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 § 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.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are 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.
In re Claims 6, 13 and 19
The claims recite that "the action comprises a speed, confidence, and success of the interaction with the element." The term "confidence" is highly subjective and lacks any objective standard of measurement within the specification. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the boundaries of what constitutes a user's "confidence" during a digital interaction, nor how such a subjective psychological state is objectively measured or weighted within a machine learning model.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining a curriculum placement of a user based on a profile.
In the independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the limitation of determining a curriculum placement of a user based on a profile is a method and product that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer implemented”, “a processor”, “memory” and “computer readable storage medium”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind.
For example, but for the “computer implemented”, “a processor”, “memory” and “computer readable storage medium” language, “determining” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using a user profile to determine where to place a user in a curriculum. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “computer implemented”, “a processor”, “memory” and “computer readable storage medium”. These additional elements are all claimed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed to the identified abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components and instructions to implement the abstract idea using the generic components. Furthermore, it is noted that the generic components are used in manners consistent with their known usage in the field, with the processor used to execute instructions and the memory used to store instructions. Therefore, the additional elements are not held to be significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
With respect to the dependent claims, they are drawn to processing data, data types and presenting data. None of these limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims are also rejected as being drawn to the abstract idea.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180314980 (Osotio).
In re Claims 1, 8 & 15
Osotio teaches a computer-implemented method for dynamically aligning curriculum to demonstration environment performance of a user comprising (par. 0112-0113);
obtaining an action of the user in the demonstration environment, wherein the action comprises an interaction with an element of curriculum material. Osotio teaches that "The learning algorithm adjusts the UI and/or behavior of the application based on Jeromy’s reactions and responses during the lesson" (para. [0113]) and "The application, through the AR system, presents Jeromy with an augmented representation of a character from the Kung Fu Panda movie to focus his attention off of the surrounding activities and onto the lesson being delivered" (para. [0113]);
determining a proficiency of the user with the curriculum material by applying a machine learning model to the action. Osotio teaches that "The system can then identify insights, such as emotional insights and/or other insights. Based on some or all this information, the system can identify a learning model for the user. The learning model can be based on a specific user learning profile derived for this data" (para. [0017]) and "For example, if the learning model determines that the user will be receptive to a learning mode to help the user increase proficiency based on the collected data and sets the UI and/or behavior accordingly, the system can monitor explicit and/or implicit feedback from the user about how the user is responding to the adjustments" (para. [0019]). This is interpreted as applying a machine learning model (the learning model) to determine user proficiency based on interaction data;
assigning, based on the determination, at least one value to a profile of the user indicating a proficiency of the user with the curriculum material. Osotio teaches that "The learning threshold, for example, can be a number that runs from a minimum to maximum value that indicates what and how much to adjust an application, either by itself or when combined with other information" (para. [0062]). This is interpreted as assigning a value (the learning threshold number) to a user profile indicating proficiency;
determining a curriculum placement of the user based on the profile, the curriculum placement accelerating the user over a lesson having material over which the user is proficient according to the profile. Osotio teaches that "The learning model and individual learning threshold for the user can be used to create an environment that matches the user’s learning style and ability to learn, given the user’s current emotional state, intellectual state, and so forth" (para. [0018]) and "In a scenario where the user is more proficient, the user interface and/or behavior can be streamlined to eliminate unnecessary interactions" (para. [0018]). This is interpreted as determining a curriculum placement (streamlined UI/behavior) that accelerates the user past material they have already mastered; and
presenting the user with a lesson from the determined curriculum placement. Osotio teaches that "The application, through the AR system, presents Jeromy with an augmented representation of a character from the Kung Fu Panda movie to focus his attention off of the surrounding activities and onto the lesson being delivered" (para. [0113]) and "The lesson continues utilizing the customizations to deliver the concept of sharing in the experience through a subtle and gradual interaction such that Jeromy may be unaware that he is even being taught" (para. [0113]). This is interpreted as presenting the user with the customized lesson.
In re Claims 5, 12 & 18
Osotio further discloses wherein the element of the curriculum material is an interactive digital item configured to simulate upon interaction a process taught in the curriculum material.
Specifically, Osotio teaches that "The application, through the AR system, presents Jeromy with an augmented representation of a character from the Kung Fu Panda movie to focus his attention off of the surrounding activities and onto the lesson being delivered" (para. [0113]) and "The lesson continues utilizing the customizations to deliver the concept of sharing in the experience through a subtle and gradual interaction such that Jeromy may be unaware that he is even being taught" (para. [0113]). This is interpreted as an interactive digital item (the augmented character) configured to simulate a process taught in the curriculum (the concept of sharing through gradual interaction).
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.
Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osotio as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above and further in view of US 20190213900 (Erickson) and US 20230222184 (Safronoff).
In re Claims 2, 9 & 16
Osotio teaches the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 (see rejection above) but fails to specifically teach the claimed creating a multi-variable association in the machine learning model between the action, placement, and assessment.
Erickson teaches a predictive learning module that dynamically adapts to user interactions by linking outcomes to the prioritization of activities (curriculum placement) and creating an association in the model (para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to combine these teachings to optimize the predictive accuracy of the machine learning model by establishing a feedback loop that associates the user's initial action, the resulting curriculum placement, and the post-lesson learning assessment.
In re Claims 3 & 10
Osotio further teaches wherein the assessing whether the user successfully learned material in the lesson further comprises obtaining a subsequent action of the user in the demonstration environment. Osotio teaches monitoring the way the user is interacting with the application (subsequent action) to determine the effectiveness of the learning model (para. [0019]).
In re Claims 4, 11 & 17
Osotio teaches that the application's thematic content is customized to deliver specific lessons (para. [0112]). However, Osotio fails to specifically teach mapping specific elements in the environment to particular placements in the curriculum.
Erickson teaches that particular elements in the environment (such as an interactive break-away avatar) are directly associated with specific curriculum placements, such as particular sections or topics of the educational course (para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Osotio's system to incorporate Erickson's teaching of associating specific interactive elements with curriculum placements to guide and quiz the learner at appropriate milestones.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osotio as applied to claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 18 above and further in view of US 20230222184 (Safronoff).
In re Claims 6, 13 & 19
Osotio teaches tracking interaction metrics such as time on task (speed) and hit rate (success) (para. [0090]). However, Osotio fails to specifically teach tracking confidence or weighting the combination of speed, confidence, and success in the machine learning model.
Safronoff teaches tracking degree of cursor movement (confidence) and weighting speed, confidence, and success metrics within a machine learning model to evaluate user proficiency (para. [0043], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Osotio's system to incorporate Safronoff's weighting of speed, confidence, and success to achieve a more comprehensive and accurate determination of user proficiency.
In re Claims 7, 14 & 20
Osotio teaches customizing the application to deliver specific lessons (para. [0112]). However, Osotio fails to specifically teach a virtual sandbox.
Safronoff teaches virtual machine (VM) technologies that execute and control multiple software processes to provide a virtual sandbox environment (para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Osotio's system to provide a virtual sandbox as taught by Safronoff to allow the user to practice and experiment with the curriculum material in an isolated, interactive digital environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday (7-5).
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights