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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/22/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 18-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites determining assessment task for a particular participant to complete within an allocated amount of time, determining a time requirement value for the at least one of the assessment task, generating a pace visualization illustrating the level of progress by the current participant, providing the time requirement value back to the participants based on data from historical participants and determining the order of performance for the task and the pace visualization for the participants; receiving input from the current participation to blacklist one or more remaining task; removing each blacklisted task from the suggested order of performance and time allocation; updating the time requirement value for non-blacklisted task by increasing the time requirement value based on a redistribution of the remaining time among the non-blacklisted tasks.
The limitation of determining assessment task for a particular participant to complete within an allocated amount of time, determining a time requirement value for the at least one of the assessment task, generating a pace visualization illustrating the level of progress by the current participant, providing the time requirement value back to the participants and providing the order of performance for the task and the pace visualization for the participants, providing the time requirement value back to the participants, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, removing each blacklisted task from the suggested order of performance and time allocation; updating the time requirement value for non-blacklisted task by increasing the time requirement value based on a redistribution of the remaining time among the non-blacklisted tasks and re-ordering the non-blacklisted task to maximize performance of the current participants. That is, other than reciting “a display” and a “a processer coupled to the display” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the mental process of a human calculating the determining assessment task for a particular participant to complete within an allocated amount of time, determining a time requirement value for the at least one of the assessment task, providing the time requirement value back to the participants, thinking about a suggested order of performance for the remaining task to optimize a user’s performance and presenting the suggested ordering to the user and removing each blacklisted task from the suggested order of performance and time allocation; updating the time requirement value for non-blacklisted task by increasing the time requirement value based on a redistribution of the remaining time among the non-blacklisted tasks. For example, paragraph 90 of the specification shows that the time requirement value is determined. The calculation can be performed with the human mind or with a pen and a paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The amendment of “wherein the time requirement is determined based on historical performance data associated with the at least one of the assessment tasks and the historical performance data for the at least one of the assessment tasks include data indicative of the amount of time required for historical participants to complete that task and obtain a defined successful task value for that task” are still directed to “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as these step can be done manually by a teacher observing the behavior of the past student behavior and measuring the amount of time that a student (or a group of student) takes to complete a task and thinking about the a scoring system or value to measure that particular task.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a process and a display coupled to the processor or performing the method electronically. This recitation amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For example, Applicant’s own specification describes these computer components to be generic computer components (see paragraph 40-41). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor or electronic means to perform the step of: determining assessment task for a particular participant to complete within an allocated amount of time, determining a time requirement value for the at least one of the assessment task and providing the time requirement value back to the participants; amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
Limitation of the dependent claims have been reviewed and do not ameliorate the rejection rationale of the independent claims. For example:
Claim 3-6, 8, 13-16, 18 and 21-24 only provide limitations that further limit the abstract idea. For example, claim 3-5, 13-15 describes a historical data to be used in conjunction with the calculation of the time requirement. Claims 6, 8, 16 and 18 also delve into the calculation of the normalized value and adjust value based on the success rate of the other participants. The examiner takes the position that the same rejection rationale can be applied on these dependent claims. Accordingly, these dependent claims are rejected under the same rationale as the independent claims.
Claims 9-10, 19-20 appear to be directed to the use of the processor to either: display the result of the calculation using the display device or uses the processor to determine an ordering of the task. The examiner takes the position that the same rejection rationale can be applied on these dependent claims. Accordingly, these dependent claims are rejected under the same rationale as the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 should be withdrawn since the claimed subject matter cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the applicant has not set forth any evidence that the steps provided could not be practically performed in the human mind
The “improvements” analysis in Step 2A and 2B determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The examiner notes that examples of improvement promulgated in the MPEP is very specific to tailored to improvement of the technical working of computer itself or another technology. For example, allowing a conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07; or a method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 879 F.3d 1299, 1304, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and improved, particular method of digital data compression, DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1107 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016);. Paragraph 65, 66 and 107 appears to be directed to improve the test take ability to efficiently manage their time while taking an examination (see sentence of paragraph 66 and 107). It is arguable that the improvement suggested in paragraph 65, 66 and 107 of Applicant’s specification should be interpreted as an improvement to the abstract idea of managing a user’s time while taking an examination. As it is unclear from the MPEP and the precedential case that improvement to the test taking ability of a student; the Examiner takes the position that the rejection shall be maintained under 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights