DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
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 1-19, 21-23 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, 11 and 16 recite the following:
A computing device for determining one or more social and emotional learning exercises associated with a selected media title, the computing device comprising:
A communication interface configured to receive a first communication from a user device associated with a user, the user device running SEL software interfacing with a streaming service ,the first communication being indicative of a media title selected for viewing via the streaming service;
a processor operably coupled to the communication interface, wherein the processor is configured to, upon the communication interface receiving the first communication indicative of the selected media, automatically retrieve metadata of the selected media and dynamically determine, based at least in part on the retrieved metadata and a progress status associated with thee user, one or more exercises corresponding with the selected media title to be presented to the user as the user progresses through the selected media title wherein dynamically determining one or more exercise includes identifying one or more segments of the selected media title associated with SEL topic and generating one or more exercise task for the user associated with each of the one or more segments;
wherein the processor is configured to cause the communication interface to communicate a second communication to the user device, the second communication causing the SEL software of the user device to automatically present the one or more segments to the user as the user progresses throught the selected media title on the user device to each of the one or more segments; and
wherein the communication interface is configured to receive a third communication from the user device, the third communication being indicative of one or more responses of the user to the one or more exercises, and wherein the processor is configured to store the one or more responses in a database.
A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations related to administration of one or more social emotional learning exercises, the operations comprising:
at a user device running SEL software interfacing with a streaming service application associated with the user device;
receiving, at a user interface of the user device, a user input indicating selection of a media title by a user to be streamed via the streaming service;
communicating, by communication circuitry of the user device, a first communication to a remote server computer, the first communication being indicative of the selected media title;
receiving, at the communication circuitry, a second communication indicative of one or more exercises as determined by the remote server computer based at least in part on the selected media title, each of the one or more exercises associated with a segment of the media title;
upon playback of the media title progressing to each segment of the media title:
automatically pausing, by the SEL software, playback of the media title via the streaming service upon the media title progressing to a time stamp associated with an associated exercise of the one or more exercises;
prompting the user, via the user interface, to complete the associated exercise of the one or more exercises;
receiving a response to the associated exercise of the one or more exercises via a user interface of the SEL software; and
automatically resuming, by the SEL software, playback of the media title via the streaming service upon receiving the response.
A method for facilitating administration of one or more social emotional learning exercises, the method comprising:
receiving, at a communication interface of a remote server computer, a first communication from a user device indicative of a media title selected by a user for streaming via a streaming service associated with the user device ;
automatically determining, at a processor of the remote server cornputer, one or more exercises corresponding with the selected media title upon receiving the first communication, wherein automatically determining the one or more exercises based at least in part on a progress status relative to a curriculum for the user, wherein automatically determining the one or more exercises includes identifying one or more segments of the selected media title associated with an SEL topic and identifying one or more exercise tasks for the user associated with each of the one or more segments;
communicating a second communication to the user device, the second communication causing the user device to present the one or more exercise tasks for each of the one or more segments to the user as the user progresses through the selected media title on the user device to each of the one or more segments;
receiving, at the communication interface, one or more responses of the user to the one or more exercises; and
updating the progress status of the user based at least in part on the received responses to the one or more exercises.
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 “computing device”, “communication interface”, “processor”, “user device”, “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “communication circuitry”, “remote server computer”, 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 observing students’ behaviors and adjusting its instruction/lecture level accordingly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” 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) – “computing device”, “communication interface”, “processor”, “user device”, “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “communication circuitry”, “remote server computer”.
The “computing device”, “communication interface”, “processor”, “user device”, “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “communication circuitry”, “remote server computer” in the aforementioned steps are 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.
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 (for example, see paragraph 27 examples of generic computer performing the claimed invention).
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.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-10, 12-15, 17-21 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 no additional limitations. For example, claims 2-10, 12 and 21-22 are directed to the type of consideration being observed from the user (additional abstract ideas); claims 13-15, 19 and 23 are directed to the information exchange between the server and the user’s browser (a technological environment); claims 17-18 are directed to the type exercise to be given to the user (additional abstract ideas). 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. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “the human mind cannot practically retrieve metadata of a media title or use the retrieved metadata to identify segments of the media title and generate one or more exercise tasks capable of being presented to the user on a user device as the user progresses through the media title. The human mind is not able to communicate with a user device to cause SEL software to automatically present exercise tasks as the user progresses through the media title to the associated segments. In other words, the claims are directed to automated streaming playback control that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.” However, the use of a computer to implement an abstract idea are still interpreted to be an abstract idea. For example, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) shows an example of a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. In this particular case, a user can determine the which exercise task to present to the use as a user progresses through the selected media title. Furthermore, the automated streaming playback control can also be interpreted as a technological environment that do not integrates the judicial exception in a practical application.
The Applicant also argued that the amended claim 1 integrates the abstract idea as being directed a computing system enable a user to view media titles they are interested in, while continuing to learn using examples from the content (e.g., movie, show, etc.) they are interested in. The claimed computing device provides technological solution that, for example, converts a conventional streaming service into a learning platform tailored to each individual's personal interests and goals. The claimed computing device thus provides an improvement to computer-related streaming technology. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to show improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.5(a)). In this particular case, neither the applicant’s argument and the specification provide any improvement to a computer or any other technology. A review of the specification shows that the invention is directed to the improvement of the human being. For example, paragraph 3 states that the invention is directed to the improvement of the user’s skills such as emotional literacy, self-awareness, social awareness, empathy, relationship skills, decision making, and self-regulation have been shown to contribute to reductions in anxiety, reductions in depression, improved academic performance, higher graduation rates for students, and improved psychological and physical wellbeing. A review of the MPEP does not show an improvement to the performance of the user can be categorized as improvement to computer or any other technology (see MPEP 2106.5(a) I and II). As such, the examiner takes the position that the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 shall be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights