DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/18/25 has been entered. Claims 1-36 are pending and under examination.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome all claim objections from the previous Office Action mailed on 6/18/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1 = YES: The claimed invention is to a process and product, and thus fall under one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 1 = YES: The claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion)(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Moreover, the claims recite steps akin to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which the court in Electric Power Group held to recite a mental process. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This abstract idea recited in the claims includes: A system or method for improving verbal skills, comprising:
… store user-specific performance data, including historical proofreading correctness data (mental observation, e.g., recording the observed information using pen and paper);
… analyze text of a user for proofreading correctness, compare results of the analysis to the user-specific performance data . . .; update [the stored data] to reflect the results of the analysis (mental evaluation or analysis of the collected data, e.g., performed using pen and paper);
generate and present personalized learning content based on the stored user-specific performance data (mental evaluation or analysis of the collected data; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
… generate a proofreading game based on the proofreading correctness (mental evaluation or analysis using pen and paper);
present the proofreading game to the user (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
wherein the game is a word jumble game configured to receive selection from the user to rearrange letters of a misspelled word into a correct spelling of the misspelled word (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
wherein the game is a segment jumble game configured to receive a selection from the user to rearrange segments of letters of a misspelled words into a correct spelling of the misspelled words (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
wherein the game includes receiving one or more guesses of a correct spelling of a misspelled word (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
wherein, responsive to the user correctly completing one of the proofreading games, … provide a reward to the user (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
… identify … one or more challenge words that the user has spelled correctly in the text but that the user has spelled incorrectly in the past (mental evaluation or analysis, using pen and paper), and provide a reward to the user (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
… identify… one or more challenge words that the user has spelled incorrectly, and generate a proofreading game for the user (mental evaluation or analysis, using pen and paper);
as recited in claims 1-8,
… identify a proofreading error (mental observation and evaluation or analysis using pen and paper);
refrain from automatically presenting a correction to the proofreading error (mental evaluation or analysis to present the claimed information; human interaction, e.g., teaching, by not presenting the claimed information);
display a correction interface, the correction interface guiding a user to complete a proofreading game based on the proofreading error, receive a correction of the proofreading error from the user via the correction interface; and responsive to the user correctly completing the proofreading game, replace the proofreading error with the correction (mental observation and evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper to present and receive information);
… store proofreading related data, … update … relative to proofreading correctness (mental evaluation or analysis, using pen and paper);
… generate a plurality of games, each game corresponding to the user's proofreading correctness over a plurality of documents edited by the user (mental evaluation or analysis, using pen and paper);
wherein the proofreading error is hidden from the user prior to display of the correction interface (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
wherein the proofreading error is an incorrect spelling of a word (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
wherein the proofreading game is a word jumble game provided in the correction interface configured to receive selection from the user to rearrange letters of the word into a correct spelling of the word (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
wherein the proofreading game is a segment jumble game provided in the correction interface configured to receive a selection from the user to rearrange segments of letters of the word into a correct spelling of the word (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
wherein the proofreading game includes receiving one or more guesses of a correct spelling of the word (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
wherein, responsive to the user correctly completing the proofreading game, … provide a reward to the user (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
wherein the proofreading error is a grammatical error (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
wherein the proofreading error is located in a … document, and … include, in the correction interface, context from the … document to illustrate the proofreading error in the proofreading game (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
wherein the context includes at least part of a sentence in which the proofreading error occurs (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
… indicate … an indication of the proofreading error located in a document where the proofreading error occurs (mental evaluation or analysis, using pen and paper);
display the correction interface responsive to selection of the indication by the user (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
… identify a plurality of proofreading errors in a document (mental evaluation or analysis, using pen and paper);
generate a plurality of games, each game corresponding to one of the plurality of proofreading errors (mental evaluation or analysis, using pen and paper);
responsive to selection of a start game control, provide a game interface for playing the plurality of games (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
as recited in claims 9-22,
identifying … a proofreading error in a document; refraining from automatically presenting a correction to the proofreading error; displaying … a correction interface, the correction interface including a proofreading game to be played by a user; receiving a correction of the proofreading error from the user via the correction interface; responsive the user to correctly completing the proofreading game, replacing … the proofreading error with the correction (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
wherein the proofreading error is an incorrect spelling of a word (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
wherein the proofreading game is a word jumble game provided in the correction interface, and further comprising receiving a selection from the user to rearrange letters of the word into a correct spelling of the word (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
wherein the proofreading game in the correction interface is a segment jumble game, and further comprising receiving a selection from the user to rearrange segments of letters of the word into a correct spelling of the word (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
wherein the proofreading game includes receiving one or more guesses of a correct spelling of the word (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
responsive to the user correctly completing the proofreading game, providing a reward to the user … (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
wherein the proofreading error is a grammatical error (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
… including, in the correction interface, context from the … document to illustrate the proofreading error in the proofreading game (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
wherein the context is a sentence in which the proofreading error occurs (further defines same abstract idea identified above);
indicating, … displaying the document, an indication of the proofreading error located in the document where the proofreading error occurs (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
displaying the correction interface responsive to selection of the indication by the user (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
identifying a plurality of proofreading errors in the document (mental evaluation or analysis);
generating a plurality of games, each game corresponding to one of the plurality of proofreading errors (mental evaluation or analysis, using pen and paper);
responsive to selection of a start game control, providing a game interface for playing the plurality of games (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
updating … to indicate proofreading correctness (mental evaluation or analysis, using pen and paper);
generating a plurality of games, each game corresponding to the words that are spelled incorrectly by the user over a plurality of documents edited by the user (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
as recited in claims 23-35, and
identify a proofreading error in a document; refrain from automatically presenting a correction to the proofreading error; display a correction interface, the correction interface including a proofreading game to be played by a user based on the proofreading error; and responsive to the user correctly completing the proofreading game, replace the proofreading error with the correction (mental evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper),
as recited in claim 36.
The steps identified above are akin to organizing human activity and/or mental processes, and thus fall within an enumerated category of abstract ideas. Moreover, the specification expressly discloses that steps may be performed by a parent, a teacher, and/or a person (see par. 0012: “external rewards offered by teachers, parents, or by third-party partners”; par. 0055 disclosing “determine an appropriate reward, which may be provided by a person, or integrated into and provided directly by the system.”; par. 0080 disclosing “words may be assigned to badges by a teacher or other administrative user”; and par. 0093 disclosing “the teacher may select from the list of challenge words 118 to create a custom set of games to give to the class, where the custom game includes a game for each of the challenge words 118”.) further demonstrating the abstract nature of the claimed invention identified above. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) to help them complete the recited steps above, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 2 = NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to defining a computer environment to implement the abstract idea above (i.e., generally defining the abstract idea in the context of one or more computing devices or a non-transitory computer readable medium; storing information identified as part of the abstract idea itself in a database; and implementing the abstract idea using one or more computing devices with a computer user interface, programmed to perform the abstract idea, including the equivalent of collecting, analyzing, and producing a result from information of the abstract entered into or displayed on the computer user interface; defining the document as a word processor document; and receiving, displaying, or outputting information via an interface or output device), they are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor do they represent an improvement in any other technology. Rather, the generic manner which these additional elements are claimed amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment using a computer comprising a generic display and database, and thus merely define a field of use to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements defining the abstract idea as being generically implemented in a computer environment do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, the claimed data input or output using an interface, a user interface, or an output device are also recited at a high level of generality without any technical detail defining either a particular machine nor an improvement in computer user interface or display technology through technical detail claimed. Thus, these claimed additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution data input and output activity, and thus merely act as a generic tool to carry out the abstract idea.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the physical components identified above does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: YES).
STEP 2B = NO: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as provided under Prong 2, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and for the purpose of insignificant post-solution activity.
Moreover, the specification of the instant application further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine and conventional functionality, which refers to elements of the computer system in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)(e.g., see par. 0036 disclosing “The database 30 may include various types of computing apparatus, such as … some other computing system and/or device”; par. 0096 disclosing “the CPU is a commercially available central processing device that implements an instruction set”; and par. 0098 disclosing “The output device 190 may include … any other suitable device that reproduces a graphical display” demonstrating these additional elements rely on off-the-shelf, commercially available components for their basic functions to implement the abstract idea under Prong 1).
Thus, the additional elements defining the field of use one or more computing devices and a database to implement the abstract idea identified under Prong 1, including a computer user interface or output device to display information, a basic function of a user interface or output device, rely solely on well-understood, routine, and conventional components and their associated functionality to perform the abstract idea, as evidenced by the Specification. Thus, the additional elements amount to merely automating a manual process, which the courts have held to be insufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Therefore, the claims are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-36 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
35 USC § 101 – Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims recite an improved correction interface. However, the recited interface is recited at a high level of generality to receive and display information identified under Prong 1 as an abstract idea without further technical details defining a particular machine or technical improvement to a technological problem. To the extent the claimed user interface “guides a user to complete a proofreading game based on the proofreading error” as Applicant asserts, this is practically performed by a human, e.g., teacher, through an interpersonal interaction with another human, e.g., student, by talking and/or using pen and paper to complete. Likewise, to the extent the claims require the claimed computer to “refrain from automatically presenting a correction to the proofreading error,” this is also practically capable of being performed by a human through mental evaluation, by looking at text and deciding to wait to provide a correction. The recited computer environment including the recited database and user interface are recited at a high level of generality such that they are used merely as a tool to perform the process that is otherwise practically capable of performance by human analog, with any technical details that represent a particular machine or improvement in technology. To the extent the claims represent an improvement in how proofreading corrections are presented, it is an improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not represent an improvement in computer user interfaces.
Applicant further argues that the claims of the present application are akin to Core Wireless. This is not persuasive as the instant claims do not include technical detail directed to a particular improvement in the computer user interface, or any other computer component claimed. In contrast to the claimed user interface which is referred to by name alone to perform the steps identified under Prong 1 as an abstract idea (e.g., receive and display information), claim 1 of the ’476 patent in Core Wireless required “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu,” specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. Further, the claim of Core Wireless further required the application summary window list a limited set of data, “each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application.” In Core Wireless, the claim limitation restrained the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window, and recites that the summary window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state,” a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. These limitations of Core Wireless disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. In this application, the claims do not define any specific manner of how the computing interface operations, but rather merely defines steps that can otherwise be practically performed by mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., teaching, using a computer user interface, e.g., the information of the abstract idea entered into the computer user interface, and generate and present information of the abstract idea on the computer user interface. This is akin to Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc. which also claimed a computer-implemented method that the court held to be an abstract idea because it could be performed by humans without a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to “anonymous loan shopping”, which was an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer.”). Thus, the claimed invention is not akin to Core Wireless.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715