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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 09/04/2025. Claims 1-15 have been amended. Claims 16-20 have been newly added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Amendment
With regards to Applicants remarks (remarks page 10) that during the telephone interview held on September 4th, 2025, Examiner tentatively approved the independent claims to overcome the 101 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the Interview Summary from September 4th, 2025 that explicitly states “No agreement was reached upon”. Further, Examiner’s name is Novak, not “Novac”.
With respect to the Drawing Objections, it appears Applicant has submitted the same drawings.
Drawings Objections
Figures 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6A and 6B are objected to because the drawings are improper because the text is not legible or properly labeled (37 CFR 1.84(b)(1)). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required. No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing(s). Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites: “receive, via the user input device, a harassment report alleging harassment determine whether educational harassment has occurred by assessing contextual data contained within the received harassment report to categorize the contextual data into one or more predefined harassment categories;in response to a determination that educational harassment has occurred, identify a target of the educational harassment, a specific type of the educational harassment, and a context of the educational harassment; select a harassment advisor based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment.” While Applicant’s specification discusses reporting harassment, an actual “harassment report” (Examiner notes a report is a formal, written document that provides a detailed overview of a specific event) is not described, let alone “determine whether educational harassment has occurred by assessing contextual data contained within the received harassment report”. Further, Applicant’s specification does not teach “identify a target of the educational harassment” or “select a harassment advisor based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment”. Even further, while Applicant’s specification, para 0048, teaches “survivors, lawyers, and counselors”, Applicant’s specification does not teach “a harassment advisor”.
Claim 6 recites: “receive, via a user input device of the portable electronic device, a harassment report alleging harassment; determine, from the received harassment report, whether educational harassment has occurred; in response to a determination that educational harassment has occurred, identify a target of the educational harassment, a specific type of the educational harassment, and a context of the educational harassment; select a harassment advisor based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment.” While Applicant’s specification discusses reporting harassment, an actual “harassment report” (Examiner notes a report is a formal, written document that provides a detailed overview of a specific event) is not described, let alone “determine, from the received harassment report, whether educational harassment has occurred”. Further, Applicant’s specification does not teach “identify a target of the educational harassment” or “select a harassment advisor based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment”. Even further, while Applicant’s specification, para 0048, teaches “survivors, lawyers, and counselors”, Applicant’s specification does not teach “a harassment advisor”.
Claim 11 recites: “receiving, via a user input device of a portable electronic device, a harassment report alleging harassment; determining, from the received harassment report via a processor of the portable electronic device, whether educational harassment has occurred; identifying, via the processor in response to a determination that educational harassment has occurred, a target of the educational harassment, a specific type of the educational harassment, and a context of the educational harassment; selecting, via the processor, a harassment advisor based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment;” While Applicant’s specification discusses reporting harassment, an actual “harassment report” (Examiner notes a report is a formal, written document that provides a detailed overview of a specific event) is not described, let alone “determining, from the received harassment report via a processor of the portable electronic device, whether educational harassment has occurred”. Further, Applicant’s specification does not teach “identifying, via the processor in response to a determination that educational harassment has occurred, a target of the educational harassment” or “selecting, via the processor, a harassment advisor based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment”. Even further, while Applicant’s specification, para 0048, teaches “survivors, lawyers, and counselors”, Applicant’s specification does not teach “a harassment advisor”.
Further, Claim 17 recites: “wherein the interactive heat map includes a first user-selectable option to generate a new heat map and a second user-selectable option to convert a heat map into a new file format.” Examiner notes while a heat map is mentioned in Applicant’s specification, this is not the same as “a first user-selectable option to generate a new heat map and a second user-selectable option to convert a heat map into a new file format”.
Further, Claim 18 recites: “generate a set of potential advisor matches for the target based on the specific type of the educational harassment and the contextual behaviors of the educational harassment selected by the target” is not in Applicant’s specification.
Further, Claim 19 recites: “display, to the target via the screen, a proposed advisor from the set of potential advisor matches; receive, from the target via the user input device of the portable electronic device, a refusal to connect with the proposed advisor; and display, to the target via the screen in response to receiving the refusal to connect, a different proposed advisor from the set of potential advisor matches” is not described in Applicant’s specification.
Further, Claim 20 recites: “display, to the target via the screen, a proposed advisor from the set of potential advisor matches; receive, from the target via the user input device of the portable electronic device, a request to connect with the proposed advisor; and display, to the target via the screen in response to receiving the request to connect, an interactive chat window connecting the target with the proposed advisor over a distributed computing network” is not described in Applicant’s specification.
The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2163 I (A)).
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the parent claims and thus dependent claims are rejected on the same basis as indicated above for the respective parent claims.
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 a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-5 and 16-20 are directed to a portable electronic device (i.e. a machine). Claims 6-10 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e. article of manufacture). Claims 11-15 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1, similar to amended claims 6 and 11 recites: display an application icon; receive user inputs and in response to selection displayed, an application for assessing educational harassment, to thereby: receive a harassment report alleging harassment determine whether educational harassment has occurred by assessing contextual data contained within the received harassment report to categorize the contextual data into one or more predefined harassment categories;in response to a determination that educational harassment has occurred, identify a target of the educational harassment, a specific type of the educational harassment, and a context of the educational harassment select a harassment advisor based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment and connect the target of the educational harassment with the harassment advisor.
The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under at least the abstract groupings of:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). As independent claims discuss reporting educational harassment, determining whether educational harassment has occurred by assessing contextual data contained within the received harassment report and connecting the target of the educational harassment with the harassment advisor, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (claim 1, similar to claims 6 and 11, recites for example: “receive user inputs and in response”; “receive a harassment report alleging harassment”. “determine whether educational harassment has occurred by assessing contextual data contained within the received harassment report to categorize the contextual data into one or more predefined harassment categories”, “in response to a determination that educational harassment has occurred”, “identify a target of the educational harassment, a specific type of the educational harassment, and a context of the educational harassment select a harassment advisor based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment”; “connect the target of the educational harassment with the harassment advisor.”) Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, determining, assessing, connecting, categorizing, identifying and analyzing data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Dependent claims add additional limitations, for example: (claim 2) store data on different types of educational harassment reported through the application and respective contextual behaviors associated with each of the different types of educational harassment; (claim 3) assess the data; and categorize the contextual behaviors into relational groupings based on the assessment; (claim 4) wherein storing data on the different types of educational harassment includes segmenting data on discipline specific categories; (claim 7) determine whether the target has accepted the advisor; and in response to determining the target has accepted the advisor, connect the target and the advisor through a chat system; (claim 8) create tailored educational programs based on the educational harassment reported through the application for delivery to specific institutions experiencing that educational harassment; (claim 9) report relevant data to one or more institutions; (claim 10) discuss or form a plan with the one or more advisors; (claim 12) assessing the stored data; categorizing the contextual behaviors into relational groupings based on the assessment; (claim 13) generating a heat map based on the data on the types of educational harassment at various institutions; (claim 14) discussing or forming a plan with the harassment advisor; (claim 15) reporting relevant data to one or more institutions, (claim 16) collect data of a plurality of different types of educational harassment occurring at a plurality of different locations; transform the collected data into an interactive heat map illustrating the different types of educational harassment occurring at the different locations, the interactive heat map representing a magnitude of a frequency of each of the types of educational harassment occurring at each of the different locations with a distinct color; and display the interactive heat map; (claim 17) a new heat map; (claim 18) receive, from the target selections of the specific type of the educational harassment and the contextual behaviors of the educational harassment of the target; and generate a set of potential advisor matches for the target based on the specific type of the educational harassment and the contextual behaviors of the educational harassment selected by the target; (claim 19) display a proposed advisor from the set of potential advisor matches; receive, from the target a refusal to connect with the proposed advisor; and display, to the target in response to receiving the refusal to connect, a different proposed advisor from the set of potential advisor matches; (claim 20) display a proposed advisor from the set of potential advisor matches; receive, from the target a request to connect with the proposed advisor; and display, to the target in response to receiving the request to connect, connecting the target with the proposed advisor, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements (claim 1) a portable electronic device, user input device, user interface, a screen, an app, a processor; (claim 2) memory device (claim 5) one or more clouds; databases (claim 6) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor (claim 17) file format (claim 20) distributed computing network. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). 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. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, claims 1-20 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory 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 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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ervine (US 2014/0280584 A1), hereinafter “Ervine”, over Austin et al. (US 2021/0334921 A1), hereinafter “Austin”.
Regarding Claim 1, Ervine teaches A portable electronic device, comprising: a screen configured to display an application (app) icon; a user input device configured to receive user inputs and a processor programmed to execute, in response to selection of the app icon displayed by the screen, an application for assessing educational harassment, to thereby: (Ervine, para 0005, approximately 160,000 students miss school every day due to the fear of some form of harassment. About 60% of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) students who have been harassed or assaulted in school have not reported the incident. Approximately 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month; Ervine, Abstract, a reporting interface enabling a reporting user to generate a complaint report regarding an unfavorable item (Ervine, para 0038, The term “unfavorable item” is defined herein as items published on the Internet or elsewhere, and is also defined herein to include acts, for example physical bullying or harassment) … the method includes providing an administrator interface (Examiner notes a screen) enabling the administrator to view the complaint report; See at least Ervine, para 0079-0085, teaching the computing system(s) including processor(s); para 0086, teaches a hand held computing system (Examiner notes a portable electronic device));
receive, via the user input device, a harassment report alleging harassment (See at least Ervine, para 0111, teaching the user interface for the report including the user can indicate other persons involved into the incident, identify a type of incident (e.g., select among the types such as physical, verbal, theft, vandalism, and digital threat), identify a location where the incident happened (e.g., select from: on school property, off-site school event, off school property, on bus, and online/digital));
determine whether educational harassment has occurred by assessing contextual data contained within the received harassment report to categorize the contextual data into one or more predefined harassment categories; (Ervine, Figure 4, element 410, teaches receive a complaint from a victim regarding an unfavorable item (harassment); para 0111, teaches the user can indicate other persons involved into the incident, identify a type of incident (e.g., select among the types such as physical, verbal, theft, vandalism, and digital threat), identify a location where the incident happened (e.g., select from: on school property, off-site school event, off school property, on bus, and online/digital). The user can also select the nature of attack (e.g., select from: national origin, race, weight, disability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and sexuality)... the user can also attach evidence);
in response to a determination that educational harassment has occurred, identify a target of the educational harassment, a specific type of the educational harassment, and a context of the educational harassment (See at least Ervine, para 0111, teaching identify complainant identity; Ervine, para 0112, the interface may include time and date of incident, complainant name, safety risk for complainant (urgent, non-urgent), filing time and date, description of incident, possible reasons of incident, possible solution ideas, category of incident, location of incident, type of bias, target name, aggressors name, hyperlinks to online evidence);
select a harassment ... based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment and (Ervine, para 0115, select individuals who will be given access to the report for viewing the report, and/or viewing evidence; Ervine, para 0118, the interface may include time and date of incident, complainant name, safety risk for complainant (urgent, non-urgent), description of incident, possible reasons of incident, possible solution ideas, category of incident, location of incident, type of bias, target name, aggressors name, hyperlinks to evidence and/or files (e.g., uploaded photo or video)).
... in a live chat, the target of the educational harassment with the harassment ... through an interactive user interface of the application on the screen (Ervine, para 0088, the school administrator or other authorities can respond appropriately and proportionately to the attack immediately using the administrator interface including crisis live-chat).
Yet, Ervine does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Austin teaches advisor ...connect with advisor (Austin, Abstract, teaches software tools for students and universities; Austin, para 0008, teaches student advisors; Further, Austin, para 0036, teaches advisors (e.g. counselors, mentors, professors, etc.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ervine with advisor ...connect with advisor as taught by Austin with the motivation for an online decision-making tool designed to enable course selection, career-mapping, skills development and attainment, and successful transitions from degree programs to the workforce for student populations (Austin, para 0006). The Ervine invention now incorporating the Austin invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Ervine, now incorporating Austin, teaches The portable electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a memory device configured to store data on different types of educational harassment reported through the application and respective contextual behaviors associated with each of the different types of educational harassment (Ervine, para 0008, teaches memory; para 0056, data storage; See at least Ervine, para 0011, the complaint report can comprise data associated with a description of an incident, data related to a bias type, category of an incident; Further, see Ervine, para 0111, identify a type of incident (e.g., select among the types such as physical, verbal, theft, vandalism, and digital threat), identify a location where the incident happened (e.g., select from: on school property, off-site school event, off school property, on bus, and online/digital). The user can also select the nature of attack (e.g., select from: national origin, race, weight, disability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and sexuality)).
Regarding Claim 3, Ervine, now incorporating Austin, teaches The portable electronic device claim 2, wherein the processor is further programmed to: assess the stored data; and categorize the contextual behaviors into relational groupings based on the assessment of the stored data (Ervine, para 0051, a mobile application interface and/or downloadable mobile application that may access the systems and methods that are stored; Analytics is taught throughout Ervine, see at least para 0110, statistical analysis of bias types associated with reports filed; Further, category type is also taught throughout Ervine, see at least para 0110, teaches analytics and/or statistical data to specific incident location. Other examples may include: specific type of participant or complainant (student aggressors, employee aggressors, unknown), specific gender (male, female), certain age or age period, certain grade, type of bias, category of incident).
Regarding Claim 4, Ervine, now incorporating Austin, teaches The portable electronic device of claim 3, wherein storing data on the different types of educational harassment includes segmenting the stored data based on (Ervine, para 0056-0057, FIG. 1 illustrates cloud-based data storage; Ervine, para 0011, the complaint report can comprise data associated with a description of an incident, data related to a bias type, category of an incident).
Yet, Ervine does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Austin teaches discipline-specific categories (See at least Austin, Figure 2A, majors including Information Technology & Computer Science, Education and Public Service, and more).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ervine with discipline-specific categories as taught by Austin with the motivation for an online decision-making tool designed to enable course selection, career-mapping, skills development and attainment, and successful transitions from degree programs to the workforce for student populations (Austin, para 0006).
Regarding Claim 5, Ervine, now incorporating Austin, teaches The portable electronic device of claim 4, wherein the processor is further programmed to wirelessly transfer the stored data to on one or more cloud storage databases (See at least Ervine, para 0008, teaches processors; Ervine, para 0056-0057, FIG. 1 illustrates cloud-based data storage).
Regarding Claim 18, Ervine, now incorporating Austin, teaches The portable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is programmed to: receive, from the target via the user input device of the portable electronic device, selections of the specific type of the educational harassment and the contextual behaviors of the educational harassment of the target; and (See at least Ervine, Figure 4, element 410, teaches receive a complaint from a victim regarding an unfavorable item (harassment); para 0111, teaches the user can indicate other persons involved into the incident, identify a type of incident (e.g., select among the types such as physical, verbal, theft, vandalism, and digital threat), identify a location where the incident happened (e.g., select from: on school property, off-site school event, off school property, on bus, and online/digital). The user can also select the nature of attack (e.g., select from: national origin, race, weight, disability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and sexuality));
generate a set of potential advisor matches for the target based on the specific type of the educational harassment and the contextual behaviors of the educational harassment selected by the target (Examiner notes generating a set of potential advisor matches for the target is not in Applicant’s own specification, see 112 rejection above. Further, Ervine teaches educational harassment throughout, see at least para 0111; Austin, para 0008, teaches student advisors throughout; Austin, para 0036, teaches advisors (e.g. counselors, mentors, professors, etc.)); See at least Austin, para 0036, teaches students view data including opportunities to flash mentor online and PeopleGrove online. Examiner notes displaying potential matches to a user is obvious in matching platforms. For example, in flash mentor, the user sees a display or a pool of possible mentors (advisors)).
Regarding Claim 19, Ervine, now incorporating Austin, teaches The portable electronic device of claim 18, wherein the processor is further programmed to: display, to the target via the screen, a proposed advisor from the set of potential advisor matches; receive, from the target via the user input device of the portable electronic device, a refusal to connect with the proposed advisor; and display, to the target via the screen in response to receiving the refusal to connect, a different proposed advisor from the set of potential advisor matches (Examiner notes a refusal to connect is not in Applicant’s own specification, see 112 rejection above. Further, Ervine teaches educational harassment throughout, see at least para 0111; Austin, para 0008, teaches student advisors throughout; Austin, para 0036, teaches advisors (e.g. counselors, mentors, professors, etc.)); See at least Austin, para 0036, teaches students view data including opportunities to flash mentor online and PeopleGrove online. Examiner notes displaying potential matches to a user is obvious, and as with most matching platforms, a user can refuse or decline a match/request. For example, in flash mentor, the user sees a display or a pool of possible mentors (advisors) and can refuse the match).
Regarding Claim 20, Ervine, now incorporating Austin, teaches The portable electronic device of claim 18, wherein the processor is further programmed to: display, to the target via the screen, a proposed advisor from the set of potential advisor matches; receive, from the target via the user input device of the portable electronic device, a request to connect with the proposed advisor; and display, to the target via the screen in response to receiving the request to connect, an interactive chat window connecting the target with the proposed advisor over a distributed computing network (Examiner notes generating a set of potential advisor matches for the target is not in Applicant’s own specification, see 112 rejection above. Further, Ervine teaches educational harassment throughout, see at least para 0111; Austin, para 0008, teaches student advisors throughout; Austin, para 0036, teaches advisors (e.g. counselors, mentors, professors, etc.)); See at least Austin, para 0036, teaches students view data including opportunities to flash mentor online and PeopleGrove online. Examiner notes displaying potential matches to a user is common in matching platforms. For example, in flash mentor, the user sees a display or a pool of possible mentors (advisors) and can connect; Further, Ervine, para 0088, can respond appropriately and proportionately to the attack immediately using the interface including live-chat).
Claims 6-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ervine over Weindling (US 11,049,075 B2), hereinafter “Weindling”.
Regarding Claim 6, Ervine teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is recorded instructions, wherein execution of the recorded instructions by a processor of a portable electronic device causes the processor to: (Ervine, para 0015, a non-transitory processor-readable medium having instructions stored thereon is provided. The instructions, when executed by one or more processors, can cause the one or more processors);
receive, via a user input device of the portable electronic device, a harassment report alleging harassment; (See at least Ervine, para 0111, teaching the user interface for the report including the user can indicate other persons involved into the incident, identify a type of incident (e.g., select among the types such as physical, verbal, theft, vandalism, and digital threat), identify a location where the incident happened (e.g., select from: on school property, off-site school event, off school property, on bus, and online/digital));
determine, from the received harassment report, whether educational harassment has occurred; (Ervine, Figure 4, element 410, teaches receive a complaint from a victim regarding an unfavorable item (harassment); para 0111, teaches the user can indicate other persons involved into the incident, identify a type of incident (e.g., select among the types such as physical, verbal, theft, vandalism, and digital threat), identify a location where the incident happened (e.g., select from: on school property, off-site school event, off school property, on bus, and online/digital). The user can also select the nature of attack (e.g., select from: national origin, race, weight, disability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and sexuality)... the user can also attach evidence);
in response to a determination that educational harassment has occurred, identify a target of the educational harassment, a specific type of the educational harassment, and a context of the educational harassment; (See at least Ervine, para 0111, teaching identify complainant identity; Ervine, para 0112, the interface may include time and date of incident, complainant name, safety risk for complainant (urgent, non-urgent), filing time and date, description of incident, possible reasons of incident, possible solution ideas, category of incident, location of incident, type of bias, target name, aggressors name, hyperlinks to online evidence);
select a harassment ... based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment; and (Ervine, para 0115, select individuals who will be given access to the report for viewing the report, and/or viewing evidence; Ervine, para 0118, the interface may include time and date of incident, complainant name, safety risk for complainant (urgent, non-urgent), description of incident, possible reasons of incident, possible solution ideas, category of incident, location of incident, type of bias, target name, aggressors name, hyperlinks to evidence and/or files (e.g., uploaded photo or video));
... in a live chat, the target of the educational harassment with the harassment ...an interactive user interface of an application on a display screen of the portable electronic deviceadvisor ...connect with advisor (Weindling, Col 1, lines 54-56, reporters of unlawful conduct need in certain cases to be connected with counseling (psychologists, lawyers, etc.) and representation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ervine with advisor ...connect with advisor as taught by Weindling with the motivation for a victim notification functions by receiving a report from an accuser regarding conduct of an accused that is believed to constitute harassment, bullying and/or discrimination (Weindling, Abstract). The Ervine invention now incorporating the Weindling invention, has all the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Ervine, now incorporating Weindling, teaches The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 6, wherein execution of the recorded instructions by the processor further causes the processor to: determine whether the target has accepted the advisor; and in response to determining the target has accepted the advisor, connect the target and the advisor through a chat system (Weindling, Figure 1 teaches #NotMe App, and a user connecting via phone app to a team member of #NotMe. Weindling teaches a communication system, see at least Col 3, lines 38-50, teaching users of the victim notification system, whether they be employees, employers, or others working in conjunction with the victim notification system 10, communicate with the victim notification system 10 via a global communication network).
Regarding Claim 8, Ervine, now incorporating Weindling, teaches The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein execution of the recorded instructions by the processor further causes the processor to create tailored educational programs based on the educational harassment reported through the application for delivery to specific institutions experiencing that educational harassment (Ervine, Abstract and para 0088, teaches receive recommendations from a curated library or resources. These may include videos, interactive learning, curriculum, books, articles, crisis live-chat, hotlines, and many more; Further, para 0109, The Learning Center also provides digital metrics (measures of bullying, harassment and digital bullying/harassment). A user logs in and clicks on the resource center, and based on their accumulated report data through the reporting system, content and resources at the individual and community level are displayed.)
Regarding Claim 9, Ervine, now incorporating Weindling, teaches The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein execution of the recorded instructions by the processor further causes the processor to report relevant data to one or more institutions (Ervine, para 0088, provide for reporting, alerting, reviewing, and helping in resolving attacks directed to minors and students in schools and colleges. The reporting interface can be utilized by a victim (or witness) to make a complaint report. Once the complaint report is generated, the technology enables to alert a school administrator with details of the incident).
Regarding Claim 10, Ervine, now incorporating Weindling, teaches The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein execution of the recorded instructions by the processor further causes the processor to discuss or form a plan with the one or more advisors (Ervine, para 0068, counsels a victim; Further, Weindling, Col 1, lines 54-56, teaches counseling and representation to assist a user dealing with the unlawful conduct.)
Regarding Claim 11, Ervine teaches A method for assessing educational harassment, the method comprising: (Ervine, para 0005, approximately 160,000 students miss school every day due to the fear of some form of harassment. About 60% of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) students who have been harassed or assaulted in school have not reported the incident. Approximately 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month);
receiving, via a user input device of a portable electronic device, a harassment report alleging harassment; (See at least Ervine, para 0111, teaching the user interface for the report including the user can indicate other persons involved into the incident, identify a type of incident (e.g., select among the types such as physical, verbal, theft, vandalism, and digital threat), identify a location where the incident happened (e.g., select from: on school property, off-site school event, off school property, on bus, and online/digital));
determining, from the received harassment report via a processor of the portable electronic device, whether educational harassment has occurred; (Ervine, Figure 4, element 410, teaches receive a complaint from a victim regarding an unfavorable item (harassment); para 0111, teaches the user can indicate other persons involved into the incident, identify a type of incident (e.g., select among the types such as physical, verbal, theft, vandalism, and digital threat), identify a location where the incident happened (e.g., select from: on school property, off-site school event, off school property, on bus, and online/digital). The user can also select the nature of attack (e.g., select from: national origin, race, weight, disability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and sexuality)... the user can also attach evidence);
identifying, via the processor in response to a determination that educational harassment has occurred, a target of the educational harassment, a specific type of the educational harassment, and a context of the educational harassment; (See at least Ervine, para 0111, teaching identify complainant identity; Ervine, para 0112, the interface may include time and date of incident, complainant name, safety risk for complainant (urgent, non-urgent), filing time and date, description of incident, possible reasons of incident, possible solution ideas, category of incident, location of incident, type of bias, target name, aggressors name, hyperlinks to online evidence);
selecting, via the processor, a harassment ... based on the specific type and the context of the educational harassment; (Ervine, para 0115, select individuals who will be given access to the report for viewing the report, and/or viewing evidence; Ervine, para 0118, the interface may include time and date of incident, complainant name, safety risk for complainant (urgent, non-urgent), description of incident, possible reasons of incident, possible solution ideas, category of incident, location of incident, type of bias, target name, aggressors name, hyperlinks to evidence and/or files (e.g., uploaded photo or video)).
... in a live chat, ... of the educational harassment with the harassment advisor through an interactive user interface of an application on a display screen of the portable electronic device; (Ervine, para 0088, the school administrator or other authorities can respond appropriately and proportionately to the attack immediately using the administrator interface including crisis live-chat);
storing data on multiple different types of educational harassment reported through the application; (Ervine, para 0118, the interface may include safety risk for complainant (urgent, non-urgent), description of incident, possible reasons of incident, possible solution ideas, category of incident, location of incident, type of bias, etc.; Ervine, para 0051, a mobile application interface and/or downloadable mobile application that may access the systems and methods that are stored);
creating one or more tailored educational programs based on the educational harassment reported through the application for delivery to a plurality of specific institutions experiencing the multiple different types of educational harassment (Ervine, Abstract and para 0088, teaches receive recommendations from a curated library or resources. These may include videos, interactive learning, curriculum, books, articles, crisis live-chat, hotlines, and many more; Further, para 0109, The Learning Center also provides digital metrics (measures of bullying, harassment and digital bullying/harassment). A user logs in and clicks on the resource center, and based on their accumulated report data through the reporting system, content and resources at the individual and community level are displayed. )
Yet, Ervine does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Weindling teaches advisor...connecting the target …advisor (Weindling, Col 1, lines 54-56, reporters of unlawful conduct need in certain cases to be connected with counseling (psychologists, lawyers, etc.) and representation; Weindling teaches a communication system, see at least Col 3, lines 38-50, teaching users of the victim notification system, whether they be employees, employers, or others working in conjunction with the victim notification system 10, communicate with the victim notification system 10 via a global communication network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ervine with advisor...connecting the target …advisor as taught by Weindling with the motivation