Detailed Action
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 1-4, 6, 10-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). The claim(s) recite(s) a method of organizing human activity using data storage and retrieval, which is practicably performable by a human mind.
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
access and align a plurality of diverse content
use one or more jurisdiction-dependent educational criteria as one or more content inputs to create one or more models
assimilate a first content input from the one or more content inputs with one particular content dataset
add a second content input for performing a comparative algorithm to evaluate the first content input
evaluate the first content input to determine if it produces an output that is at least one from a perfect text match and an imperfect text match, by executing an algorithm to perform one or more comparative operations
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1-4, 6, 10-14, 16 and 20 recite limitations performable in the human mind, namely a method of organizing human activity by compiling, storing and retrieving educational content. A human—using only their mind, pen, and paper—is capable of compiling educational content, sorting and storing the content by jurisdiction, accepting inquiries regarding the content, searching through the content based on the inquiry and determining a match by comparing the content and inquiry.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1-4, 6, 10-14, 16 and 20 recite the additional elements of “one or more processors,” a “server,” “memory,” a “network”, “data storage,” and “knowledge graph.” Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because:
One or more processors: are described generically in applicant’s specification:
processor may be physical and/or virtual, and may include a single processing unit or a plurality of processing units and/or cores … processor may be capable of generating and providing electronic display signals to a display device, supporting the display of images, capturing and transmitting images, and performing complex tasks including various types of feature extraction and sampling
Therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret these as routine and conventional computing components.
Server: is also described generically in the specification:
server 117 is a server, server array, or any other computing device, or group of computing devices, having data processing,
storing and communication capabilities … in other embodiments, jurisdiction-data server is a virtual server.
Again, it would accordingly be reasonable to interpret this as a routine and conventional computing component.
Network: is also described generically in the specification:
network 102 may be a conventional type, wired or wireless, and may have numerous different configurations including a star configuration, token ring configuration, or other configurations. Furthermore, the network may include any number of networks and/or network types. For example, the network may include a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN) (e.g., the Internet), virtual private networks (VPNs), mobile (cellular) networks, wireless wide area network (WWANs), WiMAX® networks, Bluetooth® communication networks, peer-to-peer networks, near field networks (e.g., NFC, etc.), and/or other interconnected data paths across which multiple devices may communicate
Again, it would accordingly be reasonable to interpret this as a routine and conventional computing component.
Storage: is also described generically in the specification:
data storage (e.g., content data store 115) stores the data and program instructions that may be executed by the processor 402. In one implementation, the data storage may store the data of various types of users in the web forum. The data storage may include a variety of non-volatile memory permanent storage device and media such as a hard disk drive, a floppy disk drive, a CD-ROM device, a DVD-ROM device, a DVD-RAM device, a DVDRW device, a flash memory device, or some other nonvolatile storage device known in the art
Again, it would accordingly be reasonable to interpret this as a routine and conventional computing component.
Knowledge graph: Collecting, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements which were interpreted under step 2A prong 2 are re-evaluated in step 2B, and evidence is known that they are nothing more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing. Specifically, when taken as a whole, the invention appears to be a database for storing, organizing and retrieving educational content. Storing, categorizing, and retrieving information has been noted by courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Claims 2-4, 6, 11-14, 16 and 20 recite similarly human-performable steps as those noted above and are accordingly found to be ineligible subject matter for the same reasons given supra.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 11-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vittorio (US 2018/0137125 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2022/0156468 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vittorio discloses a computer-implemented method (Abstract) comprising in a server with one or more processors and a memory (Fig. 11), using executable code stored in the memory to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions over a network to access, using the one or more processors at the server, over the network, a plurality of diverse content from a plurality of varied source servers coupled to the network (¶ [0049]: database includes structured information on a wide variety of educational content), align, by the one or more processors at the server, the plurality of diverse content (¶ [0036]: content for all the schools (as known from the database or other structured data stored on a resource for the educational content search and ranking engine), use one or more jurisdiction-dependent educational criteria stored in the memory as one or more content inputs to create one or more models (¶ [0135]: jurisdiction … can be used for searching, filtering, tie breaking, weighting, etc.), assimilate a first content input from the one or more content inputs with one particular content dataset (Fig. 2: subject), persist metadata associated with the one particular content input in a designated data storage (¶ [0026]: in some implementations, the manner in which educational content is referenced is indicated as metadata associated with the particular content), add a second content input for performing a comparative algorithm to evaluate the first content input (Fig. 2: time), and evaluate the first content input to determine if it produces an output that is at least one from a perfect text match and an imperfect text match, by executing an algorithm to perform one or more comparative operations (¶ [0034]: when a search is conducted for text within content, the results can surface matching search terms as well as context for the matching search terms). Kim suggests—where Vittorio does not disclose—storing the content using a knowledge graph (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Vittorio and Kim in order to provide better search results by analyzing semantic relationships between search terms and returning results based on the strength of those relationships.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Vittorio discloses wherein the comparative operations comprise one or more of a one-to-one match function, a many-to-one match function, a one-to-many match function, and many-to-many match function (¶ [0034]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Vittorio discloses executing an algorithm to compare a plurality of education units of information (Fig. 2) and standards (¶ [0023]: undergraduate, graduate postgraduate, etc.).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Vittorio discloses classifying one or more output results from the models into at least one of likely matches and no matches (¶ [0035]: content related to the search terms may be required to be in the content and within the index, glossary, or table of contents, which may minimize the return of results that mention a term but do not relate to the appropriate topic/concept/subject … in n some implementations, any matching content may be returned).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Vittorio discloses providing the one or more output results in a user interface with one or more options for further input by an editor (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Vittorio discloses a system comprising a server comprising one or more processors and a memory coupled to the one or more processors (Fig. 11), storing executable code configured to cause the one or more processors to execute control action over a network (1108) to access, over the network, a plurality of diverse content from a plurality of varied resource servers coupled to the network (¶ [0049]: database includes structured information on a wide variety of educational content), align the plurality of diverse content (¶ [0036]: content for all the schools (as known from the database or other structured data stored on a resource for the educational content search and ranking engine), use one or more jurisdiction-dependent educational criteria stored in the memory as content inputs to create one or more models (¶ [0135]: jurisdiction … can be used for searching, filtering, tie breaking, weighting, etc.), assimilate a first content input with one content dataset (Fig. 2: subject), persist metadata associated with the one content input in a designated data storage (¶ [0026]: in some implementations, the manner in which educational content is referenced is indicated as metadata associated with the particular content), add a second content input for performing a comparative algorithm to evaluate the first content input (Fig. 2: time), and evaluate the first content input to determine if the first content input is at least one of a perfect text match and an imperfect text match with the second data input, by executing an algorithm to perform one or more comparative operations (¶ [0034]: when a search is conducted for text within content, the results can surface matching search terms as well as context for the matching search terms). Kim suggests—where Vittorio does not disclose—storing the content using a knowledge graph (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Vittorio and Kim in order to provide better search results by analyzing semantic relationships between search terms and returning results based on the strength of those relationships.
Regarding claim 14, Vittorio discloses comparing a plurality of education products created for different jurisdictions (¶ [0135]: jurisdiction … can be used for searching, filtering, tie breaking, weighting, etc.).
Claims 5, 8, 9, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vittorio (US 2018/0137125 A1) in view of Kim and Coleman et al (US 2006/0014129 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Coleman suggests—where Vittorio does not disclose—providing an output in a user interface, wherein the user interface comprises a dashboard for display of one or more student assessments to determine a performance for a particular student (3404). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Vittorio, Kim and Coleman in order to ascertain the effectiveness of the selected educational material.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Coleman suggests—where Vittorio does not disclose—providing an output in a user interface, wherein the user interface comprises a dashboard for display of one or more daily skill activities to determine performance data for a particular student (Fig. 38). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Vittorio, Kim and Coleman in order to ascertain the effectiveness of the selected educational material.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Coleman suggests—where Vittorio does not disclose—providing a user interface to a student, wherein by the user interface, the one or more processors determine a student growth rate and a student skill mastery level for a particular student (Fig. 36). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Vittorio, Kim and Coleman in order to ascertain the effectiveness of the selected educational material.
Conclusion
Claims 4, 10 and 20 are not subject to a rejection under 35 USC §§ 102 or 103, but stand rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 as detailed supra.
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715