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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to amendment filed 06/17/2026. Claims 1, 3, 10-14, 16 and 23 are amended. Claims 2 and 15 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-24 are currently pending in the application.
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, 3-14 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In regard to independent Claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
Step 1: Statutory Category?
The preamble of independent Claim 1 recites “A learning management system comprising:”. Independent Claim 1 falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The Revised 2019 Memorandum is applied as shown in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table below to identify in italics the specific claim limitations found to recite an abstract idea and in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations.
Independent Claim 1
Revised 2019 Guidance
A learning management system comprising:
A system falls under the statutory subject matter class of a machine. See
35 U.S.C. § 101 (“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.”).
[a] a device associated with a user comprising a display
The device comprising a display is a generic computer component.
[b] at least one processor in communication with the display;
The at least one processor in communication with the display is a generic computer component.
[c] and at least one non-transitory memory carrying instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the learning management system to perform operations comprising:
The at least one non-transitory memory and the at least one processor are generic computer components.
[d] generating a database arrangement of a plurality of nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes comprise memory storage configured to store data of respective content, and data of respective numeric attributes and weights representing a measure of the respective content relative to a metric of the plurality of nodes, wherein the metric comprises at least one of a difficulty or a theme of the respective content
The memory storage is a generic computer component.
Generating a database arrangement of a plurality of nodes a plurality of nodes is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[e] generating a dimensional space based on the database arrangement of the plurality of nodes, wherein the dimensional space comprises a memory storage structure of three or more dimensions, and wherein each axis of the dimensional space represents a metric of the plurality of nodes;
The memory storage structure is a generic computer component.
Generating a dimensional space based on the database arrangement of the plurality of nodes… is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[f] storing a first node of the plurality of nodes in the dimensional space in a first position in the dimensional space, wherein the first position corresponds to a position of the respective numeric attributes and weights of the first node relative to each axis of the dimensional space;
Storing a first node of the plurality of nodes in the dimensional space… is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[g] storing a second node of the plurality of nodes in the dimensional space in a
second position in the dimensional space, wherein the second position corresponds to a position of the respective numeric attributes and weights of the second node relative to each axis of the dimensional space;
Storing a second node of the plurality of nodes in the dimensional space… is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[h] selecting a first node of the plurality of nodes based at least in part on a user characteristic of a user
Selecting a first node of the plurality of nodes based at least in part on a user characteristic of a user is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[i] causing display, via the display, a user interface comprising interactive user interface elements corresponding to a first content associated with the first node and a confidence input mechanism, wherein: the first content comprises a question
The display and confidence input mechanism are generic computer components.
Causing display of first content … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data presentation). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[j] the user interface is configured to receive a first user input comprising an answer to the question
Receiving a first user input … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[k] the confidence input mechanism is configured to receive a second user input indicating a confidence level perceived by the user relative to the first user input
The confidence input mechanism is a generic computer component.
Receiving a second user input … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[l] determining a confidence metric associated with the first content based on the second user input
Determining a confidence metric associated with the first content based on the second user input is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[m] evaluating the first user input associated with the first content to determine a veracity of the first user input associated with the first content
Evaluating the first user input associated with the first content to determine a veracity of the first user input is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[n] wherein determining the veracity of the first user input comprises determining a success of the first user input in response to the first content
Determining a success of the user input in response to the first content is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[o] evaluating a user understanding of the first content based on a comparison of the veracity of the first user input and the determined confidence metric
Evaluating a user understanding of the first content based on a comparison of the veracity of the user input and the determined confidence metric is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[p] selecting the second node of the plurality of nodes based at least in part on the user input and the determined confidence metric
Selecting a second node of the plurality of nodes based at least in part on the user input and the determined confidence metric is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[q] and causing display, at the device via the display, of a second content associated with the second node.
The device and display are generic computer components.
Causing display of a second content … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data presentation). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
It is apparent that, other than reciting the additional non-abstract limitations of the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure noted in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human, in the mind, and/or using pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A: Prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The body of the claim, as noted in bold in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, recites the additional limitations of the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure which are recited at a high level of generality. The published Specification provides supporting exemplary descriptions of generic computer components: at least [0014]:… a display, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory memories carrying instructions configured to cause the system to perform operations… at least one confidence input mechanism or a user confidence input …; [0016]:… the at least one confidence input mechanism includes a plurality of input mechanisms corresponding to respective answers to a multiple-choice question; [0018]:… using a machine learning algorithm based on the generated dimensional space …; [0023]:… the at least one confidence input mechanism comprises a slider configured to be manipulated by the user… The lack of details about the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure indicates that these additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions of displaying data and prompting for data. Even assuming arguendo the “at least one confidence input mechanism” is a slider, the slider is a well-known and routine graphic display element generally used to input/select data. Any improvements provided by the claim are in the abstract realm, and they are insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.”). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 90 (2012) (holding that a novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless patent-ineligible). Also see also Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”) (Emphasis omitted). The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claimed invention merely implements the abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer components, as shown in bold type in Table One, and as supported in the above noted pertinent portions of the Specification. Thus, the instant claim merely uses a programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Each of steps [f], [g], [j] and [k] (i.e., data gathering), and [i] and [q] (i.e., data presentation) as shown in Table One, reflects the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Hence, the claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Hence, as per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), the additional elements in representative claim 1, namely the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Even assuming arguendo a slider input mechanism is used to indicate a confidence metric value it would still represent data gathering and/or data presentation since it is a recitation of a generic display element used for inputting/selecting data which represent generic, routine, conventional computer activities. Because the Specification describes the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the published Specification, as noted above. The published Specification merely refers to the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure at a high level of generality, merely in terms of their functions without any further elaboration, and suggests that associated technologies are preexisting, routine tools that are adapted to the abstract idea of the claim. More specifically, the published Specification, as noted above, supports a finding that the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure are generic, or part of generic devices such as general purpose computers having generic components to perform the functions of [f], [g], [j] and [k] (i.e., data gathering), and [i] and [q] (i.e., data presentation), which represent insignificant pre-solution activity of data presentation, as noted in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, that courts have determined to be insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim limitations do not recite any technical or technological implementations details for any of the claim steps, but rather functional results to be achieved by any and all means. Consistent with the Berkheimer requirement, the evidence presented supports a finding that the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting technical or technological detail that confines the claim to a particular technical or technological solution to an identified problem other than based on the determination of a particular value. The claim limitations do not specify any particular manner for performing the claim steps that improves the relevant technology. Mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. In other words, using computers as tools to perform functions that can be mental processes (an abstract idea) does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (Finding “if [the] recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.”) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted).
As stated earlier, any improvements provided by the claim are to a process that is itself abstract. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The sequence of generating, generating, storing, storing, selecting, causing display, receiving, receiving, determining, evaluating, determining, evaluating, selecting and causing display is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional. The claims recite functions to be performed by any and all possible means, absent any technological details. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The claims thus do not go beyond "stating [ the relevant] functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology."). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
In regard to independent Claim 14:
Independent claim 14 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium carrying instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising steps comparable to those of representative claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 14 is rejected similarly to independent claim 1.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 3-13 and 16-24 include all the limitations of respective independent claims 1 and 14 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for respective claims 11 and 14. Any additional claim element, for example, a plurality of input mechanisms, is recited as being used according to its conventional purpose in a conventional manner. The Examiner fails to see any claim activity used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. An invocation to use known technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and conventional. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 3-13 and 16-24 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. While dependent claims 3-13 and 16-24 may have a narrower scope than the representative claims, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 3-13 and 16-24 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that “the Office Action has failed to meet the initial burden "to explain why a claim or claims are ineligible for patenting clearly and specifically, so that applicant has sufficient notice and is able to effectively respond." MPEP 2106.07”and that “[T]he Office has failed to explain how the generation of the database arrangement and dimensional space is directed to a social activity, teaching, or following rules or instructions”. In support of the above, Applicant further asserts that, in the Advisory Action dated 05/07/2026, “the Office does not address how the recited claims are allegedly directed to a method of organizing human activity and only addresses how the recited claims allegedly recite a mental process”. The Examiner respectfully submits that contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the detailed office actions presented to this point are consistent with Office Guidance and case law as shown below.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s reference to MPEP 2125 but fails to see how this reference contradicts the Examiner’s finding. In particular, as noted in the Specification and the instant claims recite “the dimensional space comprises a memory storage structure of three or more dimensions, and wherein each axis of the dimensional space represents a metric of the plurality of nodes” and the originally filed disclosure of the instant application as reproduced in the published specification (¶ 77) discloses “the metrics are determined. The plurality of metrics comprises a confidence metric”. Additionally, in Synopsis, the Federal Circuit contrasted the claims to those at issue in TQP Development. Synopsis, Inc., v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing TQP Dev., LLC v. Intuit, No. 2:12–cv–180 WCB, 2014 WL 651935 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014)). The claims in TQP Development were to an encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data that, except in its most simplistic form, could not conceivably be performed in the human mind. TQP, 2014 WL 651935 at *1. Here, in contrast, the originally filed disclosure of the instant application as reproduced in the published specification (¶ 2) discloses the claimed invention relates to “dynamically assessing knowledge of a given user on a given topic”. Humans have long assessed knowledge of other humans. Additionally, teaching generally involves assessment interaction/activity based on desired metrics which, in the instant case, is evidenced at least by display of question and receipt of answer through user interface, which supports the finding that the claims not only recite mental processes but also recite certain methods of organizing human activity — i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Representative claim 1 is thus readily distinguishable from the claims in TQP/Synopsis. The Examiner maintains that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the present claims recite features that can be performed in the human mind using pencil and paper when the sample size is as small as claimed. In particular, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the sample size of the data is limited to three metrics (X, Y and N), as claimed and shown on Fig. 3 and ¶ 77 and, as such, the sample size of the data can be performed in the human mind using pencil and paper.
Applicant then argues that the “Office reaches its mental-process characterization only by evaluating claim 1 at its most general level, by equating the claimed dimensional space to the example illustration of FIG. 3. That is not permitted: a claim must be evaluated as a whole and "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims," McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and "[e]xaminers and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality," nor dismiss elements as generic "without adequate explanation," Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025) (Appeals Review Panel) (precedential).” Applicant argument is misplaced. The above rejections, including the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table, clearly describe that the limitations of representative claim 1 taken alone or in combination recites (an) abstract idea(s). Additionally, Applicant is respectfully reminded that “[T]o be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, we have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In the present case, Applicant failed to identify and the Examiner failed to find in the originally filed disclosure of the instant application as reproduced in the published specification any indication of improvements in the functioning of the machine learning system itself. See Desjardins, at 8–9. In particular, the originally filed disclosure of the instant application as reproduced in the published specification (¶¶ 31, 86) discloses “appropriate conditional distributions can be learned by commonly known machine-learning techniques, for example using a neural network” (emphasis added), “conditional distributions can, for example, be learned by employing commonly-known machine-learning techniques (for example, by employing neural networks) or learned manually (emphasis added)”.
The Examiner acknowledges that, as noted in Desjardins, “under Enfish, that "software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology," and instructs that, examiners "should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality" or dismiss claim elements as generic computer components without adequate explanation. Additionally, the disclosed improvement is reflected in the claim language itself, satisfying the requirement that "the claim itself reflect[] the disclosed improvement." MPEP 2106.05(a)”. However, as noted in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016), “We . . . look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.”, citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”). Applicant’s Enfish arguments are unavailing particularly in view of the fact that these arguments rely on facts (“the distance between nodes in the dimensional space represents a relationship between the content items”) outside the scope of the claims because “distance” is not claimed.
Applicant’s arguments that “claimed features do not merely recite a desired function, but do recite technical implementation details for the claim steps” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as shown below.
The claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea because each of the storing “data of respective content and data of respective numeric attributes and weights representing a measure of the respective content relative to a metric of the plurality of nodes, wherein the metric comprises at least one of a difficulty or a theme of the respective content", “data of respective content and data of respective numeric attributes and weights representing a measure of the respective content relative to a metric of the plurality of nodes, wherein the metric comprises at least one of a difficulty or a theme of the respective content", is mere extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering) and does not improve the technological field. The limitations "wherein the dimensional space comprises a memory storage structure of three or more dimensions, and wherein each axis of the dimensional space represents a metric of the plurality of nodes," "wherein the first position corresponds to a position of the respective numeric attributes and weights of the first node relative to each axis of the dimensional space," and "wherein the second position corresponds to a position of the respective numeric attributes and weights of the second node relative to each axis of the dimensional space" among other technical implementation details” simply describe/further describe information stored.
Applicant’s reliance on Trading Techs. lnt'I, Inc. v. COG, Inc., to assert that similarly “claim 1 recites a specific structured graphical user interface that improves the accuracy of the confidence metric by displaying the confidence input mechanism and receiving a second user input via the confidence input mechanism” and that “[A]s such, claim 1 does recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception” is unavailing. In Trading Technologies International v. CQG, Inc., the court held eligible claims reciting a method for displaying and facilitating trading of market information relating to a traded commodity, including dynamically displaying an indicator in each of a GUI's bid and ask display regions, the regions positioned along a common static price axis. Trading Techs., 675 F. App’x at 1002–06. The claimed invention in that case also displayed an order entry region with locations for receiving trade order commands, and, responsive to selecting a particular location, (1) commodity-related trade order parameters were set, and (2) a trade order was sent to an electronic exchange. Id. at 1003. Notably, the court held that claimed invention did not simply display information on a graphical user interface, but rather required a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with prescribed functionality directly related to the interface’s structure that addressed and resolved a specifically-identified problem in the art and, therefore, was not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1004. That is not the case here, wherein the outcome is to display content selected based on user understanding of content.
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner maintains that each of Applicant’s claims
1, 3-14 and 16-24, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights