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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendment filed on August 7, 2025. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 3-7, and 13, drawings, specification have been amended.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/093356, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for one or more claims of this application. The provisional application lacks any description and/or support for the claimed subject matter detailing when the individual's attentiveness level is within a predefined threshold range that no adjustments are needed; and when the individual's attentiveness level is outside a predefined threshold range, that specific conditions are adjusted until the individual's attentiveness level is determined to be within said predefined threshold range, such as found in claim 1. In addition, the provisional application lacks any description and/or support for the claimed subject matter regarding the AI module and its functionality, where the Al module, compares said transmitted data to pre-stored big data, and determines based thereon the individual's attentiveness level; and - the Al module determines whether modifications in the display screen and/or a biofeedback are needed (or not) in order to improve individual's focus/attention, such as found in claim 7. Claims 2-6 and 8-13 depend from claims 1 and 7.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application. For purposes of examination, the effective filing date is October 18, 2021.
Drawings
The newly submitted drawings received on July 22, 2025 are not acceptable and have not been entered. The newly submitted drawings are objected to as including new matter in Fig. 4. Specifically, the steps 402, 403, and 404 include new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not provide description of acquiring data of pupil dilation or gaze detection. In addition, there is no description of extracted features being fed into an AI module.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the processor, the memory, and the AI module a must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
In addition, color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The application fille contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent application publication with color drawings will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The current application includes color photographs that are not of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent, therefore a drawing is required in place of the photographs.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “wherein step (c) of providing biofeedback”; however, claim 1 was amended such that step (c) refers to determining individual's attentiveness level. Therefore, claim 3 should be amended to read -- wherein step (d) of providing biofeedback--.
Claim 7 recites “a biofeedback.” This should simply read --biofeedback-- as indefinite articles are only used with countable nouns and biofeedback is not a countable noun. In addition, the claim recites “the Al module is designed to: … determines whether modifications in the display.” This should read -- the Al module is designed to: … determine whether modifications in the display --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In this instance claim 7 recites a generic place holder “module” with recited functions such as “compare said transmitted data to pre-stored big data,” and “determine whether modification in the display screen and/or sounds a a biofeedback are needed (or not) in order to improve an individual’s focus or attention” without any corresponding structure.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 recites the following computer/processor-based functions:
a) determining individual's attentiveness level using an artificial intelligence (Al) module processing data received from said camera (claim 1);
b) adjusting specific conditions until the individual's attentiveness level is determined to be within said predefined threshold range (claim1);
c) Al module is designed to: compare said transmitted data to pre-stored data, and determines, based thereon, the individual's attentiveness level; and determines whether modifications in the display screen and/or sounds as a biofeedback are needed (or not) in order to improve an individual's focus or attention; (Claim 7).
e) sensors designed to measure individual's: attention level, visual focus, concentration, brain-eye focus, or doziness, or any combination thereof (Claim 11).
Applicant’s drawings show an apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2) but do not include any flow charts.
The description at paragraphs 22 and 46 explain:
[022] The term "individual's attentiveness" as used herein throughout the application includes an individual cognitive condition and includes whether the individual is dozing away, daydreaming, concentrated/focused, bored, stressed, etc.
[046] In certain embodiments, the system and method according to any of the embodiments above are configured to adjust the display seen by the individual using the system so as to be so tailored based on information, such as updateable real time information, concerning the learning status of the individual. The learning status of the individual may be determined by the computer system from a number of factors including, but not limited to, data received from a camera that is part of the system. The camera may obtain video data of the individual's face including the individual's eyes. Certain details such as the pupil size of the individual, his or her eye movements, and other data may be used by an algorithm (software forming part of the processing system of the system) to determine the level of attentiveness and other learning parameters of the individual which is used together with other data (including the individual's previous learning status history) to determine the learning status of the individual. Based on that learning status, which may be in the form of an input from a camera to a processing unit, the display screen may adjust the visual images presented to the individual and this adjustment may be constantly revised and updated.
With regard to artificial intelligence the specification provides:
[041] As explained, the system according to any of the embodiments above is designed to identify a student's degree of concentration and cognitive focus, using an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tracking sensor/camera, in order to personalize the learning environment so that the student can benefit from an organized, focused learning experience.
[062] The camera/sensor is designed to forwards any data it collects to the processor within the computing system which analyzes the data in real time and figures out, for example using artificial intelligence, what would be the ideal visual presentation of the screen to be presented to this individual. The processor will take into consideration the appearance of parts of the screen surrounding the text or images that the reader focuses on.
The specification indicates that the determination of attention level is made by software forming part of the processing system. In particular, that data may be used by an algorithm (software forming part of the processing system of the system) to determine the level of attentiveness. Therefore, the claims recite a function implemented by a computer.
According to MPEP 2161.01 I., when examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.
Here the specification appears to provide disclosure of a computer to implement the function ( specifically an algorithm and/or software), but completely lacks any description of the algorithm (e.g., flow chart, mathematical model, code, prose) of how determine the level of attentiveness from the data provided. The sensor appears to describe monitoring an individual to determine a condition, such as eye movement, e.g., blinking. However, no description is provided of how to determine a level of attentiveness associated with the blinking (e.g., blink once per minute is normal, blinking x/time per minute is not) nor any description of what constitutes a range (e.g., as recited in claim 1). In addition, there is no description of how an AI module determines an attentiveness level based on comparison to data or what type of AI is even contemplated (classifier, neural network, mathematical model, machine learning etc.). Therefore, one skilled in the art is left to “guess” at what is meant by this description.
The specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383-85, 91 USPQ2d 1481, 1491-93 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366-67, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex parte Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d 1395, 1405-06 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2009). Here the specification provides no such description, therefore, the specification lacks adequate written description for the claimed function of determining a level of attentiveness.
Specifically, the limitations:
1) “monitoring said individual's attentiveness during/while usage thereof, using a camera that measures pupil dilation and gaze direction;” and
2) “the limitation a camera designed to track at least said individual's sense pupil size or eye movement and transmit data to an artificial intelligence (Al) module”
found in claims 1 and 7, respectively, recite NEW MATTER.
With regard to limitations 1) and 2) a review of the Specification discloses a camera. While the specification describes measuring eye movement using; the specification is silent with regard to a camera measuring gaze direction, and, therefore does not provide a written description supporting this limitation. In addition, there is no description of measuring pupil dilation. At most the specification supports measuring pupil size or diameter (which is distinct from dilation). In addition, the specification is also silent with regard to a camera designed to transmit data to an artificial intelligence (Al) module. Therefore, the specification also does not provide a written description supporting this limitation.
Claims 3-6, 10, 11, and 13 depend from claims 1 and 7, and therefore also lack written description based on their dependency.
As a result, claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 contain subject matter which lacks adequate written description, and for at least these reasons, claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 are found to fail the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 5, and 10, these claims use exemplary language “such as” which leads to confusion over whether the terms following/preceding the exemplary language are intended to be optional or are within the scope of a claim. As a result, the claim is indefinite as one cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
In re claim 7, recites “the Al module determines whether modifications in the display screen and/or a biofeedback are needed (or not) in order to improve individual's focus/attention.” The use of the parenthetical “(or not)” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether or not the language in the paratheatrical is required by the claim or is intended as optional. For purposes of claim interpretation this term is considered optional.
In addition, the claim limitation “AI module” to perform functions of comparing and determining invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as explained above. However, the written description provides no corresponding software/algorithm for implementing the functions of “compares said transmitted data to pre-stored big data, and determines based thereon the individual's attentiveness level;” and “determines whether modifications in the display screen and/or a biofeedback are needed (or not) in order to improve individual's focus/attention.” Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR § 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3-6, 10, 11, and 13 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
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, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Claims 1 and 7 are directed to a method and a system. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “The present invention relates in general to learning systems, in particular to their custom and automatic adjustment in accordance to an individual's specific cognition level for improving the overall focus, learning ability, reading and other related matters of the individual” (See, ¶2).
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A method for automatic adapting a literacy system for a specific individual, the method comprising the steps of:
a) after activation of the literacy system by said individual for the first time, conducting a calibration step that includes:- presenting a series of questions to said individual regarding: age, sex, ethnicity, native language and origin,- specific physical conditions, such as color blindness, dyslexia, attention-deficit disorder (ADD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), visual impairment, other learning disabilities and spectrum thereof, or any combination thereof; and/or - modifying visual characteristics on a display screen, such as brightness, background, color, spacing, font size, shape and color, or any combination thereof, and receiving feedback from said individual - either directly or by monitoring individual's eye reaction;
b) monitoring said individual's attentiveness during/while usage thereof, using a camera that measures pupil dilation and gaze direction;
c) determining individual's attentiveness level using an artificial intelligence (Al) module processing data received from said camera; and
d) providing biofeedback via both vocal affects and visual cues based on attentiveness level and/or adjusting specific display conditions of said literacy system according to the individual's attentiveness level as determined in (b),wherein: the individual's attentiveness level is determined based on pupil size and eye movements as captured by said camera;- if the individual's attentiveness level is within a predefined threshold range, no adjustments are needed; and- if the individual's attentiveness level is outside said predefined threshold range, said specific display conditions are adjusted until the individual's attentiveness level is determined to be within said predefined threshold range.
Independent claim 7 recites the following (with emphasis):
A personalized automatic-adapting cognitive process system designed to improve an individual's focus/ or attention and literacy capabilities, the system comprising:
a) a camera designed to track at least said individual's pupil size or eye movement, and transmit data to an artificial intelligence (Al) module;
b) a literacy and cognitive-tracking system comprising: a processor, a memory, said Al module, and a display screen; and
c) speakers, wherein the Al module is designed to:
compare said transmitted data to pre-stored data, and determines, based thereon, the individual's attentiveness level; and determines whether modifications in the display screen and/or sounds as a biofeedback are needed (or not) in order to improve an individual's focus or attention.
The underlined portions of claims 1 and 7 generally encompass the abstract idea. Claims 3-6, 10, 11, and 13 further define the abstract idea such as by defining the type of data used by the abstract concept. Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. The claims recite a method of managing a student’s attention and a system to improve a student’s focus. The method and system are directed to organizing human activity because they are drawn to managing personal behavior of an individual’s attention and/or focus. Furthermore, the method and system operations can be performed in the mind of a human and/or with the aid of pencil and paper.
The determination of a level of student’s attention and/or focus during learning activities, such as in teaching, training, and imparting knowledge is basic to the learning process. Teachers are often called upon to determine the level of attention, focus, or comprehension during learning to assess whether changes need to be made to their instruction. The method and system of the instant application simply seek to automate this well-known activity using generic computers recited at a high level of generality, and, therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract concept sub-grouping of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" including teaching, for example, an instructor conducting training of a student based on their determined attention level.
But for the recitation of the camera and AI module, and automatic adapting a literacy system (claim 1), or a camera, system, processor, memory, and AI module (claim 7), nothing in the claimed method or operations precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example, monitoring or tracking an individual’s attentiveness can be performed with the eyes of a teacher; determining a level of attentiveness can be performed mentally by thinking Jimmy looks sleepy; and adjusting specific condition can involve the teacher saying “Jimmy, wake up.” If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. To be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer. Applicant’s invention does not meet these requirements. Applicant’s invention uses computers to access data, process data, and output/control a result. This does not improve the computer qua computer. Instead, Applicant’s invention uses generic computers and networks as a tool to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not eligible under Section 101.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a system having a computer and memory configured to perform the abstract idea.
These elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional computer components. The use of computers to process sensor data and determine a result represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and/or constitutes extra-solution activity. As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claimed features relating a sensor gathering data and adjusting conditions, or modifying a display represent extra-solution activities are not particular and are recited at a high level of generality.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
Claims 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2018/0308376 by Aslan et al. (“Aslan”).
In re claim 7, Aslan discloses a personalized automatic-adapting cognitive process system designed to improve individual's focus/attention and literacy capabilities [¶Abstract], the system comprising: a) a camera designed to track said individual's pupil size or eye movement, and transmit data to an artificial intelligence (Al) module [¶¶21, 24-34, 48, 49, describe a 2D camera, 3D camera, which may be utilized to track eyes including movement and pupil dilation. Camera data is provided to state model (AI) of adaptive learning module (which may be implemented using machine learning). For example, machine classification and modeling is based on eye movement and therefore camera data is transmitted to the model from the camera]; and b) a literacy and cognitive-tracking system [Fig.1] comprising: a processor, a memory, said AI module and a display screen [Fig. 8, ¶¶49,55 describe processor 802, memory 804, and machine learning to implement the state model of adaption module], and c) speakers [Fig. 8, #808, ¶¶44, 53,58 describe laptop and smartphone implementation with multimedia content 212 may be presented to the user in a format integrating video and audio. In order to provide audio content the computing device must inherently include a speaker], 2herein the AI module is designed to compare said transmitted data to pre-stored data, and determine based thereon the individual's attentiveness level [¶¶24-34, among others, describe the state model (AI) monitors a user’s attention and/or engagement level with learning content]; and determine whether modifications in the display screen and/or sounds as a biofeedback are needed (or not) in order to improve an individual's focus/attention [¶¶20, 24-34 43-45, among others, describe the system adaption module (which include state model which can be implemented using machine learning), adapts content to user engagement level including modifying visual characteristics, for example, emphasizing a portion or portions of the exercise by highlighting, underlining, bolding, or otherwise drawing attention to the portions of the exercise. In addition describes, adaption module analyzes monitors eye reaction throughout user instruction to determine a current engagement level and adapt based on the current level].
In re claim 10, Aslan discloses, an input unit, such as a keyboard, touchpad, touchscreen, or smart-pen [¶55 describes keyboard and touchscreen].
In re claim 11, Aslan discloses, sensors designed to measure individual's: attention level, visual focus, concentration, brain-eye focus, or doziness, or any combination thereof [¶¶20, 24-34 43-45, among others, describe sensor monitors users visual focus to determine an engagement level (attention)].
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0308376 by Aslan et al. (“Aslan”) in view of over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0288423 by Vembar et al. (“Vembar”).
In re claim 1, Aslan discloses a method for automatic adapting a literacy system for a specific individual [Abstract], the method comprising the steps of: b)monitoring said individual's attentiveness during/while usage thereof, using a camera that measures pupil dilation and gaze direction; [¶¶21, 24-34, 41, among others, describe monitoring user’s attention and/or engagement level with learning content, for example, with eye tracking and bio sensors including pupil dilation and gaze]; c) determining individual's attentiveness level using an artificial intelligence (Al) module processing data received from said camera [¶¶24-34, 49, among others, describe determining user’s attention and/or engagement level with learning content, including a plurality of levels using machine learning]; and c) providing biofeedback via both vocal affects and visual cues based on attentiveness level and/or adjusting specific conditions of said literacy system according to the determined individual's attentiveness level, wherein: - if the individual's attentiveness level is within a predefined threshold range, no adjustments are needed; and - if the individual's attentiveness level is outside said predefined threshold range, specific conditions are adjusted until the individual's attentiveness level is determined to be within said predefined threshold range [¶¶20, 24-34 43-45, among others describe the system adapts content to user engagement level, for example, an engagement score may be compared to threshold and if above threshold no adjustments are needed otherwise content may be adjusted to increase engagement level above threshold].
Aslan does not explicitly teach: a) after activation of the literacy system by said individual for the first time, conducting a calibration step that includes:
-presenting a series of questions to said individual regarding: age, sex, ethnicity, native language and origin,
-specific physical conditions, such as color blindness, dyslexia, attention-deficit disorder (ADD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), visual impairment, other learning disabilities and spectrum thereof, or any combination thereof; and/or
-modifying visual characteristics on a display screen, such as brightness, background, color, spacing, font size, shape and color, or any combination thereof, and receiving feedback from said individual - either directly or by monitoring individual's eye reaction.
Vembar teaches conducting a calibration step that includes-specific physical conditions, such as color blindness, dyslexia, attention-deficit disorder (ADD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), visual impairment, other learning disabilities and spectrum thereof, or any combination thereof [¶154, among others, describe calibration for color sensitivity and blindness].
Aslan and Vembar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining adjust visual display for a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Aslan and calibration for a physical condition, as taught by Vembar, in order to provide a better user experience, for example, by adjusting users deficiency in perceiving color and/or providing an experience that is customized/personalized to the user.
In re claim 3, Aslan discloses, wherein step (c) of providing biofeedback and/or adjusting specific display conditions is personalized of said literacy system according to the individual's attentiveness level as determined in step b [¶¶20, 24-34 43-45, among others describe the system adapts content to user engagement level including display conditions, for example, emphasize a portion or portions of the exercise by highlighting, underlining, bolding, or otherwise drawing attention to the portions of the exercise].
In re claim 5, Aslan disclose, wherein providing biofeedback and/or adjusting specific conditions means any one of: modifying visual characteristics on a display screen, such as brightness, background, color, word- and line-spacing, font size, shape and color, etc., or any combination thereof, and subsequently monitoring individual's eye reaction to such modification(s) [¶¶20, 24-34 43-45, among others describe the system adaption module adapts content to user engagement level including modifying visual characteristics, for example, emphasizing a portion or portions of the exercise by highlighting, underlining, bolding, or otherwise drawing attention to the portions of the exercise. In addition describes, adaption module analyzes monitors eye reaction throughout user instruction to determine a current engagement level and adapt based on the current level (hence subsequently)].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslan in view of British Publication No. GB 2490864 by Atlow et al. (“Atlow”).
In re claim 4, Aslan discloses, wherein determining individual's attentiveness including using eye tracking. Aslan does not explicitly teach monitoring any one of: page-refreshment, reading speed, and typing speed; or any combination thereof. Atlow teaches determining individual's attentiveness including using eye tracking and explicitly teaches monitoring any one of: page-refreshment, reading speed, and typing speed; or any combination [Pages 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, among others, describe determining a reading mode (e.g., of whether the user is concentrating or focused on content) based in part on speed of reading (page flip rate or time between page turns) and modifying the display of content (feedback) based thereon].
Aslan and Atlow are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining user engagement states including eye tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Aslan and include determining reading speed, as taught by Atlow, in order to provide a better user experience, for example, by adjusting the environment in response to user needs, see, e.g., page 2, 2nd paragraph.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslan in view of US Publication No. 2019/0147760 by Bruckner et al. (“Bruckner”).
In re claim 6, Aslan lacks, but Bruckner teaches wherein providing biofeedback and/or adjusting specific conditions means vocal effects, such as relaxing music, praising sentences, etc. [¶¶35, 65 describes auditory system can be used to generate music to help the user focus].
Aslan and Bruckner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of determining learner engagement states and adapting content presented using artificial intelligence. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the feedback provided by the system of Aslan to include an auditory system, such as a speaker, that can be used to generate white noise/music, as taught by Bruckner, in order to provide a better user experience, for example, by helping a user focus and/or eliminate distractions to improve attention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aslan in view of US Publication No. 2018/0124552 by Cho et al. (“Cho”).
In re claim 13, Aslan discloses a display screen, but lacks explicitly teaching that the display screen is flexible, foldable and/or rollable.
However, Cho teaches a display screen that is a flexible that can be folded and/or rolled [Fig. 2, ¶¶138-148 describes flexible display that may folding or rolling].
Aslan and Cho are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both display content to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Aslan with simple substitution of one type display screen of Aslan with another type of display screen of Cho to achieve the predictable result of displaying content to the user of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2025 have been fully considered.
With regard to support for claim to priority Applicant responds “claims 1 and 7 have been amended to be narrower, and refer to features explicitly mentioned in the Description. Support for the amendments can be found, e.g., in pars. 17, 46, and 73.” However, this argument is a non-sequitur as the amendments fail to address any limitations in the claims not supported by the original disclosure of the provisional application. Therefore, the regardless of “narrowing” amendments the claims are not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application.
The newly submitted drawings were not entered as they contained new matter. Therefore, the previous objection to the drawings is maintained. However, the changes to Figs. 1-3 would overcome the objections for informalities if resubmitted without the new matter.
The objection to claims 1, 2, 3-6, 8 and 12 for informalities is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The objection to claim 7 is maintained as a formality was not addressed by Applicant’s amendment or remarks. A new objection to claim is made in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The interpretation of claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintain as it was not addressed in Applicant’s amendments to the claims or remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained for the reasons provided above. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Notably, although the Description may not provide a detailed description of the attentiveness algorithm, it does mention using pupil size and eye movements.” This is insufficient as support for written description.
Applicant argues “Regarding the ‘Al module’, Applicant respectfully submits that a skilled artisan in the filed would easily know how to train an Al module, and its components, and that there is no need to detail each and every components therein and its mode of operation.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant man not need to detail each and every component, the specification must provide adequate written description for claimed components. Applicant appears to be confusing enablement with the written description requirement. Here the specification lacks any description of the AI implementation, such that one skilled in the art is not appraised of what Applicant’s consider their invention. Artificial intelligence comprises a vast area of many different, diverse technologies that operate in different manners with different requirements. Without any description, those skilled in the art are left to guess at what Applicant’s invention encompasses.
In addition, as stated above, for computer implemented functions the specification must provide the algorithm, necessary steps, and/or flowcharts that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." However, Applicant’s specification is devoid of any such description other that a recitation of the function itself, which is inadequate to satisfy the written description requirement.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. Applicant’s amendments and remarks did not address the issues as detailed above.
With regard to the rejection under Section 101, the rejection has been updated to reflect the language of the newly submitted claims. Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “In response, Applicant would like to draw the Examiner's attention to amended claims 1 and 7, which now clearly define physical aspects that define the claimed invention.” Applicant continues “Moreover, by adding the specific limitations of using pupil size and eye movements as captured by a camera to determine attentiveness level, the claims are more specific. This specific implementation provides a tangible improvement to the learning process and is not simply a generic computer implementation of an abstract idea.” The examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained for the reasons provided above.
The examiner points out that clearly defining physical aspects and increased specificity are not determinative of whether the claims recite an abstract idea. Moreover, simply stating the changes recite a “tangible improvement” is not persuasive as Applicant has failed to provide any evidence or explanation of what the improvement is. In addition, the improvement needs to be a technical improvement that is the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer. However, an improvement to a learning process is not a technical improvement. Nothing in Applicant’s claims improves the functions of the computer itself or its technology, but rather uses the functions of the computer for their intended purpose. Therefore, the use of a generic computer for its intended purpose does not amount to significantly more than the abstract concept.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 as anticipated under section 102 or obviousness under section 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regard to claims 1 and 7 Applicant argues Aslan discloses a method for automatic adapting a literacy system, but it is completely silent about the possibility of providing sounds as part of the biofeedback for improving the individual's attentiveness, as explicitly defined in the claims as presently amended. The examiner disagrees as sound as biofeedback currently is not required by claims 1 and 7. With regard to claim 1, the claim recites providing biofeedback via both vocal affects and visual cues based on attentiveness level and/or adjusting specific display conditions of said literacy system according to the determined individual's attentiveness level as determined in (b). As this limitation is posed in the alternative only “adjusting specific display conditions of said literacy system according to the determined individual's attentiveness level as determined” is required to meet the limitation of the claim and is provided by Aslan. With regard to claim 7, the claim recites determines whether modifications in the display screen and/or sounds as a biofeedback are needed (or not) in order to improve an individual's focus or attention. Again this limitation is presented in the alternative so sound is not required to meet the claim limitation according to the broadest reasonable interpretation. Aslan does make modification to the display screen as described above.
Applicant argues “Moreover, although Aslan discloses a method and system for automatic adapting a literacy system, it does not disclose the specific combination of: (i) an eye-tracking system that specifically measures pupil dilation and gaze direction.; (ii) an attentiveness level determined based on data from the eye-tracking system and processed by an AI module; and (iii) a biofeedback provided via both audio cues that vary in pitch and intensity AND visual cues based on the attentiveness level.” With regard to limitations i and ii Aslan teach both determination of pupil dilation and gaze as input for machine learning to determine an attentiveness level as pointed out in the rejection above. With regard to iii, the claims do not recite the limitation “biofeedback provided via both audio cues that vary in pitch and intensity” and as pointed out above the claims currently recite audio biofeedback in the alternative and further make no mention of audio cues varying in pitch and intensity.
With regard to claim 6, the claim recites that vocal affects means music. Bruckner describes generating music to help the user focus.
Applicant argues “It is noted that although Bruckner refers to an auditory system that can be used to eliminate outside stimuli or generate white noise to assist in focusing, it is completely silent about the possibility of performing adjustments of the vocal affects as a biofeedback response during the use of the system based on the user's attentiveness level, as clearly defined in instant claim 6. As such, a skilled artisan reading Bruckner would only be taught to turn on a specific vocal output, such as white noise or soft music, but would have had no incentive to change the vocal affect during the use of the system.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Aslan teaches determining a user’s attentiveness and then adjusting system output based on this determination to improve a user’s focus. Bruckner teaches generating music to help the user focus. Therefore, one would be motivated to provide music in the system of Aslan based on the teaching of Bruckner as another way to improve user focus.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to claim 13 are directed to intended use of the system, are not directly recited in the claims, and are not responsive to the rejection made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights