DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 November 2025 [hereinafter Response], which has been entered, where:
Claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 24 and 25 have been amended.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 22, and 23 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-11, 13-21, 24, and 25 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-11, 13-21, 24, and 25 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 4-11, 13-21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a “system,” which is a machine and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitations of “[(b)] generate a Q-matrix with the standard information,” “[(d)] generate a graphical version of the Q-matrix,” “[(h)] generate . . . a Bayesian network including a parent node, a first child node, and a second child node,” “[(k)] perform an evaluation of the plurality of responses to generate first evidence,” “[(l)] update . . . the Bayesian network by modifying the first conditional probability and the second conditional probability; and “[(m)] update the mastery probability, according to the Bayesian network as updated, of the parent node based on the first conditional probability and the second conditional probability as modified based on the evaluation of the first one or more responses.” These activities of “[(b), (d), (h)] generate,” “[(k)] perform an evaluation,” and “[(l), (m)] update” are limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, recite a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), and is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
The claim recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(b)] generate a Q-matrix,” “[(b.1)] wherein the Q-matrix includes data identifying a relationship between a portion of the standard and a content item of the plurality of content items based on the content item contributing to evaluation of the portion of the standard,” and of the abstract idea of “[(d)] generate a graphical version of the Q-matrix,” “[(d.1)] wherein the graphical version of the Q-matrix comprises a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, and [(d.2)] wherein portions of the standard are identified in the plurality of rows and instructional units are identified in the plurality of columns,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea.
The claim also recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(h)] generate . . . a Bayesian network,” where “[(h.1)] the parent node linked to the first child node by a first edge representing a first conditional probability between the parent node and the first child node, and [(h.2)] the parent node linked to the second child node by a second edge representing a second conditional probability between the parent node and the second child node,” “[(h.3)] wherein the parent node represents the portion of the standard and is associated with a mastery probability for the portion of the standard, [(h.4)] the first child node represents a first content item of the plurality of content items, and the second child node represents a second content item of the plurality of content items,” and “[(h.5)] wherein the mastery probability for the portion of the standard is based on the first conditional probability and the second conditional probability,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two , the abstract idea of claim 1 as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements beyond the identified judicial exception recited in the claim are “a system,” “a database comprising: information associated with a plurality of content items; and standard information,” “at least one server configured to [perform the claim limitations],” “a communications network,” and “a user device.” These are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of “[(a)] receive the standard information, the standard information defining criteria for attaining a standard for a skill,” “[(c)] transmit . . . a stored version of the Q-matrix to the database,” “[(e)] provide . . . the graphical version of the Q-matrix to a user device,” “[(f)] receive . . . from the user device, a modification,” “[(h)] provide, to the user device . . . , a first data packet,” “[(i)] receive, from the user device . . . , a first one or more responses to the first content item or the second content item,” and “[(n)] generate and transmit, to the user device . . . , a second data packet that includes an intervention responsive to a detection that the updated mastery probability of the parent node is below a predetermined value related to attainment of the portion of the standard for the skill.” These additional elements of “[(a), (f)] receive,” “[(c)] transmit,” [(e), (h)] provide,” and “[(n)] generate and transmit” are insignificant extra solution activities of mere data gathering, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(f)] receive . . . from the user device, a modification,” “[(f.1)] wherein the modification is provided via a user interaction with a component of the graphical version of the Q-matrix,” and the additional element of “[(i)] provide . . . a first data packet,” “[(i.1)] wherein the first data packet includes the first content item and the second content item,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the respective additional elements. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements beyond the identified judicial exception recited in the claim are “a system,” “a database comprising: information associated with a plurality of content items; and standard information,” “at least one server configured to [perform the claim limitations],” “a communications network,” and “a user device.” These are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements of “[(a)] receive the standard information, the standard information defining criteria for attaining a standard for a skill,” “[(c)] transmit . . . a stored version of the Q-matrix to the database,” “[(e)] provide . . . the graphical version of the Q-matrix to a user device,” “[(f)] receive . . . from the user device, a modification,” “[(h)] provide, to the user device . . . , a first data packet,” “[((i))] receive, from the user device . . . , a first one or more responses to the first content item or the second content item,” and “[(n)] generate and transmit, to the user device . . . , a second data packet that includes an intervention responsive to a detection that the updated mastery probability of the parent node is below a predetermined value related to attainment of the portion of the standard for the skill.” These additional elements of “[(a), (f)] receive,” “[(c)] transmit,”[(e), (h)] provide,” and “[(n)] generate and transmit” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(f)] receive . . . from the user device, a modification,” “[(f.1)] wherein the modification is provided via a user interaction with a component of the graphical version of the Q-matrix,” and the additional element of “[(i)] provide . . . a first data packet,” “[(i.1)] wherein the first data packet includes the first content item and the second content item,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the respective additional elements. Therefore, claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 11 recites a “method,” which is a process and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitations of “[(b)] generating a Q-matrix with the standard information,” “[(d)] generating a graphical version of the Q-matrix,” “responsive to receipt of the modification provided via the user interaction, [(h)] updating . . . the Q-matrix according to the modification of the Q-matrix,” “[(g)] generating . . . a Bayesian network including a parent node, a first child node, and a second child node,” “[(i)] updating . . . the Bayesian network by modifying the first conditional probability and the second conditional probability,” “[(j)] updating the mastery probability, according to the Bayesian network as updated, of the parent node based on the first conditional probability and the second conditional probability as modified based on the evaluation of the first one or more responses.” These limitations of “[(b), (c), (g)] generating,” “[(i), (j)] updating” are limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, recite a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), and is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
The claim recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(b)] generate a Q-matrix,” “[(b.1)] wherein the Q-matrix includes data identifying a relationship between a portion of the standard and a content item of the plurality of content items based on the content item contributing to evaluation of the portion of the standard,” and of the abstract idea of “[(d)] generate a graphical version of the Q-matrix,” “[(d.1)] wherein the graphical version of the Q-matrix comprises a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, and [(d.2)] wherein portions of the standard are identified in the plurality of rows and instructional units are identified in the plurality of columns,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea.
The claim also recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(g)] generate . . . a Bayesian network,” where “[(g.1)] the parent node linked to the first child node by a first edge representing a first conditional probability between the parent node and the first child node, and [(g.2)] the parent node linked to the second child node by a second edge representing a second conditional probability between the parent node and the second child node,” “[(g.3)] wherein the parent node represents the portion of the standard and is associated with a mastery probability for the portion of the standard, the first child node represents a first content item of the plurality of content items, and the second child node represents a second content item of the plurality of content items,” [(g.4)] wherein the first content item and the second content item contribute to evaluation of the portion of the standard,” and “[(g.5)] wherein the mastery probability for the portion of the standard is based on the first conditional probability and the second conditional probability,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the abstract idea of claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements beyond the identified judicial exception recited in the claim are “a database,” “one or more electronic processors,” “a communications network,” and “a user device.” These are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of “[(a)] receiving standard information, the standard information defining criteria for attaining a standard for a skill,” “[(d)] providing . . . the graphical version of the Q-matrix to a user device,” “[(e)] receiving . . . from the user device, a modification,” “[(h)] providing, to the user device . . . , a first data packet,” and “[(k)] generating and transmitting, to the user device . . . , a second data packet that includes an intervention responsive to a detection that the updated mastery probability of the parent node is below a predetermined value related to attainment of the portion of the standard for the skill.” These additional elements of “[(a), (e)] receiving,” “[(d), (h)] providing,” and “[(k)] generating and transmitting” are insignificant extra solution activities of mere data gathering, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(e)] receiving . . . a modification,” “[(e.1)] wherein the modification is provided via a user interaction with a component of the graphical version of the Q-matrix,” and the additional element of “[(h)] providing . . . a first data packet,” “[(h.1)] wherein the first data packet includes the first content item and the second content item,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the respective additional elements. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. the additional elements beyond the identified judicial exception recited in the claim are “a database,” “one or more electronic processors,” “a communications network,” and “a user device.” These are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements of “[(a)] receiving standard information, the standard information defining criteria for attaining a standard for a skill,” “[(d)] providing . . . the graphical version of the Q-matrix to a user device,” “[(e)] receiving . . . from the user device, a modification,” “[(h)] providing, to the user device . . . , a first data packet,” and “[(k)] generating and transmitting, to the user device . . . , a second data packet that includes an intervention responsive to a detection that the updated mastery probability of the parent node is below a predetermined value related to attainment of the portion of the standard for the skill.” These additional elements of “[(a), (e)] receiving,” “[(d), (h)] providing,” and “[(k)] generating and transmitting” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(e)] receiving . . . a modification,” “[(e.1)] wherein the modification is provided via a user interaction with a component of the graphical version of the Q-matrix,” and the additional element of “[(h)] providing . . . a first data packet,” “[(h.1)] wherein the first data packet includes the first content item and the second content item,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the respective additional elements. Therefore, claim 11 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claims 4 and 5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claims 14 and 15 depend directly or indirectly from claim 11. The claims recite more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(g), (f) updating the Q-matrix,” respectively (claims 4 and 14: [(g.1), (f.1)] wherein updating . . . comprises adding a new instructional unit to the Q-matrix; claims 5 and 15: [(g.2), (f.2)] wherein updating . . . comprises linking an assessment to the new instructional unit), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of these claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05), because the claims recites no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are subject matter ineligible.
Claim 6 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim further recites limitations of “[(o)] provide a second interim assessment comprising a third content item and a fourth content item of the plurality of content items,” “[(p)] perform an evaluation of a second one or more responses received responsive to the second interim assessment,” “[(q)] update, based on the evaluation of the second response, the Bayesian network such that the first conditional probability, the second conditional probability, the third conditional probability, and the fourth conditional probability reflect the first one or more responses and the second one or more responses,” and “[(r)] determine an updated version of the mastery probability, according to the Bayesian network, of the parent node in the Bayesian network based on the first conditional probability, the second conditional probability, the third conditional probability, and the fourth conditional probability.” The activities of “[(l)] provide,” “[(p)] perform,” “[(q)] update,” and “[(d)] determine” are limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, recite a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III). The claim recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(o)] provide a second interim assessment,” “[(o.1)] wherein the third content item corresponds to a third child node in the Bayesian network and the fourth content item corresponds to a fourth child node in the Bayesian network,” and “[(o.2)] wherein the third child node is linked to the parent node by a third edge representing a third conditional probability between the parent node and the third child node and the fourth child node is linked to the parent node by a fourth edge representing a fourth conditional probability between the parent node and the fourth child node,” and accordingly are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does the additional element amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05), because the claims recites no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is subject matter ineligible.
Claim 7 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1, and recites the limitation of “[(o)] wherein the at least one server is further configured to determine skill mastery based on the mastery probability”), in which the activity of “[(o)] determine” is a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, each recite a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III). The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does the additional element amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05), because the claims recites no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is subject matter ineligible.
Claim 8 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(o)] determine skill mastery,” “wherein the at least one server is configured to determine the skill mastery based on the mastery probability [(o.1)] by comparing the mastery probability to a threshold and [(o.2)] identifying the portion of the skill associated with the parent node as mastered when the mastery probability exceeds the threshold, and [(o.3)] wherein the skill mastery is determined from a plurality of interim assessments,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the abstract idea. The additional elements of the claim does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), and thus, the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is subject matter ineligible.
Claim 9 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claims recite the limitations of “[(p)] determine non-mastery of a standard,” “[(q)] determine . . . existence of the second interim assessment,” “[(r)] select the second interim assessment,” “[(s)] determine a second mastery probability for a second parent node the second interim assessment;” and “[(t)] determine mastery of the standard based on the first and second mastery probabilities”, which are limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, recite a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III). The additional elements of the claim does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), and thus, the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is subject matter ineligible.
Claim 10 depends indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of [(o)] determine skill mastery,” “wherein determining the mastery of the standard is further based on additional mastery probabilities associated with additional parent nodes,” and accordingly is merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is subject matter ineligible.
Claim 13 depends from claim 11. The claims recite more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(c)] generating a graphical version of the Q-matrix,” “[(c.3)] wherein the graphical version of the Q-matrix further comprises a plurality of cells, each cell of the plurality of cells identifies a number of content items associated with a corresponding portion of the standard,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 16 depends directly or indirectly from claim 11. The claim further recites limitations of “[(l)] providing . . . a second interim assessment comprising a third content item and a fourth content item of the plurality of content items,” “[(m)] performing . . . an evaluation of a second one or more responses received responsive to the second interim assessment,” “[(n)] updating . . . based on the evaluation of the second response, the Bayesian network such that the first conditional probability, the second conditional probability, the third conditional probability, and the fourth conditional probability reflect the first one or more responses and the second one or more responses,” and “[(o)] determining . . . an updated version of the mastery probability, according to the Bayesian network, of the parent node in the Bayesian network based on the first conditional probability, the second conditional probability, the third conditional probability, and the fourth conditional probability.” The activities of “[(l)] providing,” “[(m)] performing,” “[(n)] updating,” and “[(o)] determining” are limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, recite a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III). The claim recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(l)] providing . . . a second interim assessment,” “[(l.1)] wherein the third content item corresponds to a third child node in the Bayesian network and the fourth content item corresponds to a fourth child node in the Bayesian network,” and “[(l.2)] wherein the third child node is linked to the parent node by a third edge representing a third conditional probability between the parent node and the third child node and the fourth child node is linked to the parent node by a fourth edge representing a fourth conditional probability between the parent node and the fourth child node,” and accordingly are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does the additional element amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05), because the claims recites no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is subject matter ineligible.
Claim 17 depends from claim 11. Claim 17 recites the limitation of “[(l)] determining . . . skill mastery of the skill based on the calculated mastery probability,” which is a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, recites a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III). The claim recites more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “[(l)] determining,” “[(l.1)] wherein determining the skill mastery based on the mastery probability comprises comparing the mastery probability to a threshold and identifying the portion of the skill associated with the parent node as mastered when the mastery probability exceeds the threshold,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does the additional element amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is subject matter ineligible.
Claims 18 and 19 depend indirectly from claim 11, and recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(l)] determining the skill mastery,” (claim 18: “[(l.2)] wherein determining the skill mastery includes determining the skill mastery from a plurality of interim assessments”; claim 19: “[(l.2)] wherein the skill mastery is not determined by a single summative assessment”), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does the additional element amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. . Thus, claims 18 and 19 are subject matter ineligible.
Claim 20 depends directly or indirectly from claim 11. The claim recites the limitations of “[(m)] determining non-mastery of a standard,” “[(n)] determining . . . existence of the second interim assessment,” “[(o)] selecting the second interim assessment,” “[(p)] determining a second mastery probability for a second parent node the second interim assessment;” and “[(q)] determining mastery of the standard based on the first and second mastery probabilities”, which are limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, recite a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III). The additional elements of the claim does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), and thus, the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is subject matter ineligible.
Claim 21 depends from claim 1. The claim provides more specifics or details to the additional element of “[(j)] receive,” (claim 21: “[(j.1)] wherein the first one or more responses includes a response to the first content item and a response to the second content item”), and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. Therefore, claim 21 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 24 depends from claim 1. The claim recites, under Step 2A Prong Two , of “a multidimensional database,” which is a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, under Step 2B, “a multidimensional database,” which is a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim also recites more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “[(b)] generate a Q-matrix,” the additional element of “[(b.1)] linking . . . each portion of the standard to one or more corresponding instructional units and one or more corresponding content items of the plurality of content items,” where the plain meaning of “linking” is to connecting elements to form a relationship such as through indexing or footnoting content for the standard, and are limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, recite a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III). Thus, claim 24 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 25 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “multidimensional database,” “wherein the multidimensional database is a three-dimensional database, and wherein the three-dimensional database indicates a relationship between the portion of the standard and at least one of the one or more corresponding instructional unit,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. Thus, claim 25 is subject-matter ineligible.
Response to Arguments
5. Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, and responds below accordingly.
6. Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant submits that the “the Office should withdraw the non-statutory double patenting rejections, which relied on the Baraniuk reference, because the Office has acknowledged that Baraniuk does not teach or suggest various claim features. See Office Action, page 18 (withdrawing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which relied on Baraniuk, after finding Applicant's arguments persuasive).” (Response at p. 11).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive, and in view of the instant claims, WITHDRAWS the rejection under nonstatutory double patenting.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
7. Applicant submits that exemplar “claim 1 is not directed to a mental process.” (Response at p. 11-12).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees because under Step 2A Prong One, the rejection, as set out above in detail, identifies the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explains why it is considered an exception. (see MPEP § 2106.07(a)).
Applicant submits that “Like in Enfish, claim 1 here recites specific types of data structures, and additionally a relationship between the specific types of data structures, to improve the way computing devices process particular types of data. Thus, claim 1 is not directed to a mental process or an abstract idea.” (Response at p. 13).
In Enfish, however, the claim is directed to a data structure. In particular, claim 17 of the ‘604 Patent, as relied upon by the Court set out, inter alia:
A data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory, comprising:
means for configuring said memory according to a logical table, said logical table including:
* * *
(Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In contrast, the instant claims are not directed to memory structures, but instead, are directed to “a system for automated node status determination.” (see, e.g., claim 1, line 1).
Still, Applicant submits that the instant claims are instead related to “user interaction with a graphical interface, which the Courts have held can be patent-eligible.” (Response at p. 13 (citing to Core Wireless)). In particular, Applicant submits that Core Wireless claims disclosed “that the claims at issue disclosing an improved user interface are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent-eligible.” (Response at p. 13).
Specifically, the Core Wireless court noted that the “asserted claims in [the Core Wireless] case are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index . . . . Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. Claim 1 of the ‘476 patent requires ‘an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu,’ specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed.” (Core Wireless, 880 F.3d 1356, 1362).
In contrast to Core Wireless, the instant claims pertain to data manipulated from a database to arrive at “generate and transmit, to the user device . . . an intervention responsive to a detection that the updated mastery probability of the parent node is below a predetermined value related to attainment of the portion of the standard for the skill.” (claim 1, lines 53-56). That is, the claims are directed to data manipulation and analysis, not to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices as set out in Core Wireless.
8. In the Final Action, Examiner had noted that the limitations pointed to be Applicant in the Applicant’s response where those of “additional elements,” which by definition are not abstract ideas. (Response at p. 14 (citing Office Action at p. 15)). To this ends, Applicant submits that “This statement seems to inconsistent with, or event contradict, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” (Response at p. 14).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner apologizes to the extent the earlier response caused confusion. In the SME analysis, the rejection, as set out above in detail, provides that “[f]or Step 2A Prong Two, the rejection should identify any additional elements (specifically point to claim features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception; and evaluate the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application by explaining that . . . the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)- (c) and (e)- (h).” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)).
In this regard, the rejection hereinabove identifies any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified abstract idea. The rejection then evaluates the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, and explains, accordingly, that the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application using the considerations set forth in the Office Guidance.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
(US Published Application 20140222746 to Gobert et al.) teaches that assessment models are used to infer skill demonstration as one or more students engage in inquiry within computerized simulations and/or microworlds. A pedagogical agent and/or help system provides real-time feedback to one or more students based on the assessment model outputs, and/or based on additional models that track one or more students developing proficiency across inquiry tasks over time. A pedagogical agent and/or help system for science inquiry tutoring responds in real-time on the basis of knowledge-engineered and data-mined assessment and/or tracking models.
(Cong Chen, "Q-Matrix Optimization for Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment," University of Illinois (2017)) teaches given that the prime goal of CDAs is to provide detailed diagnostic information about students’ knowledge status in specific aspects of learning, classification results produced by CDAs must be accurate.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEVIN L. SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-5964. Normally, the Examiner is available on Monday-Thursday 0730-1730.
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, KAKALI CHAKI can be reached on 571-272-3719. 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.
/K.L.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122