DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the last line of claim 1 appears to end abruptly. Since the applicant already placed a period the line before the last, the examiner assumes the last line of claim 1 should be ignored. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one structure. Thus, the claim is to a product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1 recite(s):
A learning management system, comprising specialized computer hardware and software, comprising:
a first language selection tool, presented to a first user, configured to permit said first user to select a first human language, representing that said first user has fluency is said first human language;
a second language selection tool, presented to said first user, configured to permit said first user to select a second human language, representing that said first user seeks to develop skill in said second human language;
an A/V conversation software module, wherein said A/V conversation software module is configured to facilitate real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and a second user, over a computer network;
and a speaking time tracking tool which is transcript based and comprising a transcript generator which generate a separate OCRed transcript for each user’s speech is said second humang language during one of said spoken conversation and an assigned time signature to each word spoken by said each user, configured to calculate, based on said separate OCRed transcript for each user’s speech during one of said spoken conversation and said assigned time signature to each work spoken by each user:
a cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking said second human language during said A/V interaction base on said time signature of each word spoken by said each user;
a cumulative amount of time that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction; a total time of said A/V interaction based on said time signatures of each word spoken by said second user;
a talking speed metric of said first user during said A/V interaction;
a total time of said A/V interaction;
a GUI tool displaying said total time of said A/V interaction and a score of said first user, based, at least in part, on an algorithm including a coefficient of speaking based, at least in part, on said cumulative amount of time that said first user speaks during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction and said talking speed metric;
a GUI tool configured for said first user to indicate a level of courage experienced in completing said A/V interactions; and
an A/V interaction breakout room creation too, configured to enable the creation of a new A/V interaction breakout room if the score of the first user exceeds a first pre-set threshold.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “specialized computer hardware and software”, “an A/V conversation software module”, “a GUI tool” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher allowing two students to converse based on their desired language target and the second user’s ability; tracking the speaking time of the first and second users, calculating the ratio of the speaking time and displaying a score based on the ratio of the speaking time.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “specialized computer hardware and software”, “an A/V conversation software module”, “a GUI tool”.
The “specialized computer hardware and software”, “an A/V conversation software module” and “a GUI tool” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or are directed to merely to indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 12 examples of the off the shelf teleconferencing software, and paragraph 55 examples of generic computing devices such as laptop and smartphone).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-20 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. These claims recite no additional limitations. For example, claim 2 is directed to the use of the computer network (a technological environment); claims 3-9 are directed to verifying the user’s skill level and determining whether or not to enable a/v interaction (an abstract idea); claims 10-13 are directed toward compensation of the users based on their scores (an abstract idea); claims 14-20 are directed toward determining scores and allowing further rules based on the ratio of speaking time (an abstract ideas). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued that the limitation of claim 1 and the dependent claim are directed to the improvements to the art of language training devices. The applicant also argued that that use of user interface to measure the speaking time and calculating multivariate convince scores for speech should be considered an integration of a practical application. However, improvement to the functioning of a computer or technological field requires specification that provides a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. However, the applicant’s specification only provides a teaching of facilitating the learning of human language (see paragraph 3, 15-16). Arguably these improvements are directed to improvement of the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, a review of the examples of improvement to the computer or another technological environment do not show similar examples of using interface to measure the speaking time and calculating multivariate convince scores as an improvement. Accordingly, the examiner takes the position that the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 should be maintained.
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 ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights