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 January 19, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-23 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, 9, 20, and 22 are noted as amended, and claim 23 is noted as newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all previous objections and 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 17, 2025 and all objections and rejections therein have been withdrawn. However, new objections and rejections are noted below. However, new objections are noted below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 19, “the first time point and the second time point” should read “the one or more first time points and the one or more second time points”.
In claim 22, line 24, “the first time point and the second time point” should read “the one or more first time points and the one or more second time points”
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 22 recite a process and a computer system for performing the process, the process including the steps of one or more requests to the learners to provide structured feedback at a corresponding one or more of first content locations predefined to be interspersed among a plurality of ordered content segments, each segment including a portion of learning content for the lecture; one or more requests to the learners to provide unstructured feedback at a plurality of second content locations that are not predefined; receiving the structured feedback at one or more corresponding first time points within the corresponding one or more of the first content locations from at least one of the learners; receiving the unstructured feedback at one or more corresponding second time points within the plurality of second content locations from at least one of the learners; upon analyzing the structured feedback and the unstructured feedback, estimating a plurality of engagement metrics each measuring a degree of engagement of the learners at a corresponding one of a plurality of time points during the lecture based at least in part on the one or more corresponding first time points and the one or more corresponding second time points, wherein the plurality of time points comprise the first time point and the second time point; and generating a visual representation of the engagement metrics, the visual representation including a graph of the degree of engagement over the plurality of time points and visually mapped to the ordered content segments. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are requesting learners to provide structured and unstructured feedback at a plurality of content locations, receiving the structured and unstructured feedback, analyzing the feedback, estimating a plurality of engagement metrics at corresponding time points, and generating a visual representation of the metrics including a graph of the engagement over time. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (analyzing the feedback; estimating a plurality of metrics; generating a visual representation)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (requesting structured and unstructured feedback; receiving the feedback). 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, claims 1 and 22 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do 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 at least one processor [claim 22]; memory in communication with said at least one processor [claim 22]; software code stored in said memory, which when executed at said at least one processor causes the system to perform the method [claim 22]; transmitting to a plurality of learner devices, each operated by a corresponding learner of a plurality of learners, signals for providing a graphical user interface that presents the requests; the feedback from at least one of the learner devices operated by at least one of the learners; and transmitting to a lecturer device, data for generating the visual representation, wherein the visual representation comprises a timeline spanning the plurality of timepoints and a plurality of segment demarcation graphical markers corresponding to respective ones of the ordered content segments, each of the segment demarcation graphical markers rendered at a location in time alignment with start and end time boundaries of a corresponding content segment of the plurality of ordered content segments, wherein selection of a given segment demarcation graphical marker of the plurality of segment demarcation graphical markers causes the lecturer device to display segment-specific data reflective of the engagement metrics for the corresponding content segment. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are merely transmitting data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) and presenting the content in a desired format. The other additional elements of a processor, memory, software, and graphical user interface are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraph 0216 of the specification states the computing device may be a personal computer, laptop, smartphone, or any other computing device capable of being configured to carry out the methods. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. With regard to the visual representation being a timeline including segment demarcation, the design of the visual representation is defining the data to be presented and an aesthetic design choice for presenting the analyzed data of the abstract ideas. While the selection of a graphical marker is a functional limitation, the selection is a further mental process and merely selecting which data is to be presented. 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 claims are directed to an 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, the additional step(s) of transmitting signals and data is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of a processor, memory, software code, and graphical user interface 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). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do 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, claims 1 and 22 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-21 and 23 are dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of the independent claims. 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 claims 2-8 and 12-21 recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity including further transmission of data and signals to provide graphical user interfaces (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), defining the types of data manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 9, 11, and 23 recite further abstract ideas including generating an insight (judgement mental process; CMOHA), providing the potential intervention (judgment MP; CMOHA), receiving feedback on the intervention (CMOHA), and providing additional content selected from a store (judgement MP; CMOHA). 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 updating the machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality amounting to a computer algorithm for applying the judicial exceptions and merely generally linking the abstract ideas with AI/ML. 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 10 recites the insight is generated by applying a machine learning model. Due to the high-level of generality of the recitation of machine learning, the limitation is interpreted as mere computer code/algorithm for performing the functional limitations and falls under the instructions for applying an abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation fails to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on this claim.
Accordingly, claims 2-21 and 23 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) 1-5, 7-9, and 13-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US PGPub 20220141532), hereinafter referred to as Li, in view of Aleali (US 7,507,091), further in view of Bielak (US PGPub 20050154679), and further in view of Jain et al. (US PGPub 20200153915), hereinafter referred to as Jain.
With regard to claims 1 and 22, Li teaches a computer-implemented method [claim 1] (Paragraphs 0004, 0097; “method”) and system [claim 22] (Abstract; Paragraphs 0003, 0097; “system”) for conducting a lecture (Paragraph 0004; “for facilitating an online presentation session”; Paragraph 0032; “a lecture”), comprising:
at least one processor [claim 22] (Paragraphs 0003, 0095; “processor”);
memory in communication with said at least one processor [claim 22] (Paragraphs 0003, 0095; “a computer-readable medium storing executable instructions”);
software code stored in said memory, which when executed at said at least one processor causes the system to [claim 22] (Paragraphs 0003, 0095; “a computer-readable medium storing executable instructions”) perform the method comprising:
transmitting to a plurality of learner devices, each operated by a corresponding learner of a plurality of learners (Paragraphs 0033, 0044 teach the system includes client devices each used by a participant of the presentation), signals for providing a graphical user interface (Paragraph 0049 teaches the platform can transmit steams and data to each of the client devices including the presentation for display) that presents:
one or more requests to the learners to provide structured feedback at a corresponding one or more of first content locations (Paragraphs 0081-0082 teach the system includes creating live polls which a presenter may create and launch during the presentation);
one or more requests to the learners to provide unstructured feedback at a plurality of second content locations that are not predefined (Paragraphs 0036-0037 teach the system can allow the audience to provide feedback throughout the presentation in the form of emojis);
receiving the structured feedback at one or more corresponding first time points within the corresponding one or more of the first content locations from at least one of the learner devices operated by at least one of the learners (Paragraphs 0065, 0070, 0083-0084 teach the system can receive participant answers/responses to the poll(s) via the user interface of the client devices of the participants wherein the poll answers are included in the reactions data which is mapped to a particular time (first time points) corresponding with portions/content of the presentation);
receiving the unstructured feedback at one or more corresponding second time points within the plurality of second content locations from at least one of the learner devices operated by at least one of the learners (Paragraphs 0036-0037, 0065, 0070 teach the system can allow the audience to provide feedback throughout the presentation in the form of emojis via the user interface of the client devices of the participants wherein the reactions are mapped to particular times (second time points) corresponding with portions/content of the presentation);
upon analyzing the structured feedback and the unstructured feedback, estimating a plurality of engagement metrics each measuring a degree of engagement of the learners based at least in part on the one or more corresponding first time points and the one or more corresponding second time points, wherein the plurality of time points comprise the first time point and the second time point (Paragraphs 0026, 0070, 0078, 0084 teaches the system can determine a feedback score based on participant feedback wherein the feedback is mapped to particular times (time points) within the presentation wherein the feedback and results are presented in a report or reports); and
transmitting to a lecturer device, data for generating a visual representation of the engagement metrics (Paragraphs 0078-0079 teach the system can generate a presentation summary report that may be provided to the presenter).
Li may not explicitly teach the one or more first content locations predefined to be interspersed among a plurality of ordered content segments, each segment including a portion of learning content for the lecture; the engagement metrics being at a corresponding one of a plurality of time points during the lecture; and the visual representation including a graph of the degree of engagement over the plurality of time points and visually mapped to the ordered content segments. However, Aleali teaches a system and method for analyzing the cognitive involvement of audience members wherein each audience member is assigned a cognitive involvement (engagement) score based on activity scores and focus values and plots the metric on a graph based on the cognitive involvement over time and includes the corresponding slides to the time points (Col 8, line 60 – Col 9, line 29; Col 9, line 64 – Col 10, line 24).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Aleali by incorporating the teachings of measuring user engagement over time and plotting the engagement on a graph corresponding with presented content/slides of Aleali to the measured engagement of Li, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to audience/interactive presentation management systems measuring audience member engagement. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li by coding the system to measure the user engagement over time by accepting user reactions/feedback during the presentation and mapping the engagement to a time line and the presented content/slides thereby presenting the measured engagement as a graph over time. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li would include the engagement metrics being at a corresponding one of a plurality of time points during the lecture; and the visual representation including a graph of the degree of engagement over the plurality of time points and visually mapped to the content segments. 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 Aleali with Li’s system and method in order to provide presenters comprehensive metrics and improved user interface.
Li in view of Aleali may not explicitly teach the one or more first content locations predefined to be interspersed among a plurality of ordered content segments, each segment including a portion of learning content for the lecture. However, Bielak teaches a system and method for creating and presenting interactive presentations wherein the system includes using placeholder slides within a presentation that can be replaced with user polls and quizzes (Abstract; Paragraphs 0081, 0106-0107).
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 Li in view of Aleali to incorporate the teachings of Bielak by incorporating the teachings of inserting user polls or quizzes in a slide presentation based on placeholder slides of Bielak to the presentations and polls of Li, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to interactive presentation management systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li in view of Aleali by coding the system to allow the presenter to define when the live polls will take place during the presentation by using placeholder slides within the presentation as Li already teaches the polls can be launched during/throughout the presentation. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li in view of Aleali would include the one or more first content locations predefined to be interspersed among a plurality of ordered content segments, each segment including a portion of learning content for the lecture. 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 Bielak with Li in view of Aleali’s system and method in order to improve efficiency for presenters to create the presentations and allow presenters to preset when the polls are launched.
Li in view of Aleali and Bielak may not explicitly teach wherein the visual representation comprises a timeline spanning the plurality of timepoints and a plurality of segment demarcation graphical markers corresponding to respective ones of the ordered content segments, each of the segment demarcation graphical markers rendered at a location in time alignment with start and end time boundaries of a corresponding content segment of the plurality of ordered content segments, wherein selection of a given segment demarcation graphical marker of the plurality of segment demarcation graphical markers causes the lecturer device to display segment-specific data reflective of the engagement metrics for the corresponding content segment. However, Jain teaches a participant engagement detection and control system including mapping user actions and content to time intervals of a timeline and presenting the participant and presenter actions in the form of a timeline including interval segments (demarcations) that can align with slides (corresponding content) and wherein the presenter can configure the time intervals for the session/timeline thereby selecting intervals for data analysis and wherein the engagement can be broken down by the intervals thereby presenting “segment-specific” data corresponding to the content of that time interval (Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0064, 0067, 0111-0113, 0132-0133).
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 Li in view of Aleali and Bielak to incorporate the teachings of Jain by incorporating the teachings of presenting tracked user actions including polls and engagement over a timeline with interval segments of Jain to the user actions of Li and timeline of Aleali, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to interactive presentation management systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li in view of Aleali and Bielak by coding the system to tracking the time mapped reactions including the poll results and feedback of Li and presenting the feedback and user actions on a timeline including configured intervals that correspond to presented content such that the corresponding engagement and user actions are presented in each interval segment. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li in view of Aleali and Bielak would include wherein the visual representation comprises a timeline spanning the plurality of timepoints and a plurality of segment demarcation graphical markers corresponding to respective ones of the ordered content segments, each of the segment demarcation graphical markers rendered at a location in time alignment with start and end time boundaries of a corresponding content segment of the plurality of ordered content segments, wherein selection of a given segment demarcation graphical marker of the plurality of segment demarcation graphical markers causes the lecturer device to display segment-specific data reflective of the engagement metrics for the corresponding content segment. 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 Jain with Li in view of Aleali and Bielak’s system and method in order to improve the presenter user interface and present the information in a clear and understandable way.
With regard to claim 2, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see the prior art rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising: in response to receiving the unstructured feedback, transmitting to the learner devices signals to cause a visual indicator of the unstructured feedback to be displayed by way of the graphical user interface (Paragraphs 0036-0037 teach the presenter can configure the settings to allow the emoji feedback to be visible to all participants of the presentation).
With regard to claim 3, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2 (see the prior art rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the visual indicator is displayed in real-time during the lecture (Paragraph 0036 teaches the feedback may be presented in real time).
With regard to claim 4, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see the prior art rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the unstructured feedback comprises an emoji selected from a plurality of emojis (Paragraphs 0036-0037 teach the feedback can be in the form of reaction icons or emojis).
With regard to claim 5, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4 (see the prior art rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the plurality of emojis include emojis corresponding to a plurality of sentiments expressible by the learners (Fig. 8; Paragraphs 0036-0037 teach the feedback can be in the form of reaction icons or emojis wherein the emojis are a plurality of graphic symbols representing various ideas/sentiments).
With regard to claim 7, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see the prior art rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the request for structured feedback includes a question with multiple answers, each answer selectable by the learners (Paragraph 0082 teaches the polls may include a question and a set of two or more answers the user/participant may select).
With regard to claim 8, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see the prior art rejection of claim 1 above), but may not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving, in association with each of the unstructured feedback and the structured feedback, an identifier of the particular learner of the plurality of learners providing the feedback. However, Bielak further teaches the system can track the identity of users using user identifiers which allow for tracking user feedback and responses (Paragraphs 0096-0097).
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 Li in view of Aleali to incorporate the teachings of Bielak by incorporating the teachings of tracking user identities using a user identifier corresponding to user feedback and responses of Bielak to the presentations and polls of Li, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to interactive presentation management systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li in view of Aleali by coding the system to include user identifiers for each user or participant as Li and Aleali already teach tracking the engagement and feedback of each participant but fail to teach identifying/including an identifier of each participant. Specifically, Li teaches each participant data stream may be for one or more users of a communication device and Aleali does not describe how the identification of each individual audience member occurs. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li in view of Aleali would include further comprising: receiving, in association with each of the unstructured feedback and the structured feedback, an identifier of the particular learner of the plurality of learners providing the feedback. 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 Bielak with Li in view of Aleali’s system and method in order to better track each individual audience member and produce individualized metrics.
With regard to claim 9, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8 (see the prior art rejection of claim 8 above), but may not explicitly teach further comprising: upon processing the unstructured feedback and the structured feedback and the identifiers of the learners providing the feedback, generating an insight regarding a potential intervention for a particular learner of the plurality of learners. However, Jain further teaches the system can determine content (intervention) to recommend to a participant based on their engagement and actions in order to improve their engagement and/or comprehension (Paragraphs 0075, 0093, 0095, 0150).
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 Li in view of Aleali and Bielak to incorporate the teachings of Jain by incorporating the teachings of providing additional content or resources based on a learners engagement of Jain, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to interactive presentation management systems including user engagement. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li in view of Aleali and Bielak by coding the system to use the audience member/participant specific metrics of Li in view of Aleali and Bielak to generate insights and determine content (intervention) to provide to the particular learner in addition to the recommendations/improvements of Li. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li in view of Aleali and Bielak would include further comprising: upon processing the unstructured feedback and the structured feedback and the identifiers of the learners providing the feedback, generating an insight regarding a potential intervention for a particular learner of the plurality of learners. 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 Jain with Li in view of Aleali and Bielak’s system and method in order to improve user/participant engagement.
With regard to claim 13, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9 (see the prior art rejection of claim 9 above), but may not explicitly teach wherein the insight includes an identifier of recommended learning content suitable for the potential intervention. However, Jain further teaches the system can determine content (intervention) to recommend to a participant based on their engagement and actions in order to improve their engagement and/or comprehension (Paragraphs 0075, 0093, 0095, 0150).
As discussed above, 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 Li in view of Aleali and Bielak to incorporate the teachings of Jain by incorporating the teachings of providing additional content or resources based on a learners engagement of Jain, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to interactive presentation management systems including user engagement. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li in view of Aleali and Bielak by coding the system to use the audience member/participant specific metrics of Li in view of Aleali and Bielak to generate insights and determine content (insight) to provide to the particular learner in addition to the recommendations/improvements of Li. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li in view of Aleali and Bielak would include further comprising: upon processing the unstructured feedback and the structured feedback and the identifiers of the learners providing the feedback, generating an insight regarding a potential intervention for a particular learner of the plurality of learners. 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 Jain with Li in view of Aleali and Bielak’s system and method in order to improve user/participant engagement.
With regard to claim 14, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see the prior art rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising: transmitting to the plurality of learner devices signals for causing a chatbox to be presented by way of the graphical user interface, the chatbox allowing the learners to exchange electronic messages during the lecture (Paragraph 0032 teaches the system can be implement by a communications platform including a chat function (chatbox) allowing users to communicate with each other and the presenter).
With regard to claim 15, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14 (see the prior art rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the estimating a plurality of engagement metrics includes processing the electronic messages (Paragraphs 0031-0032, 0037, 0078 teach the system determines the presentation score/engagement based on user feedback/reactions wherein the reactions can be derived from user actions and behavior including the chat/messages received through the communications platform).
With regard to claim 16, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see the prior art rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising: receiving signals reflective of computer input activity of at least one of the learners (Paragraph 0076 teaches the system can detect a user’s manual navigation of the presentation via a keyboard, mouse, or other navigational to input to the client device and registering the manual navigation as reaction data).
With regard to claim 17, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14 (see the prior art rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the estimating a plurality of engagement metrics includes processing the activity of the computer input the at least one of the learners (Paragraphs 0076, 0078 teaches the system can detect a user’s manual navigation of the presentation via a keyboard, mouse, or other navigational to input to the client device and registering the manual navigation as reaction data which is used along with the feedback to determine the feedback score/engagement metrics).
With regard to claim 18, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see the prior art rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the degree of engagement includes a quality of engagement (Paragraphs 0078-0079; Figs 9-10 show the presentation summary report can include details for the ratings/scores including slide design, speaker skills, interesting content, and audience interaction (quality of engagement)).
With regard to claim 19, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see the prior art rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising: transmitting to at least one of the plurality of learner devices signals for providing a graphical user interface that presents the plurality of ordered content segments to a corresponding at least one learner (Paragraph 0088 teaches the system sends second media streams (signals) containing the presentation/media for display on the one or more participant client devices wherein there may be one or more participants per paragraph 0028).
With regard to claim 20, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see the prior art rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising: transmitting to a presentation device signals for providing a graphical user interface that presents the plurality of ordered content segments to one or more of the learners of a plurality of learners (Paragraph 0088 teaches the system sends second media streams (signals) containing the presentation/media for display on the one or more participant client devices wherein there may be one or more participants per paragraph 0028).
With regard to claim 21, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see the prior art rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the lecture comprises at least one of a virtual lecture, an in-person lecture, and a hybrid lecture (Paragraphs 0028, 0030-0031 teach the presentations may be in person, online (virtual), or meetings including online participants (hybrid)).
With regard to claim 23, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9 (see prior art rejection of claim 9 above), but may not explicitly teach wherein the potential intervention comprises providing additional content selected from a store of additional resources, wherein the additional content relates to topics of the portion of learning content in one or more content segments. However, Jain further teaches the system can determine content (intervention) to recommend to a participant based on their engagement and actions in order to improve their engagement and/or comprehension wherein the additional/recommended content can be introductory content or a hint or other content related to the corresponding presented content during the interval of the user’s measured low engagement and wherein the content including the additional content is stored and retrieved from services (store of additional resources) such as online learning-session services, database services, and other content sources (Paragraphs 0034, 0075, 0093, 0095, 0150).
As discussed above, 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 Li in view of Aleali and Bielak to incorporate the teachings of Jain by incorporating the teachings of providing additional content or resources based on a learners engagement of Jain, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to interactive presentation management systems including user engagement. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li in view of Aleali and Bielak by coding the system to use the audience member/participant specific metrics of Li in view of Aleali and Bielak to generate insights and determine content (intervention) to provide to the particular learner in addition to the recommendations/improvements of Li wherein the additional content can be retrieved from available sources over a network. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li in view of Aleali and Bielak would include wherein the potential intervention comprises providing additional content selected from a store of additional resources, wherein the additional content relates to topics of the portion of learning content in one or more content segments. 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 Jain with Li in view of Aleali and Bielak’s system and method in order to improve user/participant engagement.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zavesky et al. (US PGPub 20240015262).
With regard to claim 6, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4 (see the prior art rejection of claim 4 above), and detecting a pace of the presentation and notifying a presenter to adjust the pace if too quick or too slow (Paragraph 0066), but may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of emojis include an emoji indicating a request to increase the pace of the lecture, and an emoji indicating a request to decrease the pace of the lecture. However, Zavesky teaches a system and method for facilitating learning including presentations wherein users can communicate with emojis wherein the emojis can imply a request to slow down or speed up the content/presentation (Paragraph 0102).
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 Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain to incorporate the teachings of Zavesky by applying the teachings of emojis representing a request to speed up or slow down content of Zavesky to the presentations and emojis of Li, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to interactive presentation management systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain by coding the system to recognize certain emojis as a signal/request to speed up or slow down the presentation/content. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain would include wherein the plurality of emojis include an emoji indicating a request to increase the pace of the lecture, and an emoji indicating a request to decrease the pace of the lecture. 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 Zavesky with Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain’s system and method as emojis are a graphical/representative form of communication and can have the desired implied meeting in order to improve user communication and inform presenters of the sentiments of the audience/participants.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Aleali and Bielak as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sha et al. (US PGPub 20230215288).
With regard to claim 10, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9 (see the prior art rejection of claim 9 above), and generating the recommendations/feedback by using machine learning models (Paragraphs 0027, 0038) but may not explicitly teach wherein the insight is generated by applying a machine learning model. However, Sha teaches a system and method for measuring user engagement and providing haptic feedback/an intervention based on insights for the learner/user using machine learning models to output/generate the insights and recommendations (Paragraphs 0067-0069).
As discussed above, 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 Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain to incorporate the teachings of Sha by incorporating the teachings of providing insights/recommendations for potential interventions based on a learners engagement using machine learning models of Sha, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to interactive presentation management systems including user engagement. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain by coding the system to apply the machine learning models of Li to generate the insights/recommendations for interventions for the particular audience members/participants such as what content to provide to improve user engagement as taught by Jain. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain would include wherein the insight is generated by applying a machine learning model. 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 Sha with Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain’s system and method in order to improve user/participant engagement and efficiently determine interventions.
With regard to claim 11, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10 (see the prior art rejection of claim 9 above), and generating the recommendations/feedback by using machine learning models (Paragraphs 0027, 0038) but may not explicitly teach further comprising: providing the potential intervention to the particular learner as an intervention; receiving feedback on the intervention from the particular learner; and updating the machine learning model based in part on the feedback from the particular learner. However, Sha further teaches providing the haptic feedback or recommendation to the user/learner, receiving user feedback on the haptic feedback, engagement level, and insights, and training/updating the machine learning model based on the user feedback (Paragraphs 0034-0035, 0068, 0073).
As discussed above, 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 Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain to incorporate the teachings of Sha by incorporating the teachings of providing insights/recommendations for potential interventions based on a learners engagement using machine learning models of Sha, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to interactive presentation management systems including user engagement. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain by coding the system to provide the haptic feedback, insights, and/or recommendations, receive user feedback on the intervention, and updating the model based on the feedback. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain would include further comprising: providing the potential intervention to the particular learner as an intervention; receiving feedback on the intervention from the particular learner; and updating the machine learning model based in part on the feedback from the particular learner. 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 Sha with Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain’s system and method in order to improve user/participant engagement.
With regard to claim 12, Li, as modified, further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9 (see the prior art rejection of claim 9 above), but may not explicitly teach wherein the insight includes data reflecting a profile of the given learner. However, Sha further teaches using student/user profile, user preferences, and/or baseline behavior data to generate the engagement level and insights/interventions (Paragraphs 0067, 0070).
As discussed above, 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 Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain to incorporate the teachings of Sha by incorporating the teachings of providing insights/recommendations for potential interventions based on a learners engagement using student profiles, baseline behavior, and preferences of Sha, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to interactive presentation management systems including user engagement. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain by coding the system to include user data including user/student profiles, baseline behavior, and preferences. Upon such modification, the method and system of Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain would include wherein the insight includes data reflecting a profile of the given learner. 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 Sha with Li in view of Aleali, Bielak, and Jain’s system and method in order to improve user/participant engagement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed January 19, 2026, with respected to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are as follows: A) the claim limitations enable anonymization of feedback; B) the claimed limitations are tied to the computer environment as the feedback is associated with the content segments and time points; C) a human cannot generate a visual representation with selectable features and the feature provides functionality; D) Applicant cites claim 2 of example 46 and that the claimed limitations of the instant application provide meaningful limitation as it employs the information provided by the judicial exception by generating a visual representation with selectable graphical markers; and E) the claimed subject matter is directed to an improved user interface for computing devices. With regard to Applicant’s argument A, the argument is not commensurate with the claim limitations as the claims do not include any recitation of anonymization and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations the feedback can be anonymized or not. Therefore, there is nothing of substance for the examiner to rebut. With regard to argument B, merely associating feedback with content segments and time points does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application by tying the limitations to the computer environment as such observations can be made mentally. While a computer can more efficiently perform the association, the inherent efficiency of applying a judicial exception on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f) and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
With regard to argument C, Examiner agrees that a human cannot “mentally” generate a visual representation with selectable features but designing/creating the visual representation is a mental process as discussed above. The additional elements are the visual representation including selectable features and the corresponding functionality. However, such selectable graphical markers/icons do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception as the limitations are merely generally linking the judicial exceptions with computing technology/computing interface as selectable graphical markers/icons for accessing specified information are well-known as seen in USPTO Subject Matter Example 37. Selectable icons/markers are not evidence of a practical application or significantly more as they are not a technical improvement of computing technology. With regard to argument D, Examiner notes that the subject matter examples are not precedential. Regardless, the fact pattern of the instant application is not equivalent to Example 46 as the practical application is the physical response (controlling a feed dispenser) while the instant application merely uses the data to generate a displayed result in the form of the visual representation. The visual representation is merely displaying the results of the judicial exceptions in a desired format as such the claim is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) as the instant application is merely displaying results and not performing a physical/real world action. With regard to argument E, the claimed improved user interface is merely a conclusory statement without support in the claims and specification as the claimed limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation are collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying the results wherein transmitting the data over a network is insignificant extra solution activity as discussed above. Selecting/limiting the information being displayed and the style the information is displayed in (a timeline with content segments) does not amount to a technical improvement as it is merely an aesthetic choice and decision of which data to present to the user rather than a functional improvement to the technology. The claims of Core Wireless were specific to computing technology and thus were eligible under step 2A prong one as the claims do not recite judicial exceptions. By comparison, the instant application recites clear judicial exceptions under step 2A prong one as receiving and analyzing feedback and determining an engagement of an audience/learner, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, the additional elements of the claims must amount to a practical application or significantly more under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B, but as discussed above, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and/or instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device. Therefore, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 19, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. 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 discussed above.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-23 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