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 .
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: Claims 1-14 are to an apparatus or method, and thus fall under one of the four statutory categories (e.g., product or process)(Step 1: YES). However, claim 15 recites a “program, which causes a computer system to execute” a step. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “program,” this includes signals per se. Therefore, claim 15 claims ineligible subject matter because signals per se do not fall under one of the four statutory categories. (Step 1: NO)
STEP 2A, Prong 1: The claims recite 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). 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 includes:
sets an evaluation value relating to an educational situation on a basis of a correlation between educator action information, which is a classification result obtained by classifying an action of an educator into one of a plurality of educator action patterns, and learner action information, which is a classification result obtained by classifying an action of a learner into one of a plurality of learner action patterns (mental process: evaluation or analysis);
wherein the correlation is a correlation between the educator action information, and first learner action information and second learner action information as the learner action information (mental process: evaluation or analysis);
wherein the correlation is a correlation between the first learner action at a first timing, the educator action information at a second timing, which is a timing after the first timing, and the second learner action information at a third timing, which is a timing after the second timing (mental process: evaluation or analysis);
wherein when the first learner action information and the second learner action information are different from each other, . . . sets the evaluation value higher than an evaluation value in a case where the first learner action information and the second learner action information are identical to each other (mental process: evaluation or analysis);
wherein when the first learner action information and the second learner action information are different from each other, . . . the evaluation value high if the second learner action information is set as more positive action information than the first learner action information (mental process: evaluation or analysis);
wherein when the first learner action information and the second learner action information are different from each other, . . . sets the evaluation value high if the second learner action information is set as more negative action information than the first learner action information (mental process: evaluation or analysis);
wherein when the first learner action information and the second learner action information are identical to each other, . . . sets the evaluation value lower than an evaluation value in a case where the first learner action information and the second learner action information are different from each other (***);
. . . classifies the action of the educator into one of the plurality of educator action patterns to generate the educator action information, classifies the action of the learner into one of the plurality of learner action patterns to generate the learner action information, and outputs the generated educator action information and learner action information . . . (mental process: evaluation or analysis);
. . . outputs a sensing result . . . analyzes the action of the educator and the action of the learner on a basis of the sensing result (mental process: observation; and evaluation or analysis);
. . . processes the sensing result on a basis of the evaluation value (mental process: evaluation or analysis);
. . . edits the sensing result on a basis of the evaluation value (mental process: evaluation or analysis);
. . . processes the sensing result on a basis of the evaluation value (mental process: evaluation or analysis);
. . . edits the sensing result on a basis of the evaluation value (mental process: evaluation or analysis),
in claims 1-13;
An information processing method . . ., the method comprising setting an evaluation value relating to an educational situation on a basis of a correlation between educator action information, which is a classification result obtained by classifying an action of an educator into one of a plurality of educator action patterns, and learner action information, which is a classification result obtained by classifying an action of a learner into one of a plurality of learner action patterns (mental process: evaluation or analysis),
in claim 14; and
A program . . . of setting an evaluation value relating to an educational situation on a basis of a correlation between educator action information, which is a classification result obtained by classifying an action of an educator into one of a plurality of educator action patterns, and learner action information, which is a classification result obtained by classifying an action of a learner into one of a plurality of learner action patterns (mental process: evaluation or analysis),
in claim 15.
As identified for each limitation above, the steps are akin to mental processes, and thus fall within an enumerated category of abstract ideas. Additionally, paragraph 0027 of the Specification describes an “educational situation,” a term used in independent claims 1, 14, and 15, as “any situation in which an educator 1 teaches the educational content to a learner 2 and the learner 2 learns the educational content,” further demonstrating the claims relate to evaluating actions of a human educator and learner. But for the recitation of generic computer system, these steps are practically capable of mental observation and/or evaluation, such as a third-party human evaluator viewing the human educator and learner in a classroom. 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: 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., An information processing apparatus, comprising an evaluation unit, an analysis unit, and an evaluation correspondence processing unit that perform the steps identified as an abstract idea above; and generally defining a method as executed by a computer system; and generally defining a program as causing a computer system to execute a step), 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, i.e., field of use, and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to a physical component for providing data collection (i.e., collect information identified under Prong 1 as an abstract idea by a sensor unit), the claims do not recite a particular configuration of the sensor unit or a particular method of using the raw data from the sensor unit in order to achieve a technical improvement. Rather, the claimed sensor unit is merely recited to perform insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity, which but for the generic recitation of sensor unit, is practically capable of being performed by human analog, e.g., by mental observation. Therefore, the use of sensor unit in the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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: 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 pre-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. 0031 disclosing “the information processing apparatus10 can be implemented by any computer such as a personal computer (PC)”; and par. 0030 further states “Specific devices used as a sensor unit are not limited”, which is evidence that the claimed computing environment and sensor unit are well-known, routine, and conventional software and hardware, not a technical improvement). In other words, the claims merely rely on the computer environment and sensor unit as a tools to perform the abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the additional elements defining the field of use as a computer-implemented environment to perform the claimed abstract idea under Prong 1 with a sensor unit to collect data used in the abstract idea under Prong 1 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 1-15 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
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