deck (successive slides) including the educational resources within the slides (overlaid)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulcahy in view of Allon et al. (US PGPub 20160180731), hereinafter referred to as Allon.
With regard to claims 2 and 11, Mulcahy further teaches wherein the attributes selected from the group comprising curriculum levels (Paragraph 0028; “grade level”), topics (Paragraph 0028; “subject”), subtopics (Paragraph 0028; “keywords”), and levels (Paragraph 0028; “grade level”), but may not explicitly teach the group comprising curricula, language components, and types. However, Allon teaches a system and method for predicting student engagement with regard to learning content/resources wherein the learning content includes associated metadata including a type of learning content, a course (curricula) of the learning content, one or more questions types, and the amount of text (language component) of the learning content (Paragraph 0021).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mulcahy to incorporate the teachings of Allon by including the types of metadata/attributes of Allon as part of the educational resource metadata of Mulcahy, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems that include educational resources labeled with metadata. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Mulcahy by coding the system to include the metadata including a type of the educational resource, a course of the educational resource, one or more questions types, and the amount of text. Upon such modification, the method and system of Mulcahy would include the group comprising curricula, language components, and types. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Allon with Mulcahy’s system and method as the types of metadata would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and incorporate and in order to further classify and organize the educational resources improving user ability to search and find resources.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8, 12-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulcahy in view of Leddy (US PGPub 20160225278).
With regard to claims 3 and 12, Mulcahy further teaches wherein the digital interactive resources are selected from the group comprising prompts and responses (Paragraphs 0012, 0026 teach the educational resources can include interactive resources such as quizzes and surveys which would include questions and answers (prompts and responses)), but may not explicitly teach the group comprising simulated cards. However, Leddy teaches a system and method for incentivizing learning including generating interactive educational resources including flash cards (simulated cards) (Paragraphs 0293, 0295-0296).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mulcahy to incorporate the teachings of Leddy by including the flash cards of Leddy as a type/one of the educational resources available of Mulcahy, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems that include educational resources labeled with metadata. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Mulcahy by coding the system to include digital flash cards as educational resources for inclusion in a generated presentation. Upon such modification, the method and system of Mulcahy would include the group comprising simulated cards. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Leddy with Mulcahy’s system and method as flash cards are well-known educational resources/tools and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and incorporate and in order to provide further educational resources to engage users and track user performance and metrics.
With regard to claims 4 and 13, Mulcahy may not explicitly teach wherein said simulated cards displaying predefined content on the front/back thereof are changeable upon detection of actuation on the one or more remote device or of the completion of answers to the interactive questions on the one or more remote devices. However, Leddy further teaches flipping a flash card using a navigation button or when a user inputs an answer (Paragraphs 0076-0078, 0097, 0198, 0286, 0292, 0308).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mulcahy to incorporate the teachings of Leddy by including the flash cards and transitioning from a question side to an answer side of Leddy as a type/one of the educational resources available of Mulcahy, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems that include educational resources labeled with metadata. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Mulcahy by coding the system to include digital flash cards as educational resources for inclusion in a generated presentation wherein the user can transition from a question to answer side or screen of the card using a user input (actuation) or by answering the question. Upon such modification, the method and system of Mulcahy would include wherein said simulated cards displaying predefined content on the front/back thereof are changeable upon detection of actuation on the one or more remote device or of the completion of answers to the interactive questions on the one or more remote devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Leddy with Mulcahy’s system and method as flash cards are well-known educational resources/tools and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and incorporate and in order to provide further educational resources to engage users and track user performance and metrics.
With regard to claims 5 and 14, Mulcahy wherein the cards include words or phrases in at least both a first language and a second language; said words or phrases also being associated with the selected attributes of the predetermined hierarchy. However, Leddy further teaches the flash card can include foreign/second languages wherein a prompt is a word in a first language and the answer is a word in a foreign language or include dual languages wherein a question and answer are in both languages wherein the flash cards include metadata including the language and/or subject (Paragraphs 0012, 0078, 0295, 0314-0315, 0654).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mulcahy to incorporate the teachings of Leddy by including the flash cards wherein the flash cards have a first and second language of Leddy as a type/one of the educational resources available of Mulcahy, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems that include educational resources labeled with metadata. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Mulcahy by coding the system to include digital flash cards as educational resources for inclusion in a generated presentation wherein the flashcards include either dual languages for the question and answer or a question in a first language and answer in a second language wherein the words are associated with the metadata/attribute including a subject or topic and grade level. Upon such modification, the method and system of Mulcahy would include wherein the cards include words or phrases in at least both a first language and a second language; said words or phrases also being associated with the selected attributes of the predetermined hierarchy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Leddy with Mulcahy’s system and method as flash cards are well-known educational resources/tools and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and incorporate and in order to provide further educational resources to engage users and track user performance and metrics.
With regard to claims 6 and 15, Mulcahy further teaches further including receiving student responses to interactive resources (Paragraphs 0015, 0019 teach the presentations can be accessed by one or more client devices including by students including the interactive quizzes/resources which would “receive student responses” to the interactive resources), but may not explicitly teach associating the evaluated response with a corresponding record for that student on the system for generation of a report therefrom. However, Leddy further teaches receiving a student answer to a question/prompt and automatically grading (evaluating) the response as part of a performance metric which is associated with the student and can be presented in a histogram (report) (Paragraphs 0078, 0085, 0097, 0101, 0165, 0184, 0301).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mulcahy to incorporate the teachings of Leddy by including scoring and recording user responses to a prompt or questions of Leddy for the interactive educational resources available of Mulcahy, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems that include educational resources labeled with metadata. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Mulcahy by coding the system to include digital flash cards as educational resources for inclusion in a generated presentation and scoring user responses to questions or prompts on the flash cards or an interactive quiz and storing the response and performance metrics with a registration/account of the user/student. Upon such modification, the method and system of Mulcahy would include associating the evaluated response with a corresponding record for that student on the system for generation of a report therefrom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Leddy with Mulcahy’s system and method as flash cards are well-known educational resources/tools and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and incorporate and in order to provide further educational resources to engage users and track user performance and metrics.
With regard to claims 8 and 17, Mulcahy may not explicitly teach wherein the digital resources included words in a first language and corresponding words in a second language, automatically generated from an external data store containing the association between said words of the first and second languages. However, as discussed above, Leddy further teaches the flash card can include foreign/second languages wherein a prompt is a word in a first language and the answer is a word in a foreign language or include dual languages wherein a question and answer are in both languages wherein the flash cards include metadata including the language and/or subject wherein the educational content can be retrieved from a third party source or content provider (Paragraphs 0012, 0063, 0078, 0103, 0295, 0314-0315, 0654).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mulcahy to incorporate the teachings of Leddy by including the flash cards wherein the flash cards have a first and second language of Leddy as a type/one of the educational resources available of Mulcahy, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems that include educational resources labeled with metadata. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Mulcahy by coding the system to include digital flash cards as educational resources for inclusion in a generated presentation wherein the flashcards include either dual languages for the question and answer or a question in a first language and answer in a second language wherein the words are associated with the metadata/attribute including a subject or topic and grade level wherein the educational content/resource is transmitted or retrieved from a third-party content provider. Upon such modification, the method and system of Mulcahy would include wherein the digital resources included words in a first language and corresponding words in a second language, automatically generated from an external data store containing the association between said words of the first and second languages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Leddy with Mulcahy’s system and method as flash cards are well-known educational resources/tools and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and incorporate and in order to provide further educational resources to engage users and track user performance and metrics.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights