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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 29, 2025 has been entered. Claims 6-12 remain pending in the application. Claims 6 and 8 are noted as amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all previous objections and 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 29, 2025 and all objections and rejections therein have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 24, “by a computer processor” should read “by the computer processor” as the limitation has antecedence in line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 6 recites a computer system/machine for performing a process, the process including the steps of collecting target data; collecting, using automated surveys, the target data from members of a target population; encrypting the target data to protect the target data and the user; tagging the target data, the tagging being based upon an association between the target data and one or more members of a pre-selected list of categories; collecting and tagging feature data, the tagging being based upon an association between the feature data and one or more members of the pre-selected list of categories; associating lesson materials with one or more members of the pre-selected list of categories; populating elements of the curriculum template with the target data, the feature data, and the lesson materials by associating each element of the curriculum template with one or more members of the pre-selected list of categories; locating resources based at least upon the populated elements of the curriculum template; and creating teacher training curricula and teacher training materials based at least upon the curriculum template and the resources. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are collecting target data, collecting the target data using surveys, encrypting the data, tagging target data based on one or more categories, collecting and tagging feature data based on the one or more categories, associating lesson materials with the categories, populating elements of the curriculum template with the gathered data and materials, locating resources based on the curriculum template, and creating teacher training curricula and materials based on the curriculum template and resources. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (judgement (tagging target data and feature data; encrypting target data; associating materials with categories; populating elements of the curricula; creating teacher training curricula and materials), observation (collecting target data; collecting target data using surveys; collecting feature data; locating resources)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (collecting target data; collecting target data using automated surveys; associating lesson materials; populating elements of the curricula; locating resources; and creating teacher training curricula and materials). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are a processor executing instructions; and the steps of collecting, automatically and using a user-wearable electronic device collecting environmental data and user-supplied data as a user navigates daily life; collecting, automatically from electronic remote collection devices through computer network digital feeds; populating elements happening automatically; and steps being performed by a computer processor. The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements of a processor, a user-wearable device, electronic remote collection devices, and automating a manual process are generic computer components and instructions for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). With regard to the automation, MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f) state that mere automation of manual processes do not amount to a technical improvement/practical application and the inherent efficiency/automation of applying a judicial exception with a generic computing device does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraphs 0142-0144 of the specification states methods are accomplished using a computer system and recites generic computer hardware. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. The additional steps are insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and transmitting data over a network. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of a processor, performing steps by the processor, a user-wearable device, remote collection devices, and automating the populating of elements used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional steps of collecting environmental data and transmitting data between devices are insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claim 6 is not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 7-12 are dependent from claim 6 and include all the limitations of the independent claim. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of 7 and 9-12 recite clarification of the types/composition of data used/comprising the categories and the target data. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
The limitation of claim 8 recite a further abstract idea including deriving or supplying missing data of the target data (evaluation mental process). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional element of the dependent claim is merely applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device via automation. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on this claim.
Accordingly, claims 7-12 recite abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
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) 6-7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha et al. (US PGPub 20230215283), hereinafter referred to as Sha, in view of ABTS (US PGPub 20150242979), and further in view of Alioto et al. (US PGPub 20220130268), hereinafter referred to as Alioto.
With regard to claim 6, Sha teaches a system for developing a curriculum template for a group and training teachers to use the curriculum template (Paragraph 0021; “system”) comprising:
a processor executing instructions (Paragraphs 0028, 0032; “software that is stored in memory and executed by a processor”) including:
collecting target data(Per paragraphs 0015, 0131 of the instant application, target data is interpreted as data about the group/users of the system such as demographic data; Sha Paragraphs 0030, 0059, 0069 teach the system can obtain and process user personal data including demographic information, socioeconomic status, cultural information, ethnic information, learning style, and more);
collecting, using automated surveys, the target data from members of a target population (Paragraphs 0055, 0060, 0066 teach the system can receive survey responses from the user to gather feedback and inputs (target data) about the users of a student population);
tagging target data, the tagging being based upon an association between the target data and one or more members of a pre-selected list of categories (Per paragraphs 0015, 0131 of the instant application, target data is interpreted as data about the group/users of the system such as demographic data; Sha Paragraphs 0030, 0059, 0069 teach the system can obtain and process user personal data including demographic information, socioeconomic status, cultural information, ethnic information, learning style, and more wherein processing can include processing the data through a clustering algorithm and/or machine learning models generating tagging/labelling the data wherein the data can be part of a category such as student background, cultural classification, ethnicity classification, learning style, and/or demographic data);
collecting, automatically from electronic remote collection devices through computer network digital feeds (Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0052 teach the system includes a plurality of user devices which can communicate using internet or other related communication protocols to transmit data to and from user devices including the collected user inputs/data), and tagging feature data, the tagging being based upon an association between the feature data and one or more members of the pre-selected list of categories (Per paragraphs 0132 of the instant application, feature data is interpreted as data about the context of the group such as educational content/elements; Sha Paragraphs 0057, 0059 teach the system can obtain and process educational content data including tagged content and classification labels), the tagging being an electronic word search to determine one or more category matches (Paragraphs 0044, 0046-0047 teaches the content and student data may be indexed by keywords such that the ML engine can adapt the educational content and tagging of data based on the classification and indexed keywords (electronic word search));
associating lesson materials with one or more members of the pre-selected list of categories (Paragraphs 0042, 0044 teach the learning materials/content items are also labelled and tagged);
automatically populating elements of the curriculum template with the target data, the feature data, and the lesson materials by associating each element of the curriculum template with one or more members of the pre-selected list of categories (Paragraphs 0046, 0070-0072 teach the system can adapt educational content items as part of the curriculum wherein the adaption is based on the applied personal characteristics including the “categories” discussed above thereby including personal/demographic data and educational content of a corresponding classification); and
locating resources based at least upon the populated elements of the curriculum template (Paragraphs 0042-0043; “location of the respective content item”).
Sha may not explicitly teach creating, by a computer processor, teacher training curricula and teacher training materials based at least upon the curricula and the resources. However, ABTS teaches a system for managing education including a databased configured to store classification of a course and learning content including codes/classification for students or groups of students wherein the system can assemble learning units into professional development/worker training curricula or courses and wherein the learning units (“PSLEDs”) can be classified and coded based on a scheme or hierarchical classification (Abstract; Paragraphs 0030, 0032, 0035, 0116-0122, 0201, 0209-0214).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sha to incorporate the teachings of ABTS by incorporating a hierarchical classification and the step of assembling educational content into a curriculum or course such as for professional development or teacher training including the corresponding content/resources, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems for adapting educational content to a user/users. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Sha by coding the system to include coding and classifying user/group data and educational content based on a coding scheme or hierarchical classification and generating a teacher training/professional development curriculum based on the adapted content of Sha. Examiner notes that an additional interpretation of the target and feature data is hierarchical data structure wherein the feature data is more specific data of the target data, therefore this modification teaches this interpretation. Upon such modification, the method and system of Sha would include creating teacher training curricula and teacher training materials based at least upon the curricula and the resources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from ABTS with Sha’s system and method in order to improve the learning experience and learning outcomes of students (ABTS Paragraph 0022).
Sha in view of ABTS may not explicitly teach collecting, automatically and using a user-wearable electronic device collecting environmental data and user-supplied data as a user navigates daily life, target data; and encrypting the target data to protect the target data and the user. However, Alioto teaches a system and method generating personalized courses/learning content wherein content can be personalized based on user data including data gathered by wearable devices and including using encryption to and secure data transmission to protect data (Paragraphs 0056-0057, 0119, 0182, 0191, 0224, 0275).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sha in view of ABTS to incorporate the teachings of Alioto by incorporating the techniques of gathering user data including environmental data from a wearable device and encrypting data of Alioto to the system of Sha, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems for adapting educational content to a user/users. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Sha in view of ABTS by including wearable devices as the user device and coding the system to gather data from the user and wearable device about the user’s environment such as a classroom or area in order to adapt content and learning material to the user’s environment and encrypting the data and transmissions of data to protect data and users. Upon such modification, the method and system of Sha in view of ABTS would include automatically and using a user-wearable electronic device collecting environmental data and user-supplied data as a user navigates daily life, target data; and encrypting the target data to protect the target data and the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Alioto with Sha in view of ABTS’s system and method in order to provide a more personalized learning experience and protect user data as encrypting data is a well-known security measure to protect users and systems.
With regard to claims 7 and 9-12, Examiner notes that, while Sha teaches cultural information, ethnic information, learning style, and demographic information of the user/users (Sha Paragraphs 0030, 0059, 0069), the claims provide no patentable weight as all limitations of the claims are printed matter lacking a functional relationship (see MPEP 2111.05). Specifically, claim 7 recites the list of categories and claims 9-12 recite the various data of the target data. Per MPEP 2111.05, the processor/computer of the instant application is acting as a support for the information. Further, Sha can perform the functional requirements of the claimed invention without further structural or functional modification as the only difference is the type and composition of the data without a functional relationship. Therefore, claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected in view of the cited combination.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha in view of ABTS and Alioto as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US PGPub 20180240015).
With regard to claim 8, Sha in view of ABTS and Alioto may not explicitly teach further comprising: automatically deriving or supplying missing data of the target data. However, Martin teaches a learning management system including academic/educational recommendations and suggestions and generating a personalized learning map (curriculum) wherein the system can derive data bout students/a group of students by analyzing user interactions and communications (Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0056, 0070-0071, 0090).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sha in view of ABTS and Alioto to incorporate the teachings of Martin by incorporating the step of deriving further/missing data about a student/group of students of Martin to the system of Sha, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems for adapting educational content to a user/users. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Sha in view of ABTS and Alioto by coding the system to include deriving further/missing data about a student or group of students based on collected student data. Upon such modification, the method and system of Sha in view of ABTS and Alioto would include further comprising: automatically deriving or supplying missing data of the target data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Martin with Sha in view of ABTS and Alioto’s system and method in order to improve the overall academic performance (Martin Paragraphs 0012, 0049).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are that the amended claim limitations do not recite mental processes as the steps cannot be performed mentally and the steps cannot be reasonably interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicants arguments are not persuasive primarily for two reasons. First, MPEP 2106 states that abstract ideas can include mental processes, natural laws, and certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA). Applicant’s arguments fail to address that the limitations recited CMOHA. Further, mental processes can include use of a pen and paper which would include collecting target data using surveys (pen and paper) under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Second, Applicant fails to provide substantiative arguments for why the steps cannot be reasonably interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed above. The cited limitations are either recitations of judicial exceptions, and therefore not additional elements, or the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity or instructions/hardware for applying the judicial exceptions as discussed above. Applicant also argues that the claimed limitations amount to an improvement over the prior art. Per MPEP 2106.05, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. With regard to the claim limitations being an improvement to a computer or technological field, Applicant provides no substantiative arguments for the Examiner to rebut beyond a conclusory statement that Step 2A, Prong 2 is satisfied by “developing curricula for a group and training teachers”. There is no evidence in the claims or specification of a technical improvement or solution as the cited improvement is conclusory and experienced by the user, rather than an improvement to the technology. Therefore, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part by virtue of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the newly cited combination of prior art above.
Addressing Applicant’s arguments directly, Applicant attempts to make a distinction between a curricula and a curriculum template in their arguments. This argument is not persuasive as each personalized education can be considered a personal curriculum or curriculum template. The instant specification does not provide sufficient detail or distinction between a curriculum template and a curricula as the creation of a “template” is still using existing resources to create a new learning path/plan as a curricula, which is what Sha does by adapting learning content and material to create a personalized learning experience which meets determined standards and requirements. With regard to Applicant’s arguments with regard to ABTS, Examiner notes that the claims merely recite “creating teach training curricula and teacher training materials based at least upon the curriculum template and the resources”. Applicant does not claim exactly what such a curricula and/or materials would be such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations would include the “guiding training” of teachers of ABTS and the PSLEDS which are blocks put together to create a curriculum for a student or for a teacher to use or to create a professional development curricula for teachers (ABTS paragraph 0032).
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 6-12 are rejected.
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 CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715