DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendment filed 09 February 2026, claims 1-4 and 6-14 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1-4 and 6-14 recite a method comprising:
receiving at least one document and providing additional data for a reader user to better understand the at least one document;
accessing a translation database that stores, for each of a plurality of source words in the base alphabet, a corresponding marked-up phonetic word represented by a sequence of compound-character identifiers
generating encoded document text by parsing the source text into words and, for each word that matches an entry in the translation database, replace the word in the encoded document text with the corresponding marked-up phonetic word
employing a method of automatically encoding a non-phonetic word comprising:
using a compound character that includes at least one spelling character in the non-phonetic word and at least one sound character comprising at least one human-readable character in the base alphabet and/or in one or more secondary alphabets, wherein the at least one sound character is added to the at least one spelling character to indicate that the at least one spelling character makes a usual sound of the at least one sound character;
wherein the at least one spelling character is visually discriminated from the at least one sound character;
wherein the user can recognize the non-phonetic word by sight because the spelling of the word is unchanged; and
the at least one spelling character and the at least one sound character remain human-readable such that the at least one spelling character and the at least one sound character of each compound character are within one visual field; and
wherein encoded words are automatically outputted in a human-readable form or format such that the compound characters in the encoded word visually indicate which of the at least one spelling a sound other than their usual sound and what sound each character makes in the non-phonetic word when it does not make its usual sound;
displaying the encoded words,
receiving user inputs,
classifying the user into one of a plurality of categories based on the user inputs, the user inputs used by the at least one processor to generates measured values of the user’s knowledge/performance, and
selecting a phoneme set from a plurality of sets based on a user category using a predefined mapping between user categories and phoneme sets; and
automatically presenting a test text in the base alphabet to the user by displaying the test text visibly or playing the test text audibly, wherein the test text includes a plurality of words that can be selected by the user using the user interface including at least one test word and one or more distractor words that are not the test word, and measure the values from user selections of a user-selectable words, including measuring how many of the least one test words are user selected, and/or how much time is taken to select the test words.
The limitations of receiving a document, accessing a translation database, generating encoded document text, using a compound character to generate a sound, displaying encoded words, receiving user inputs, classifying the user, selecting a phoneme set, and automatically presenting a test text, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processor” and “interactive display” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” and “interactive display” language, “receiving”, “accessing”, “generating”, using”, “displaying”, “receiving”, “classifying”, “selecting”, and “presenting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually manipulating the document text and audio, displaying it to a user, and receiving input from the person, for example orally and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a system with a processor and an interactive display to perform the claimed steps. The processor and display in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and display interface performing generic computer functions of receiving, processing and displaying text and audio data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 and display to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-14 recite the same abstract idea as their respective parent claims, and only recite additional abstract limitations of processing text and word sounds. Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed 09 February 2026 with respect to the section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claims 1 and 6 are patentable because they are now tied to structure. This is not persuasive. Applicant is directed to the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), which set forth the guidance for patentability under section 101. The guidance follows a Two-Step test in which it is determined whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, followed by a determination of whether the claim recites additional limitations sufficient to direct the invention to significantly more than the exception. Merely tying an abstract idea to structure such as a processor and memory is not sufficient to establish patentability. See the detailed rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the section 112 and 102 rejections, in view of the corresponding amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The section 112 and 102 rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
6. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715