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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application as filed on April 4, 2023. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: reference characters 109 and 113, which appear in the specification at ¶¶30 and 36, are not shown in the drawings. Correction is required.
In addition, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: Reference character 2013 is shown in Fig. 2, but not mention in the specification. Correction is required.
The drawings are also objected to for minor informalities. Figs. 1-3 lack lead lines for the reference characters. Correction is required.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶11 of the specification reads “Similarly, other elated art systems and methods are configured for educating writers in the preparation of written work and require complex processes and hardware strcuture including appropriate database configurations and storage space.” This should read --Similarly, other related art systems and methods are configured for educating writers in the preparation of written work and require complex processes and hardware structure including appropriate database configurations and storage space--. Appropriate correction is required.
¶¶ 30 and 36 of the specification refer to the “third/party database” by different reference characters “109” and “113.” A single reference number should be chosen for this term to increase consistency and clarity. In addition, a third-party apparatus is identified in Fig. 1 as reference character 125. In addition “third/party” is confusing. This should read --third party--. Appropriate correction is required.
¶38 of the specification reads “The user end device may be a desktop computer, a web page, a smartphone, or any similar device constructed and configured to provide a display and accommodate a user interface.” However, a “web page” is an interface not a device. Appropriate correction is required.
¶48 reads “If the step S2007 results in a determination that no further information is required, then S2009 includes a step of repeating the process steps S2003 and S2005 until all necessary or predetermined requisite components of information are received.” Based on the drawings this should read --If the step S2007 results in a determination that further information is required, then S2011 includes a step of repeating the process steps S2003 and S2005 until all necessary or predetermined requisite components of information are received. Appropriate correction is required.
¶49 reads “If the step S2007 results in a determination that further information is required, then S2011 includes a step of compiling, by the processor, the stored information to produce a draft document.” Based on the drawings this should read -- If the step S2007 results in a determination that no further information is required, then S2009 includes a step of compiling, by the processor, the stored information to produce a draft document.-- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “user input;” however, it is not clear if this is the same as “user input” in claim 1 or a different user input. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the prompt” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 10, the claim recites “processing, by the processor, the received user input information sets and storing the same in a database according to a respective information set” at lines 5-6. It is unclear what “the same” refers to. For example, it is unclear whether the claim means storing the received user input information or storing the processed user input information. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as processing, by the processor, the received user input information sets and storing the processed information sets in a database as relating to a respective information set.
In re claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “the system” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 14, the claim recites the limitations “the user provided information” at line 2 and “the document” at line 3. These terms lack clear antecedent basis in the claim. In addition, it is unclear what “the same” refers to. For example, it is unclear whether the claim means presenting the user provided information or presenting the portions of the document. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as presenting the user provided information.
In re claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the rough draft document” at line 2. This term lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim. For purposes of examination, the rough draft document is interpreted as the draft document.
In re claim 17, the claim recites the limitations “the rough draft” and “the system” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of examination, the rough draft is interpreted as the draft document.
In re claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “the user input edits” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-18 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Claims 1 and 10 are directed to a system and a method. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the invention is directed to “teaching writing composition and assisting writers” and “assistance in organizing ideas or beginning or continuing to complete the writing process, or working out an effective structure for communicating ideas. (e.g., ¶. 13).
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A system useful for machine-assisted writing composition, comprising:
a prompt database configured to store prompt data for communicating to a user to solicit user input;
a user input database configured to store the user input received from the user at a user interface; and
a processor configured to process, store, and access information in the prompt database and the user input database, and the processor configured to cause the system to communicate with a user by a user interface to provide information to the user and receive user input to the system.
Independent claim 10 recites the following (with emphasis):
A method, comprising:
providing, by a processor communicating with a database, a user input portal to a user;
prompting the user to input predetermined information sets;
receiving, by the processor, the predetermined information sets at the system;
processing, by the processor, the received user input information sets and storing the same in a database according to a respective information set; and
compiling, by the processor, the stored information to produce a draft document.
The underlined portions of claims 1 and 10 generally encompass the abstract idea. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 further define the abstract idea, for example, as compiling a document based on user input and/or describing generic network and computing components recited at a high level of generality. Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes. For example, the recited steps or operations may be performed in the mind of a human and/or with the aid of pencil and paper. In addition, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity because they are drawn to the managing personal behavior of students, for example, to teach or train an individual how to write documents.
In general, the claims recite a mental process, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) directed to data gathering, processing, and output. But for the recitations of machine-assisted, a database, and a processor, nothing in the claimed method or system precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example, communicating a prompt to a user to solicit user input could be a teacher providing a question or direction to a student; user input received from the user at a user interface could be a teacher reviewing the student’s response; and process, store, and access information in the prompt database and the user input database could be a teacher looking at the prompts and comparing the student’s answer to the prompts, and communicate with a user by a user interface to provide information to the user and receive user input to the system, could be teacher writing down the prompts, reviewing and selecting the prompt for a particular student, and reading the prompt to a student and reviewing the responses from the student. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The use of prompts or questions to cause students, to reflect, think, and generate answers as a means of teaching, training, and imparting knowledge is basic to the learning process. The system and methods in the instant application simply seek to automate this well-known activity using generic computers recited at a high level of generality, and, therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract concept sub-grouping of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" including teaching and following rules or instructions, for example, an instructor conducting training of a student to teach how to draft essays and other documents. As a teacher provides the prompts the student is directed in how to draft an essay. Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention also encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. The elements of a display, a processor, a database, and an interface, only recite computing elements at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic elements performing generic functions of storing, receiving, processing, and displaying information), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Further, even if the claims nominally required these steps to be performed by a computer system, this computer implementation of a mental process would be insufficient to take the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract ideas. See Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” is insufficient to confer eligibility.). Applicant’s specification does not provide additional details about the generic computing elements that would transform the computer system into a specific computing device for converting input data from one form to another. Nor does it disclose any processing circuitry including specific instructions for performing the recited functions, such that the derived content transforms the received data into a new state or thing. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Rather, the claims merely automate a previously manual process using generic computer technology thereby transforming input data into an equivalent output performance data. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Ped. Cir. 2017) (Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers docs not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”}; see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Here a computer is used for it’s inherent processing ability of performing calculations on or processing of data in an efficient and timely manner to produce a directed result.
Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. To be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer or network as a network. Applicant’s invention does not meet these requirements. Applicant’s invention uses computers and networks to present information to users, collect the information, and process/compile information based on the collected information. These are all basic computer functions and do not improve the computer qua computer or the network qua network. Instead, Applicant’s invention uses generic computers and networks as a tool to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not eligible under Section 101.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a system having a processor and memory storage (database) and a display configured to perform the abstract idea. Applicant’s specification, for example, ¶¶30-32 and 59-60, recite off the shelf general purpose computing components such a display, a processor, a database, and a memory for storing instructions that can be executed by a computer. As a result, nothing in Applicant’s specification indicates the computer system performs anything other than well understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving, storing, and processing. See, Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (ed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the [S]pecification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”); see also Alice, 573 US. at 224—26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1340, 1355 (ed. Cir, 2014) (That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). At best, Applicant’s claimed subject matter simply uses generic processing circuitry to perform the abstract idea of converting input data from one form to another (e.g., student answers to prompts to a draft document). As noted above, the use of a generic computer system does not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court has observed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223).
As a result, these additional elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional computer components. As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step or operation does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1-18 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2011/0300520 by Harris et al. (“Harris”);
In re claim 10, Harris discloses a method [¶12 describes a computer-implemented method of assisting a user in organizing and writing a research paper] including: providing, by a processor communicating with a database, a user input portal to a user [Fig. 2, ¶¶9-12, 42, 47, among others, describe a processor 118/202 communicating with a database 204 to generate a user interface (portal) to receive inputs over a network 208 from a client device 206 of a user for drafting a paper]; prompting the user to input predetermined information sets [Figs. 3-22, ¶¶9-12, 42, 47, 76-80, among others, describe interfaces (Figs. 3-22) which provide the user with a series of interfaces to convey a step-by-step prompting of the user to input information to build a paper, such as step 1 entering the paper info and schedule (e.g., Figs. 3-5), step 2 building a topic/thesis (e.g., Figs. 6-9), step 3 gathering information and sources, (e.g., Figs. 10-14), step 4 organize the information (e.g., Figs. 15-16), step 5 generate an outline (e.g., Fig. 17,) step 6 write the paper using the information organized by the outline (e.g., Figs. 18-22). The information input using each interface are information sets predetermined by the step and saved in the database by the server]; receiving, by the processor, the predetermined information sets at the system [¶¶9-12, among others, describe information input into the user interface (Figs. 3-22) is received by the sever 202]; processing, by the processor, the received user input information sets and storing the same in a database according to a respective information set [Fig. 2, ¶¶9-12, 42, 43, 47, 76-80, among others, describe the input to the user interface (Figs. 3-22) is processed by the server 202 and stored in the database 204 or mass storage organized by the inputs fields of the interface and used to automatically generate a draft document, which may be edited by the user]; and compiling, by the processor, the stored information to produce a draft document [Figs. 2-22, ¶¶9-12, 42, 47, 76-80, among others, describe the input to the user interfaces are used to automatically generate a draft document (research paper), which may be edited by the user].
In re claim 11, Harris discloses communicating the draft document comprising the compiled information to the user [Figs. 3-22, ¶¶9-12, 42, 43, 47, 76-80, among others, describe displaying (interfaces shown in Figs. 3-22) the draft document to the user which may be edited and saved at each step of the process].
In re claim 12, Harris discloses displaying the draft document on a display [Fig. 1, ¶¶12, 43, 56, 72-80, among others, described a display 124 to display various components and drafts of the document to a user].
In re claim 13, Harris discloses the displaying further comprising displaying the draft document on a display at a user device remotely located from the system, the system comprising a network connection configured to facilitate networked communication between the system and the user device [Figs. 1-22, ¶¶10, 42, 43, 47, 76-80, among others, describe System 200 allows a user to use a client device 206 to access the research paper assistance program at a server 202 through a network 208 rather than through a local memory device (i.e., remotely located). The client device may include a display 124 for display the interfaces and the compiled document].
In re claim 14, Harris discloses storing the user provided information in a database for use by a processor for populating portions of the document and presenting the same for display to the user on a display device [Figs. 1-22, ¶¶9-12, 36-42, 47, 76-80, among others, describe processor 202/118 to populate the user interface (Figs. 3-22) to automatically assist in the generation a draft document (research paper), which may be edited by the user, the processor (server 202/118) includes a mass storage and databases for storing information input to the user interfaces].
In re claim 15, Harris discloses displaying the user input information for user review and re-organization by the user interface [Figs. 3-22, ¶¶9-12, 42, 47, 76-80, among others, describe the user input to the interface (Figs. 3-22) is used to automatically generate a draft document. The input to the interfaces may be reviewed, changed, reorganized, edited, and saved during the drafting process using information input to the interfaces by the user].
In re claim 17, Harris discloses displaying the rough draft to the user at a display local to the system [Figs. 1 and 2, ¶¶9-12, 42, 43, 47, 76-80, among others, describe the user input to the interface is used to automatically generate a draft document, which may be edited by the user. The interface may be displayed by a display 124 of the client device 206 (a local display)].
In re claim 18, Harris discloses generating a revised draft based on the user input edits and/or provide proofreading or drafting hints or comments for review by the user [Fig. 2, ¶¶9-12, 42, 47, 76-80, among others, describe the user input to the interface is used to automatically generate a draft document. The document may be edited and saved by the user. The document may be proofread (e.g., spell check) and interface provides comments for review (e.g., Fig. 22 “write one sentence to start your conclusion that summarizes or even repeats your thesis above. Rephrase any questions you posed in your introductory paragraph and answer in the order in which to phrased them.”)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent/Publication No. 2011/0300520 by Harris et al. (“Harris”); or, in the alternative, claims 1-8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of US Publication No. 2004/0250209 by Norcross et al. (“Norcross”) and US Publication No. 2015/0356060 by Peden et al. (“Peden”).
In re claim 1, Harris discloses a system useful for machine-assisted writing composition [Fig. 2 #200 and ¶¶9-12], comprising: a prompt database configured to store prompt data for communicating to a user to solicit user input [Figs. 3-22, ¶¶9-12, 42, 47, 76-80, among others, describe interfaces (Figs. 3-22) which provide the user with a series of interfaces to convey a step-by-step prompting of the user to input information to build a paper, such as step 1 entering the paper info and schedule (e.g., Figs. 3-5), step 2 building a topic/thesis (e.g., Figs. 6-9), step 3 gathering information and sources, (e.g., Figs. 10-14), step 4 organize the information (e.g., Figs. 15-16), step 5 generate an outline (e.g., Fig. 17,) step 6 write the paper using the information organized by the outline (e.g., Figs. 18-22). The information input using each interface are information sets predetermined by the step and saved in the database by the server]; a user input database configured to store the user input received from the user at a user interface [¶¶9-12, 9-12, 42-44, 47, 76-80, among others, describe information input into the user interface (Figs. 3-22) is received by the sever 202 which may include a database and mass storage]; and a processor configured to process, store, and access information in the prompt database and the user input database, and the processor configured to cause the system to communicate with a user by a user interface to provide information to the user and receive user input to the system [Fig. 2, ¶¶9-12, 42, 43, 47, 76-80, among others, describe the input to the user interface (Figs. 3-22) is processed by the server 202 and stored in the database 204 or mass storage organized by the inputs fields of the interface and used to automatically generate a draft document, which may be edited by the user].
Harris teaches a system 200 including a server 202 and a database 204 that communicate with a client device 206 to provide the interfaces (prompts, e.g., Figs. 3-22) to facilitate gathering and storing the information used to generate of a draft of a research paper and then finalize the paper for submission to a teacher. Harris teaches the server 202 may include a mass storage and a database and that system may include a database 204 for storing system information. The database 204 may include a plurality of databases. However, to the extent Harris lacks a teaching of storing the prompts in a “prompt database,” Norcross, which is also directed to an automated writing assistance system, teaches writing structure and composition aids databases, which include prompts directed to a user to help the user organize and input information to compose a paper [¶¶36, 37]. Similarly, to the extent Harris lacks a teaching of storing user inputs in a specific “user input database,” Peden, which is also directed to an automated writing assistance system teaches storing the user's answers input to an interface used to generated the writing in a user's record on the remote system database (i.e., a user input database).
Harris, Norcross, and Peden are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated writing assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Harris and include the databases of Norcross and Peden, in order to improve system efficiency, for example, by providing an organized storage of system resources for easy access and modification by a processor.
In addition, Harris teaches the use of databases for a server system to store system information used in the research drafting process. Norcross and Peden also teach the use of databases (e.g., user input and prompt) for storage of information used in the drafting of written instruments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one type of database (e.g., user input and prompt of Norcross and Peden) for the other (Server/Database 202/204) to achieve the predictable result of storing information for processing.
In re claim 2, Harris discloses a user interface configured to store and provide for access user interface information for providing a user interface [Figs 3-22 show the interfaces input, access to and editing of information input by the user. ¶¶9-12].
In re claim 3, Harris discloses the processor configured to cause the system to provide a user interface for use by a user, the user interface provided based on the user interface information [Figs. 1, 2 shows processor 202/118 to provide user interfaces (Figs. 3-22) to input, access to and editing of information input by the user. ¶¶9-12].
In re claim 4, Harris discloses a teaching module comprising computer-readable instructions, the processor configured to cause, according to the computer-readable instructions, the system to communicate prompts to a user, receive responsive user input, process the user input, and store the user input in the user input, compile a document based on the user input, and communicate the document to the user [Figs 1 and 2 show teaching module 102 with modules for planning 104, thesis 106, research 108, organization 110, outline 112 and writing 114. ¶¶9-12, 36-41].
In re claim 5, Harris discloses a display [Fig 1 shows display 124. ¶¶12,41].
In re claim 6, Harris discloses a display, the teaching module configured to communicate the prompt and the document to the user by the display [Fig 1 shows display 124. ¶¶9-12, 36-41, among others describe the modules provide interfaces (Figs. 3-22) to input, access to and editing of information input by the user to assist a user in the drafting of a research paper].
In re claim 7, Harris discloses a third-party database [¶76 describes exporting the document to a third part and Fig. 2 shows an external database 124 accessed via a network 208].
In re claim 8, Harris discloses a network connection [Fig. 2 shows network connection 208,¶10].
In re claim 16, Harris discloses generating by the processor the rough draft document using the information provided by the user at the user interface in response to prompts stored and served from a user prompt database [Fig. 2, ¶¶9-12, 42, 47, 76-80, among others, describe the user input to the interface is used to automatically generate a draft document (i.e., a document which may be edited by the user that is not the final document)].
Harris teaches a system 200 including a server 202 and a database 204 that communicate with a client device 206 to provide the interfaces (prompts, e.g., Figs. 3-22) to facilitate gathering and storing the information used to generate of a draft of a research paper and then finalize the paper for submission to a teacher. Harris teaches the server 202 may include a mass storage and a database and that system may include a database 204 for storing system information. The database 204 may include a plurality of databases. However, to the extent Harris lacks a teaching of storing the prompts in a “prompt database,” Norcross, which is also directed to an automated writing assistance system teaches writing structure and composition aids databases, which include prompts directed to a user to help the user organize and input information to compose a paper [¶¶36, 37].
Harris and Norcross are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated writing assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Harris and include the database of Norcross, in order to improve system efficiency, for example, by providing an organized storage of system resources for easy access and modification by a processor.
In addition, Harris teaches the uses of databases for a server system to store system information used in the research drafting process. Norcross also teaches the use of databases (e.g., prompt databases) for storage of information used in the drafting of written instruments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one type of database (e.g., prompt of Norcross) for the other (Server/Database 202/204) to achieve the predictable result of providing information for interfaces used in the generation and/or processing of a draft document.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of US Publication No. 2016/0293035 by Okubo et al. (“Okubo”); or, in the alternative, in view of Norcross and further in view of Okubo.
In re claim 9, Harris does not explicitly teach a teacher device connected to the system by the network connection; a user device connected to the system by the network connection; and a third-party device connected to the system by the network connection.
However in a learning system, Okubo teaches a teacher device connected to the system by the network connection; a user device connected to the system by the network connection; and a third-party device connected to the system by the network connection [Fig. 1 shows a teacher device 116, a student device 104, and a third-party device 124/118 all connected to a curation server (system) by a network 122].
Harris and Okubo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated writing assistance and learning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Harris and include a teacher device connected to the system by the network connection; a user device connected to the system by the network connection; and a third party device connected to the system by the network connection, as taught by Okubo, in order to improve a user’s (e.g., a student) experience, for example, by providing a versatile system in which the student can remotely share their paper and receive help/feedback from teachers and third parties during the drafting process, see, e.g., ¶¶202-22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
A number of prior art references show automated writing assistance through use of prompts to organize a user’s writing and compile an editable draft document to assist the user in drafting a paper, see, e.g., publications including US 20060123329, US 8688026, US 20120329014, US 20150050631, US 20180357209, and US 20180349336 to name a few.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715