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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 12/23/2025 in response to the initial rejection made on 10/02/2025 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-2, and 4-5 have been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 6-7 are new. The IDS submitted on 10/06/2025 has been considered and entered. Rejections necessitated in response to the amendments made to the claims have been made. Responses to the Applicant’s arguments are written below.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
The letter “t” in “the” should be capitalized.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, and 4-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a teaching material” on line 6 of the claim. It is unclear if this is a different teaching material than the one recited in line 1 of the claim. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as the same teaching material. Claims 2, 4, and 6-7 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a display” on lines 6-7 of the claim. It is unclear if this is a different display than the one recited in line 2 of the claim. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as the same display. Claims 2, 4, and 6-7 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a teaching material” on line 4 of the claim. It is unclear if this is a different teaching material than the one recited in line 1 of the claim. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as the same teaching material.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a display” on line 5 of the claim. It is unclear if this is a different display than the one recited in line 2 of the claim. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as the same display.
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 1-2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a teaching material system” (i.e., a machine); and claim 5 is directed to “a teaching material evaluation” (i.e., a method); the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “determine that the teaching material was not sufficiently transmitted to the learner and improve the arrangement of the components in the display” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Independent Claim 1: A teaching material evaluation system for evaluating a teaching material displayed on a display comprising:
a processor;
a memory storing a program executed by the processor, wherein the memory stores an arrangement information, wherein the arrangement information includes information regarding an arrangement of a plurality of components included in a teaching material on a display; and
a view tracker configured to detect a viewpoint of a learner on the display for a period in which the teaching material is displayed on the display, and wherein the view tracker detects the learner's viewpoint by tracking eve movements either by irradiating the learner's face with infrared light and taking a picture or by using electrodes positioned around the learner's eyes;
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a detection result of the view tracker and the arrangement information,
wherein the detection result includes a first size, wherein the first size is a size of a movement range of the viewpoint,
wherein the arrangement information includes a second size, wherein the second size is a size of the components on the display,
wherein the processor is further configured to:
calculate a ratio of the first size to the second size;
determine whether the ratio is less than a predetermined value;
based on the determination that the ratio is less than the predetermined value,
determine that the teaching material was not sufficiently transmitted to the learner and improve the arrangement of the components in the display.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a display,” “a memory,” “a processor,” “a view tracker,” and “electrodes” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “determine that the teaching material was not sufficiently transmitted to the learner and improve the arrangement of the components in the display” is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a display,” “a memory,” “a processor,” “a view tracker,” and “electrodes” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a display,” “a memory,” “a processor,” “a view tracker,” and “electrodes” are described in the following paragraphs:
“[0009] The display 110, for example, a liquid crystal display.”
“[0009] the memory 102 is sometimes referred to as a storage unit.”
“[0009] The processor 201 executes the computer program PG2 so that the computer functions as the learning computer 200.”
“[0009] The view tracker 220 tracks the movement of the learner's eye by photographing the learner's face with an infrared camera while irradiating the learner's face with infrared light, and detects the learner's viewpoint based on the movement of the eye.”
“[0011] The view tracker 220 may be of a type that tracks the movements of the learner's eyes using electrodes positioned around the learner's eye to detect the learner's viewpoint based on the movements of the eyes. The view tracker 220 is sometimes referred to as a detector.”
This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations of “a display,” “a memory,” “a processor,” “a view tracker,” and “electrodes” are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4, and 6-7 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2, 4, and 6-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, and 5.
Therefore, claims 1-2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-2, 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soutetsu Iwamura (JP 2018124483 A; hereinafter Iwamura) in view of Kiyoshi Nosu (JP 4631014 B2; hereinafter Nosu) and Hanna Viertio-Oja (US 20070255164 A1; hereinafter Viertio-Oja).
Regarding claim 1, Iwamura discloses a teaching material evaluation system for evaluating a teaching material displayed on a display comprising (recited in at least: Iwamura [Abstract]): a processor (“a computer-executable language” (recited in at least: Iwamura paragraph [0097])); a memory storing a program executed by the processor (“The memory 1010 includes a ROM (Read Only Memory) 1011 and a RAM 1012” (recited in at least: Iwamura paragraph [0099])), wherein the memory stores an arrangement information, wherein the arrangement information includes information regarding an arrangement of a plurality of components included in a teaching material on a display (“the memory unit includes an editing history information storage unit 311, a viewing history information storage unit 312, a gaze information storage unit 313, an electroencephalogram information storage unit 314, a time analysis information storage unit 321, and an integrated analysis information storage unit 331” (recited in at least: Iwamura paragraph [0030])); and
a view tracker configured to detect a viewpoint of a learner on the display for a period in which the teaching material is displayed on the display, and wherein the view tracker detects the learner's viewpoint by tracking eye movements (The gaze information acquisition unit 203 acquires gaze information indicating the state of the learner's gaze. As described above, the gaze information includes, for example, whether or not the user blinked, the gaze position on the window, and the like. The gaze information also includes a blink concentration level derived from the frequency of blinks, etc. (recited in at least: Iwamura paragraph [0024]));
wherein the processor is configured to: receive a detection result of the view tracker and the arrangement information (the integrated analysis unit 330 determines the difficulty level of the learning material for the learner by using the difference between the time taken by the learner to answer the question and the average time for all learners, calculated using the time point analysis information 3211, and the difference between the time taken by the learner to view the learning material and the average time for all learners, and the brain wave reflection level included in the brain wave information (recited in at least: Iwamura paragraph [0058])).
However, Iwamura doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the detection result includes a first size, wherein the first size is a size of a movement range of the viewpoint, wherein the arrangement information includes a second size, wherein the second size is a size of the components on the display, wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate a ratio of the first size to the second size; determine whether the ratio is less than a predetermined value; based on the determination that the ratio is less than the predetermined value, determine that the teaching material was not sufficiently transmitted to the learner and improve the arrangement of the components in the display
Nosu teaches wherein the detection result includes a first size, wherein the first size is a size of a movement range of the viewpoint, wherein the arrangement information includes a second size, wherein the second size is a size of the components on the display, wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate a ratio of the first size to the second size; determine whether the ratio is less than a predetermined value; based on the determination that the ratio is less than the predetermined value, determine that the teaching material was not sufficiently transmitted to the learner and improve the arrangement of the components in the display (“Hereinafter, the fourth frame at t = t4 and the fifth frame at t = t5 are sequentially processed to calculate the movement amount of the region of interest D. By performing such image processing, the facial expression image processing means 11 detects a change in a part of a region of interest such as an eye, a forehead, and a mouth. Next, as shown in FIG. 6, the physical information recording means 13 includes a heart rate, a skin temperature, and the like obtained by attaching or approaching the physical information sensors 8a and 8b to the body of the learner 4 by the physical information analysis unit 13a” (recited in at least: Nosu paragraph [0031].
Iwamura does not explicitly disclose by using electrodes positioned around the learner's eyes to track eye movements.
Viertio-Oja teaches using electrodes positioned around the eyes to track eye movements (In addition to brain waves, a surface EEG normally includes various other signal components, such as those caused by eye movements and eye blinks (recited in at least: Viertio-Oja paragraph [0007])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used surface electrodes positioned around the eyes to monitor eye movements because EEGs include signal components like eye movements (as taught above) normally in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Iwamura in view of Nosu and Viertio-Oja teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and Iwamura further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate the teaching material in accordance with time during which the viewpoint stays on each of the components (“If the gaze position is within the educational material screen, the time point analysis section 320 determines that the educational material is being viewed, and records this as the time point state in the time point analysis information 3211 . Furthermore, if the gaze position is within the editing screen, the time point analysis unit 320 determines that editing work is in progress, and records this as the time point state in the time point analysis information 3211 . Furthermore, when the gaze position is not within the range of either the teaching material screen or the editing screen, the time point analysis section 320 determines that the user is thinking, and records this as the time point state in the time point analysis information” (recited in at least: Iwamura paragraph [0055])).
Regarding claim 4, Iwamura in view of Nosu and Viertio-Oja teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and Iwamura further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate the teaching material using a detection result of the viewpoint of a plurality of learners and the arrangement information (“the integrated analysis unit 330 uses the time point analysis information 3211 of all learners to calculate the average value of the time each learner spent viewing the teaching material (hereinafter referred to as the teaching material viewing time) (hereinafter referred to as the average teaching material viewing time for all learners). For example, the time spent viewing the learning material by each learner is calculated by aggregating the time point analysis information 3211 for each page viewed by each learner, and assuming that the time period corresponds to the period during which the learning material is viewed” (recited in at least: Iwamura paragraph [0061])).
Regarding claim 5, Iwamura in view of Nosu and Viertio-Oja discloses a teaching material evaluation method for evaluating a teaching material displayed on a display (recited in at least: Iwamura [Abstract]) comprising: steps similar in scope to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Iwamura in view of Nosu teach the disclosed matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the view tracker detects the learner's viewpoint by tracking eye movement by using electrodes positioned around the learner's eyes (“The information that can be measured by the physical information sensors 8a and 8b differs depending on the part worn by the learner 4 and the sensor element… an electroencephalograph is used, an electroencephalogram is used” (recited in at least: Nosu paragraph [0032])).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura in view of Nosu and Viertio-Oja in further view of Katsuaki Fukai (JPH0576497A; hereinafter Fukai).
Regarding claim 6, Iwamura in view of Nosu and Viertio-Oja teach the disclosed matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the view tracker detects the learner's viewpoint by tracking eye movements by irradiating the learner's face with infrared light taking a picture.
Fukai teaches wherein the view tracker detects the learner's viewpoint by tracking eye movements by irradiating the learner's face with infrared light taking a picture (“According to the eye camera 1 having the above configuration, the infrared light emitted from the LED 2 passes through the filter 6 and is reflected by the hot mirror 3 and enters the subject's eye 4, and then is reflected by the subject's eye 4 and filtered. 6 is incident on the infrared camera 5. The infrared camera 5 picks up the eye 4 of the subject by the incident infrared rays, and the image signal is processed by the image processor 7 and sent to the monitor television 8” (recited in at least: Fukai paragraph [0011])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added taking pictures of a user’s face to track their eye movements as taught by Fukai because it would take less storage to snap a photo of movement versus taking videos of users.
Response to Arguments
Information Disclosure Statement:
Applicant states on page 1 of the remarks that the IDS filed on October 6, 2025 has not been considered. The initial rejection was mailed out on October 2, 2025 before the IDS was formally submitted. The IDS has now been considered and entered.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections applied in the Non-Final Action mailed out on 10/02/2025. However, the Applicant’s amendments necessitated further rejections that are stated above.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitated a further consideration. Applicant’s arguments on pages 2-3 of the remarks state that “the system is not caused to merely perform an alleged abstract idea;” however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each of the additional elements were considered as individuals and then again as a whole with the claim language and its functions above. The “Software Per Se” rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 102:
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
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 SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM 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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715