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.
The Amendment filed 5/5/26 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-36 are pending in the application and are under examination.
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, detect one or more proofreading errors in the text; 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, based on at least one detected proofreading error, an interactive correction interface configured to be presented… and to receive user input corresponding to a correction of the proofreading error (mental evaluation or analysis of the collected data; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper);
… generate the interactive correction interface as 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 word into a correct spelling of the misspelled word (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 in a text of a document (mental observation and evaluation or analysis using pen and paper);
control presentation of the proofreading error within the document by selectively withholding display of a visual indication of the proofreading error during at least a portion of text entry or editing (mental evaluation or analysis to present the claimed information; human interaction, e.g., teaching, by not presenting the claimed information);
responsive to a user interaction, present a correction interface…for receiving user input, the correction interface including an interactive element based on the proofreading error (mental observation and evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper to present and receive information);
responsive to the user input, automatically modify the document to correct the proofreading error (mental observation and evaluation or analysis; human interaction, e.g., teaching, using pen and paper to modify information);
… store proofreading related data, … update … relative to proofreading correctness (mental evaluation or analysis, using pen and paper);
… generate a plurality of games as the correction interface, 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 correction interface includes 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 correction interface includes 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 correction interface includes is configured to receive 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 input correctly completing a proofreading game presented in the correction interface, … 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; controlling presentation of the proofreading error within the document by selectively withholding display of a visual indication of the proofreading error during at least a portion of text entry or editing; responsive to a user interaction, presenting a correction interface … for receiving user input, the correction interface including an interactive element based on the proofreading error; responsive to the user input, automatically modifying the document to correct the proofreading error (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 a proofreading game in the correction interface 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 a 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 a proofreading game in the correction interface 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 a proofreading game in the correction interface, 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 a 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, in the user interface 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; control presentation of the proofreading error within the document by selectively withholding display of a visual indication of the proofreading error during at least a portion of text entry or editing; responsive to a user interaction, present a correction interface…for receiving user input, the correction interface including an interactive element based on the proofreading error; and responsive to the user input, automatically modify the document to correct the proofreading error (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 within or adjacent to the one or more computing devices including 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. The specification is silent as to any technical improvement to the computer functionality or any other technology or technical field. Similarly, the claims do not reflect any disclosed improvement to computer functionality or other technology or technical field with any particular details. 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 5/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims do not recite a mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mathematical concept, but rather “require specific manipulation of how information is rendered and controlled within a computer user interface” which Applicant argues are not capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. In particular, Applicant argues that “selectively withholding and later presenting visual indications of detected errors within a dynamically updated document interface requires computer functionality.” Applicant is directed to the revised grounds of rejection under 35 USC 101 above, as necessitated by claim amendment. Further, the claims recite an abstract idea (see Prong 1 of the rejection). Regarding the limitations related to selectively withholding and later presenting visual indications of detected errors, this is practically capable of performance by human analog, including a person proofreading a document but waiting to indicate any observed proofreading errors. To the extent a computer user interface is recited in the claims, e.g., “one or more computing devices with a computer user interface, programmed to analyze text of a user entered into the computer user interface”, it is recited at a high level of generality to perform the abstract idea of analyzing text of a user with no technical detail how the underlying functionality is achieved, and therefore, does not represent an improvement to the computing device. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, asserting that the amended claims recite a specific improvement to the operation of a computer-based text editing interface. In particular, Applicant identifies the controlling of timing and visibility of proofreading error indications within the document, and selectively withholding such indications during text entry or edition, and introducing interactive correction interface tied to the detected error as being rooted in computer interface behavior. Applicant argues this results in a different operational model for text editors, rather than merely automating a pre-existing manual process. Applicant is directed to the revised grounds of rejection under 35 USC 101 above, as necessitated by claim amendment. Further, the process of controlling timing and visibility of proofreading error indications within the document can be practically performed, using pen and paper, by mental process, e.g., a person proofreading a document and waiting to physically mark the document with observed errors. A correction interface, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a sheet of paper on which a person can write proofreading marks. The claims lack any technical details that amount to a technical improvement to how the computer functions or any other technology or technical field. Likewise, the claim is silent as to any particular “operational model for text editors”. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea including “(i) detection of proofreading errors, (ii) selective withholding of visual indications within the document, (iii) presentation of an interactive correction interface based on the error, and (iv) automatic modification of the document based on user input” which Applicant argues defines a specific, non-conventional manner of operating a text editing system. Applicant argues that the claims do not merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, but rather require a particular configuration of the user interface that alters the conventional presentation and correction workflow of proofreading systems. Applicant asserts that there is no indication that selectively controlling the visibility of detected errors within a document and coupling that control with an interactive correction interface, as claimed, was well- understood, routine, or conventional. Applicant asserts the claims system departs from conventional systems that immediately present corrections or error indicators. Applicant is directed to the revised grounds of rejection under 35 USC 101 above, as necessitated by claim amendment. Further, the steps (i) through (iv), for example, which Applicant identifies are an abstract idea because they can be practically performed by mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Neither the specification, nor the claims disclose any unconventional manner of operating a text editing system with specific technical detail. Further, the act of withholding a proofreading error, i.e., controlling the visibility of detected errors within a document and coupling that control with an interactive correction interface, can be practically performed by a human proofreading a document by mental process and thus constitutes part of the abstract idea claimed. Further, the claimed interactive interface is recited at such a high level of generality that under the broadest reasonable interpretation it includes a sheet of paper or document on which the human proofreader may indicate a proofreading error. Likewise, the specification is silent as to any improvement to the computing device and various interfaces, including an interactive correction interface, which are claimed by name alone to perform the recited abstract idea itself. Therefore, to the extent withholding a proofreading error is an unconventional activity, which Examiner does not concede, it describes the abstract idea of proofreading which a teacher can perform by mental process, and thus does not present a technical improvement to the computing system/interface or any other technology or technical field. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights