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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because drawings (FIGURE 1-14b) all contain dark shading which obscures the figures and renders the characters illegible, and therefore are improper. 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m). 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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “reading module,” “speech analysis module,” “user device,” “frontend system,” and “backend system” in claims 1 and 7, “video module” and “resource module” in claims 5, 6, or 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 7, and 10 recite(s):
Claim 1. A method for language learning on a learning platform comprising:
providing the learning platform comprising a backend system executed on a server, the backend system includes a reading module, the reading module is configured to manage programs including providing language programs, wherein the language programs employ translanguaging techniques for training a target language, and a frontend system, wherein the frontend system is executed on a user device and includes a user interface to access various modules of the backend system;
training of a language program selected by a user accessing the reading module through the user device, wherein the selected language program is presented based on a user native language input and a user target language input; and
assessing performance of the user during training of the selected language program including performing analytics using a speech analysis module of the backend system to provide feedback on language fluency and pronunciations of the user.
Claim 7. A learning platform for language learning comprising:
a backend system executed on a server, the backend system includes a reading module, the reading module is configured to manage programs including providing language programs, the language programs employ translanguaging techniques for training a target language, wherein the language programs are presented based on a user native language input and a user target language input, and a speech analysis module, the speech analysis module is configured to assess language fluency and pronunciations during training of the language programs; and
a frontend system, wherein the frontend system is executed on a user device and includes a user interface to access various modules of the backend system.
Claim 10. A method for multi-modality language learning comprising:
selecting a target language and a native language by a user;
providing the user with a selection of translanguage reading documents configured with the target language and the native language;
selecting by the user a selected reading document for reading;
displaying the selected reading document for the user to read aloud into a microphone for recording a recorded reading by the user of the selected reading document; and
assessing a performance of the user based on the recorded reading using speech analysis to provide feedback on language fluency and pronunciation of the user.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “platform,” “front/backend system,” “server,” “user device,” “module,” ”user interface,” “record [data],” and “present/display [data],” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher assessing students’ foreign language skills with translinguial materials.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “platform,” “front/backend system,” “server,” “user device,” “module,” ”user interface,” “record [data],” and “present/display [data].”
The “platform,” “front/backend system,” “server,” “user device,” “module,” and ”user interface” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites the following additional elements: “record [data]” and “present/display [data].” The additional element step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of displaying information to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-6 and 8-9 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of “presented through a voice” and “accessing function” [claims 3, 4, and 8], “video” [claims 5 and 9], “store [data]” [claims 6 and 9], which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity, or that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. The additional element of using “accessing function” to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the additional element of “video” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity or well-known, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) “presented through a voice” and “store [data]” was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the aforementioned additional elements are well-known, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0255431).
Regarding claim 1, Baker discloses a method for language learning on a learning platform comprising:
providing the learning platform comprising a backend system executed on a server, the backend system includes a reading module, the reading module is configured to manage programs including providing language programs, wherein the language programs employ translanguaging techniques for training a target language, and a frontend system, wherein the frontend system is executed on a user device and includes a user interface to access various modules of the backend system (¶37: “Embodiments of the invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by local and remote processing devices that are linked (either by hardwired links, wireless links, or by a combination of hardwired or wireless links) through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.”; ¶50: “a choice can be made for each individual word as to whether the word will be presented in the language being studied or in the student's native language.”);
training of a language program selected by a user accessing the reading module through the user device, wherein the selected language program is presented based on a user native language input and a user target language input (130 and 140 in FIG. 1; ¶50: “a choice can be made for each individual word as to whether the word will be presented in the language being studied or in the student's native language.”); and
assessing performance of the user during training of the selected language program including performing analytics using a speech analysis module of the backend system to provide feedback on language fluency and pronunciations of the user (180, 190, 195 in FIG. 1; ¶¶64-66, 79).
Regarding claim 2, Baker further discloses that training of the selected language program comprises training in a story session, a voice practice session and/or a gaming session of the selected language program (FIG. 3 illustrates the book/story session 310; voice practice session 350; or gaming session 380).
Regarding claim 3, Baker further discloses that training in the story session includes viewing a story displayed and presented though a voice based on the user native language input or the user target language input, wherein the story is a comic story (¶95: “Block 310 of FIG. 3 obtains a book, story, essay or other written document.”; ¶43: “The present invention may be applied to age-appropriate material for ages ranging from pre-school age children to adults. Even the youngest children can watch cartoons or listen to stories read aloud. Older children can read comic books and stories matched to their grade level. ”); recording a reading of the story by the user (360 in FIG 3); and accessing translation and dictionary functions provided by the reading module to view translations and explanations in both user native language and user target language (¶100: “Block 340 presents the text, selecting for each basic unit which of several alternate representations to present based on the student's general proficiency and the student's knowledge of the particular lexical items being presented. The alternate representations would include the translation of each unit into both the language being studied and the native language of the student. ”).
Regarding claim 4, Baker further discloses that training in the voice practice session includes selecting a voice exercise from a plurality of voice exercises for a user to practice reading aloud, wherein each voice exercise includes words displayed and presented though a voice based on the user target language input; recording a reading of the voice exercise by the user; and analyzing the recorded reading of the voice exercise using the speech analysis module to provide feedback on language fluency and pronunciations of the user (see FIG. 130, 160, 170, 190, 195 in FIG. 1; see also 340, 350, 360, 370 in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Baker further discloses that the backend system further comprises a video module configured to manage videos for viewing by the user on the user device, wherein the videos include live-streamed videos configured to broadcast content related to one or more programs provided by the reading module (¶42: “The audio or video material will generally be in the form a continuous stream. However, the student's interaction with the material and with the instructional system may need to be in terms of discrete units, such as words. In particular, if the system is to provide material in a mixture of two languages that is responsive to the student's knowledge of particular vocabulary words, it will need to know for each word the time within the continuous audio or audio/video stream of the beginning and ending of the particular word. To provide the student the capability to interact with the system and to request assistance on a particular word will also require such a time alignment. Such a time alignment may be computed by a large vocabulary continuous speech recognition system.”).
Regarding claim 6, Baker further discloses that the backend system further comprises a resource module configured to store learning resources and teaching resources for users to retrieve (¶35: “embodiments within the scope of the present invention include program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon”; ¶37: “In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.”).
Regarding claim 7, please see the supra rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, please see the supra rejection of claims 2, 3, and 4.
Regarding claim 9, please see the supra rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 10, Baker discloses a method for multi-modality language learning comprising:
selecting a target language and a native language by a user (¶46: “In the description provided herein below, many steps involve two languages: the language being studied and the "native language" of the student. This embodiment of this invention can work with any two languages. It is desirable, but not essential, that the student be fluent in the language referred to as the student's "native language" or at least that the student be more familiar with that language than the language being studied.”);
providing the user with a selection of translanguage reading documents configured with the target language and the native language (¶50: “a choice can be made for each individual word as to whether the word will be presented in the language being studied or in the student's native language.”);
selecting by the user a selected reading document for reading (¶47: “this material would be the same kind of material that the user (that is, the student) would normally read, view or listen to even without the objective of learning a language.”; ¶62: “The student could control the selection criteria for alternate representations.”);
displaying the selected reading document for the user to read aloud into a microphone for recording a recorded reading by the user of the selected reading document (140, 150, 160, 170 in FIG. 1;); and
assessing a performance of the user based on the recorded reading using speech analysis to provide feedback on language fluency and pronunciation of the user (180, 190, 195 in FIG. 1; ¶¶64-66, 79).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J HONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0993. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
THOMAS J. HONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/THOMAS J HONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715