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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 19, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, 12, and 16 objected to because of the following informalities: the use of “and/or” is informal and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “and/or” is “or.” Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a first obtaining module, configured to obtain” in claim 17.
“a second obtaining module, configured to obtain” in claim 17.
“a matching module, configured to according” in claim 17.
“a teaching module, is configured to providing” in claim 17.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations discussed in the “Claim Interpretation” section above invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification in [0152] describes the claimed modules and they appear to describe computer software. Therefore, the specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1492 (stating that language that simply describes the function to be performed describes an outcome, not a means for achieving that outcome). Specification [0152] describes modules simply by the function to be performed, which describes an outcome, not a means for achieving that outcome. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitations discussed above in the “Claim Interpretation” section have been found to fail to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g. the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function and have been found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, these claim limitations also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO, see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir 1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called storage medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a “storage medium” and therefore are directed to a signal per se. Thus, claim 19 are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 19 has been interpreted to recite a manufacture.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-16 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 17-18 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 19 recites a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 9, and 17-19, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of matching a student user and a teacher user based on the career role and personality of both users, which is a method of organizing human activity and mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting instructions for analyzing a student’s career role and personality and matching a student to a teacher based on that analysis. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting evaluating students and teachers and providing an opinion of a matching teacher based on an ideal career role. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “matching a student user and a teacher user based on the career role and personality of both users,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: obtaining a target career role, obtaining teacher characteristics, matching a teacher user to the student, providing the student with teaching of a course, storing knowledge. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, a memory, and a storage medium does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 2-7 and 10-15, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: analyzing student psychological profile, determining an ideal career role, selecting a career role, searching a matching course, matching a teacher, making a portrait of a teacher, adjusting a psychological portrait of a student, receiving a career role change request, matching a new teacher, recording the stats of completed courses, providing uncompleted courses, and signing a student teacher contract.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 9, and 17-19 recite the additional elements: a processor, a memory, and a storage medium. These processor, memory, and storage medium limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claims 2, 4-5, 10, and 12-13 recite artificial intelligence limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claims 7-8, 15-16 recite blockchain, and audio and video data at a high level of generality and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is 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 claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of career counseling in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing higher education process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9, and 17-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a processor, a memory, and a storage medium. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), and storing and retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a processor (Specification [0165]), a memory (Specification [00165]), and a storage medium (Specification [0165]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a processor, a memory, and a storage medium. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims limit the field of use by reciting teaching online. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 12-13, and 15-16, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2, 4-5, 10, and 12-13 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting artificial intelligence. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 7-8, 15-16 recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting blockchain, and audio and video data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basson et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2018/0075765 A1), hereinafter Basson, in view of Wright et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2013/0108997 A1), hereinafter Wright.
Claim 1.
Basson discloses an online and offline hybrid education method based on a student's career aspiration, including:
obtaining a target career role and a first personalized characteristic of a student user (Basson [0064], [0086] students’ career aspirations; [0091] recommended career path determined by an optimization using an individual’s criteria);
Regarding the following limitation:
according to the target career role and the first personalized characteristic, matching a first personalized course system and a teacher user corresponding to the student user from a course module library of a pre-established career role and a teacher information library;
Basson discloses according to the target career role and the first personalized characteristic, matching a first personalized course system and an institution user corresponding to the student user from a course module library of a pre-established career role and a institution information library (Basson [0063] skill profiles of early professionals together with the skills needed to be eligible for these roles; [0065] required skills are mapped to curricula to detect coverage, redundancies, and gaps; [0092] institution curricula). However, Basson does not disclose matching a first personalized course system and a teacher user corresponding to the student user from a course module library of a pre-established career role and a teacher information library, but Wright does (Wright [0036], [0052] the pairing or matching of consumers and providers/businesses can occur when the present inventions system of artificial and interpretive intelligence analyzes, from a personality trait perspective, the various consumer and the things they are seeking and algorithmically computes the best matches; [0111] assess whether a teacher possesses the specific personality traits that are helpful in distinguishing between one of our eight defined teaching styles).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the teachers of Wright for the institution of Basson. Both teachers and institutions are authorities offering educational services. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element in the art of providing educational services for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to substitute the above features and yield predictable result of Basson’s system with the improved functionality to provide a more precise match for a student thereby increasing the likelihood they have a positive educational experience.
Basson, as modified above by Wright, teaches:
according to the first personalized course system, providing the student user with online or offline teaching of a corresponding course taught by the corresponding teacher user (Basson [0026]-[0027] custom designed curriculum; [0060] virtual classroom education delivery; [0065] detect skills required and map skills to curricula; [0092] institution curricula);
wherein, the course module library of the career role includes an ability knowledge system library of the career role and an ability-knowledge-course-corresponding-relationship library, the teacher information library stores a knowledge ability and the second personalized characteristics of the teacher user (Basson [0065] required skills are mapped to curricula to detect coverage, redundancies, and gaps; [0066] assess curricula to determine the readiness for a career).
Claim 2.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses wherein, the step of obtaining the target career role and the first personalized characteristic of a student user includes:
according to a student user information, analyzing the student user's psychological profile and/or behavior trajectory through artificial intelligence, so as to identify the first personalized characteristic of the student user (Basson [0082] curriculum design uses machine learning models; [0086] students personal career aspirations and aptitudes are incorporated into the curricula design);
determining and recommending an ideal career role for the student user for selection according to the first personalized characteristic (Basson [0091] recommended career path determined by an optimization using an individual’s criteria);
determining the target career role of the student user according to a selection operation of the student user (Basson [0064], [0086] students’ career aspirations; [0091] individual criteria).
Claim 3.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses wherein, the step of according to the target career role and the first personalized characteristic, matching the first personalized course system and the teacher user corresponding to the student user from the course module library of the pre-established career role and the teacher information library includes:
searching the ability knowledge system library of the career role to determine an ability and knowledge system required by the target career role and searching the ability-knowledge-course corresponding relationship library to match a course corresponding to the ability and knowledge system required by the target career role and making the first personalized course system composed of the corresponding courses (Basson [0091] career path output by the system can include one or more corresponding recommended curriculum);
Basson does not teach the following limitation, but Wright does:
smart matching the first personalized course system with the knowledge and ability of the teacher user in the teacher information library, and matching the first personalized characteristic with the second personalized characteristic in the teacher information library, to determine the teacher user corresponding to the student user (Wright [0036], [0052] the pairing or matching of consumers and providers/businesses can occur when the present inventions system of artificial and interpretive intelligence analyzes, from a personality trait perspective, the various consumer and the things they are seeking and algorithmically computes the best matches; [0111] assess whether a teacher possesses the specific personality traits that are helpful in distinguishing between one of our eight defined teaching styles).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wright in the system of Basson for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 4.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Basson does not disclose wherein, the teacher information library is established in the following way:
making a portrait of the teacher user by artificial intelligence, identifying the knowledge ability and the second personalized characteristic possessed by the teacher user, and establishing the teacher information library based on the identified knowledge ability and the second personalized characteristic (Wright [0036], [0052] the pairing or matching of consumers and providers/businesses can occur when the present inventions system of artificial and interpretive intelligence analyzes, from a personality trait perspective, the various consumer and the things they are seeking and algorithmically computes the best matches; [0111] assess whether a teacher possesses the specific personality traits that are helpful in distinguishing between one of our eight defined teaching styles).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wright in the system of Basson for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Basson discloses:
wherein the ability knowledge system library of the career role is pre-established by collecting occupational qualification data (Basson [0063] skill profiles of early professionals together with the skills needed to be eligible for these roles; [0065] required skills are mapped to curricula to detect coverage, redundancies, and gaps).
Claim 5.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses wherein, after matching the first personalized course system and the teacher user corresponding to the student user, the method further includes:
regularly carrying out psychological portrait of the student user through artificial intelligence, adjusting the ability and knowledge system required by the target career role and the first personalized characteristics according to the results of the psychological portrait (Basson Fig. 4 Item 403 recommend actions of hierarchy include curriculum adjustments; [0075], [0082] machine learning; [0086] students personal career aspirations and aptitudes are incorporated into the curricula design; [0091] rerun optimization), and
adjusting the first personalized course system corresponding to the student user and the teacher user according to the adjusted ability and knowledge system required by the target career role and the first personalized characteristic (Basson Fig. 4 Item 403 recommend actions of hierarchy include curriculum adjustments; [0091] rerun optimization).
Claim 6.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses after matching the first personalized course system and the teacher user corresponding to the student user, the method further includes:
receiving a career role change request of the student user, and changing the target career role of the student user according to the career role change request (Basson [0091] individual may modify the criteria);
according to the changed target career role and the first personalized characteristic, matching a second personalized course system and a new teacher user corresponding to the student user from the course module library of the career role and the teacher information library (Basson [0091] rerun an optimization);
comparing the courses that have been taught in the first personalized course system with the second personalized course system, and recording the status of the course in the second personalized course system that is the same as the course that has been taught as completed, and storing the course that has been taught but is not included in the second personalized course system as the competency addition of the student user (Basson [0086] student’s personal career aspirations and aptitudes, where they stand currently in the knowledge graph, are incorporated into the curricula design and recommendations);
providing the student user with teaching in the uncompleted course in the second personalized course system under the teaching of the new teacher user (Basson [0082] course selection; Fig. 4 Item 403 recommend actions of hierarchy include curriculum adjustments; [0091] rerun optimization).
Claim 8.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses wherein, the first personalized course system includes an online course;
the step of according to the first personalized course system, providing the student user with online or offline teaching of a corresponding course taught by the corresponding teacher user includes: providing the online course teaching resources to the student user based on audio and video technology and/or holographic image technology (Basson [0060] virtual classroom; [0086] what type of material a student responds to e.g. visual, audio).
Claim 9.
Basson discloses an online and offline hybrid education method based on student's career aspiration, including:
Regarding the following limitation:
obtaining a knowledge ability and a second personalized characteristic of a teacher user;
Basson discloses obtaining a knowledge ability and a second personalized characteristic of an institution (Basson [0065] intuitions curricula). However, Basson does not teach obtaining a knowledge ability and a second personalized characteristic of a teacher user, but Wright does (Wright [0111] assess whether a teacher possesses the specific personality traits that are helpful in distinguishing between one of our eight defined teaching styles).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wright in the system of Basson for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding the following limitation:
according to the knowledge ability and the second personalized characteristic of the teacher user, matching a student user corresponding to the teacher user and a first personalized course system corresponding to the student user from a course module library of a pre-established career role and a student information library, wherein, the course module library of the career role includes an ability knowledge system library of the career role and an ability-knowledge-course corresponding relationship library, the student information library stores a target career role and a first personalized characteristic of the student user;
Basson discloses according to the knowledge ability and the second personalized characteristic of the institution, matching a student user corresponding to the institution and a first personalized course system corresponding to the student user from a course module library of a pre-established career role and a student information library, wherein, the course module library of the career role includes an ability knowledge system library of the career role and an ability-knowledge-course corresponding relationship library, the student information library stores a target career role and a first personalized characteristic of the student user (Basson [0026]-[0027] custom designed curriculum; [0060] virtual classroom education delivery; [0063] skill profiles of early professionals together with the skills needed to be eligible for these roles; [0065] detect skills required and map skills to curricula; [0086] students personal career aspirations and aptitudes are incorporated into the curricula design; [0092] institution curricula). However, Basson does not teach matching a teacher user, but Wright does (Wright [0036], [0052] the pairing or matching of consumers and providers/businesses can occur when the present inventions system of artificial and interpretive intelligence analyzes, from a personality trait perspective, the various consumer and the things they are seeking and algorithmically computes the best matches; [0111] teacher).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wright in the system of Basson for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Basson, as modified above by Wright, teaches:
allowing the teacher user teaching the student user a corresponding course of the first personalized course system by online or offline taught (Basson [0060] virtual classroom education delivery).
Claim 10.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses wherein, the step of obtaining a knowledge ability and a second personalized characteristic of a teacher user includes:
making a portrait of the teacher user by artificial intelligence, identifying the knowledge ability and the second personalized characteristic possessed by the teacher user (Wright [0111] assess whether a teacher possesses the specific personality traits that are helpful in distinguishing between one of our eight defined teaching styles).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wright in the system of Basson for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 11.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses wherein the step of according to the knowledge ability and the second personalized characteristic, matching the student user corresponding to the teacher user and a first personalized course system corresponding to the student user from the course module library of the pre-established career role and the student information library includes:
searching the ability knowledge system library of the career role to determine a career role corresponding to an knowledge ability possessed by the teacher user, matching the corresponding career role with the target career role of the student information library, and smart matching the second personalized characteristic with the first personalized course system of the student information library, to determine the student user corresponding to the teacher user;
Basson discloses searching the ability knowledge system library of the career role to determine a career role corresponding to an knowledge ability possessed by the institution, matching the corresponding career role with the target career role of the student information library, and smart matching the second personalized characteristic with the first personalized course system of the student information library, to determine the student user corresponding to the institution (Basson [0091] career path output by the system can include one or more corresponding recommended curriculum). However, Basson does not discloses matching teacher users, but Wright does (Wright [0036], [0052] the pairing or matching of consumers and providers/businesses can occur when the present inventions system of artificial and interpretive intelligence analyzes, from a personality trait perspective, the various consumer and the things they are seeking and algorithmically computes the best matches; [0111] assess whether a teacher possesses the specific personality traits that are helpful in distinguishing between one of our eight defined teaching styles).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wright in the system of Basson for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Basson discloses:
searching the ability knowledge system library of the career role to determine an ability and knowledge system required by the target career role and searching the ability-knowledge-course corresponding relationship library to match a course corresponding to the ability and knowledge system required by the target career role and making the first personalized course system composed of the corresponding courses (Basson [0091] career path output by the system can include one or more corresponding recommended curriculum).
Claim 12.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses:
according to the student user information, using artificial intelligence to analyze the student user's psychological profile and/or behavior trajectory, so as to identify the first personalized characteristic of the student user (Basson [0082] curriculum design uses machine learning models; [0086] students personal career aspirations and aptitudes are incorporated into the curricula design);
determining and recommending an ideal career role for the student user for selection according to the first personalized characteristic (Basson [0091] recommended career path determined by an optimization using an individual’s criteria);
determining the target career role of the student user according to a selection operation of the student user (Basson [0064], [0086] students’ career aspirations; [0091] individual criteria);
establishing the student information library based on the target career role of the student user and a first personalized characteristic (Basson [0086] student’s personal career aspirations and aptitudes, where they stand currently in the knowledge graph, are incorporated into the curricula design and recommendations);
wherein the ability knowledge system library of the career role is pre-established by collecting occupational qualification data (Basson [0063] skill profiles of early professionals together with the skills needed to be eligible for these roles; [0065] detect skills required and map skills to curricula).
Claim 13.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses:
wherein, the first personalized characteristic of the student user in the student information library is adjusted according to the results of regularly performing psychological portraits of the student user through artificial intelligence (Basson Fig. 4 Item 403 recommend actions of hierarchy include curriculum adjustments; [0091] rerun optimization).
Claim 14.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses:
wherein, the target career role of the student user of the student information library is changed according to the student user's career role change request (Basson [0091] individual may modify the criteria).
Claim 16.
Basson in view of Wright teaches all the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Additionally, Basson discloses:
wherein, the first personalized course system includes an online course (Basson [0060] virtual classroom; [0090] online career portal);
the step of allowing the teacher user teaching the student user a corresponding course of the first personalized course system by online or offline taught includes: providing the online course teaching resources to the student user based on audio and video technology and/or holographic image technology (Basson [0060] virtual classroom; [0086] what type of material a student responds to e.g. visual, audio).
Claim 17.
Basson discloses an online and offline hybrid education system based on student's career aspiration, including:
a first obtaining module, configured to obtain a target career role and a first personalized characteristic of a student user (Basson [0064], [0086] students’ career aspirations; [0091] recommended career path determined by an optimization using an individual’s criteria);
Regarding the following limitation:
a second obtaining module, configured to obtain a knowledge ability and a second personalized characteristic of a teacher user;
Basson discloses obtaining a knowledge ability and a second personalized characteristic of an institution (Basson [0065] intuitions curricula). However, Basson does not teach obtaining a knowledge ability and a second personalized characteristic of a teacher user, but Wright does (Wright [0111] assess whether a teacher possesses the specific personality traits that are helpful in distinguishing between one of our eight defined teaching styles).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wright in the system of Basson for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding the following limitation:
a matching module, configured to according to the target career role and the first personalized characteristic, and the knowledge ability and the second personalized characteristic of the teacher user, matching a first personalized course system and the teacher user corresponding to the student user from a course module library of a pre-established career role and
Basson discloses according to the knowledge ability and the second personalized characteristic of the institution, matching a student user corresponding to the institution and a first personalized course system corresponding to the student user from a course module library of a pre-established career role and a student information library, wherein, the course module library of the career role includes an ability knowledge system library of the career role and an ability-knowledge-course corresponding relationship library, the student information library stores a target career role and a first personalized characteristic of the student user (Basson [0026]-[0027] custom designed curriculum; [0060] virtual classroom education delivery; [0063] skill profiles of early professionals together with the skills needed to be eligible for these roles; [0065] detect skills required and map skills to curricula; [0086] students personal career aspirations and aptitudes are incorporated into the curricula design; [0092] institution curricula). However, Basson does not teach matching a teacher user, but Wright does (Wright [0036], [0052] the pairing or matching of consumers and providers/businesses can occur when the present inventions system of artificial and interpretive intelligence analyzes, from a personality trait perspective, the various consumer and the things they are seeking and algorithmically computes the best matches; [0111] teacher).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Wright in the system of Basson for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Basson, as modified by Wright, teaches:
a teaching module, is configured to providing the student user with online or offline teaching of a corresponding course taught by the corresponding teacher user, according to the first personalized course system (Basson [0026]-[0027] custom designed curriculum; [0060] virtual classroom education delivery; [0065] detect skills required and map skills to curricula; [0092] institution curricula);
wherein, the course module library of the career role includes an ability knowledge system library of the career role and an ability-knowledge-course corresponding relationship library (Basson [0063] skill profiles of early professionals together with the skills needed to be eligible for these roles;