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 .
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 recite(s):
A system for generating an educational assessment report for a subject/individual comprising:
A user interface;
a database source comprising a plurality of cluster data sets, each cluster data set comprising informational and/or performance metrics of interest of the subject, wherein each cluster data set is identified/labeled with a header indicator label; and
a merge-macro template, said merge-macro template comprising a program of electronically executable instructions, a plurality of electronically fillable database fields, and a plurality of standardized data sets of subject/individual metrics of interest of a cohort of individuals, each electronically fillable database field and each standardized data set being identified with a header indicator label corresponding to a metric of interest,
wherein the merge-macro template comprises an executable program that when executed by a user at the user interface, is capable of merging the data of the cluster data sets with the corresponding data of the standardized data set and generating an educational report for the subject/individual;
wherein the user interface is in electronic communication with the database source and the merge-macro template;
wherein the merge-macro template is in electronic communication with the database source and the user interface; and
wherein incorporation of the cluster data sets into the merge-macro template and execution of electronic instruction to the merge-macro template will merge the subject’s cluster data set for a metric of interest with a data set corresponding to a standardized data set of the corresponding metric of interest, and upon execution of an electronic series of instructions to the merge-macro template, will generate the educational assessment report for the subject/individual in half time than required to generate an educational assessment report for a subject with a system that is absent a merge-macro template.
The limitation of claim 5 recite(s):
collecting scores from the subject for a plurality of performance metrics of choice to provide a subjects metrics data set;
entering the subject’s metrics data set into the database source a system for generating an educational assessment report, said system comprising a merge macro template;
executing an electronic program having a series of steps to merge the subject’s metric data set with the merge macro template of claim 1 to provide a subject populated merge template data base; and
executing an electronic program transmitted to the populated merge template data base, the electronic program having a series of steps directing the generation of an assessment report of the subject
wherein the educational assessment report with the system comprising a merge macro template is more accurate and completed in half the time than with a system without a merge macro template.
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 “user interface”, “database”, “electronic program”, “merge macro template” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed mentally. The examiner notes that the MPEP recognizes that a claim can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher observing a student, inserting students’ data into a database, analyzing said database and creating a report from said database.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the act observation, evaluation, judgment and rendering an opinion, then it falls within the “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) – “user interface”, “database”, “electronic program”, “merge macro template”
The “user interface”, “database”, “electronic program” 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 or is directed to a technological environment or a field of use (merge macro template).
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 that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment – the use of a computer environment to manipulate and analyze data – in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
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) 2-4 and 6-10 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). The dependent appears to be directed to the act of data gathering, data analysis on the type of oral language metric and creating a written/electronic report. Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. 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 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 on claim 1-10 are not warranted since the claimed system provides an improvement to productivity of employees since they will be able produce a report in half the time (see page 8 of applicant’s argument second to last paragraph), reduces the error rate due to the elimination of manual data entry (see applicant’s argument page 9 paragraph 2) and provide more accurate and consistent report without cost increase of the administrator. However, the examiner notes that improvement to the productivity of an employee has not been considered to be the type of improvement that has been promulgated by the courts and the MPEP. Examples of improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technological field in MPEP 2106.05(a) is directed to the improvement of the computer functioning, e.g.: technical details as to how to transmit images over a cellular network or append classification information to digital image data, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614-15, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1749-50; or particular structure of a server that stores organized digital images, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. Improvement to the productivity of the employee or reducing cost to the administrator can be argued to be directed to the improvement of the abstract idea itself. As such, it would be sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1-10 under 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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