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 9 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 11, “an account” should read “the account” as the limitation has antecedence in claim 1.
In claim 10, line 11, “an account” should read “the account” as the limitation has antecedence in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a pet collection module” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“a pet collection module” - Interpreted as a software module stored on the computer storage media and executed by the processor, configured to be implemented on a server to perform the processes of creating, serializing, storing, and managing a pet collection as part of a virtual environment and the corresponding sub steps including incentivization of desired behaviors using reward in the form of coins, per paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0032-0043.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a computer storage media including a process, the process including the steps of a student purchasing a pet within the educational system, and create a pet object for the pet within a pet collection of the student. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are a student purchasing a pet within the system and creating an object of/for the pet within a collection. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (judgement (create a pet object)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (purchasing a pet). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are the storage media storing computer executable instructions which when executed implement an architecture for an educational system to facilitate proactive engagement of specific student behaviors; a pet collection module configured to be deployed on an API server and to interface with client-side components that render a virtual environment; serialize the pet collection of the student; and store the serialized pet collection of the student in association with an account of the student within the educational system.. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are merely serializing data for storage and storing the data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The other additional elements of computer executable instructions and a pet collection module are generic computer components/computer instructions for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraphs 0016, 0019, 0053, and 0054 of the specification states the client devices may be a desktop, laptop, tablet, or other computing devices and the system may be practiced in a networked or distributed environment known to those skilled in the art. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) of serializing and storing the pet collection is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of computer executable instructions implementing an architecture and a pet collection module used to perform the process are generic computing components/instructions used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to eligible subject matter as it is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-11 are dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of the independent claim. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2 and 4 recite further instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device including defining the architecture as including data structures, storing the data in association with a student account by storing the collection in an entry of the data structure, and instantiating a collection and adding the pet object to the collection. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 3 and 7 recite clarification of the types of data used/comprising the request to create the pet including identifiers and the coin being associated with a desired behavior. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11 recite further abstract ideas including adding the pet object to a list (mental process), creating a coin object and adding the coin object to the pet collection (mental process), receiving a notification that the student has earned a coin (CMOHA; mental process), accessing the coin object to determine that the earned coin matches the desired coin (mental process), updating an experience metric (mental process), the student purchasing an accessory (CMOHA), create an accessory object (mental process), update the pet object (mental process), receive a request to feed a pet (mental process), determine a desired food of the pet (mental process), incrementing a hearts metric (mental process), and select new desired food and adding the new desired food (mental process). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities and instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device including loading, serializing, and storing the pet and collection and rendering a representation of the pet. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-11 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
Claim 12 recites a process, the process including the steps of creating a pet collection that defines the respective student’s pet in a virtual environment of the educational system and any coins desired by the respective student’s pet, including a pet collection of a first student that includes a first pet object defining a first pet of the first student; receiving a request, initiated by a teacher, to cause the first pet of the first student of the plurality of students to desire a first coin; and creating a coin object for the first coin and adding the coin object to the pet collection of the first student to thereby represent that the first pet of the first student desires the first coin. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are creating a pet collection for a student with the student’s pet and coins, receiving a request by a teacher for the pet to desire a coin, and creating a coin object for the coin and adding it to the collection. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (judgement (creating a collection, receiving a requestion, creating a coin object)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (receiving a request to cause the first pet to desire a coin as the coin corresponds to a corresponding desired behavior). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are implemented by an architecture that includes a pet collection module; in response to the request, loading the pet collection of the first student; and causing a representation of the first pet of the first student to be presented in the virtual environment with a representation of the first coin. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are merely loading data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and displaying the results of the process. The other additional elements of an architecture including a pet collection module are generic computer components/instructions for performing the above method with a generic computing device, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraphs 0016, 0019, 0053, and 0054 of the specification states the client devices may be a desktop, laptop, tablet, or other computing devices and the system may be practiced in a networked or distributed environment known to those skilled in the art. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) of loading the collection and causing a representation to be displayed is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of an architecture including a pet collection module used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claim 12 is not directed to eligible subject matter as it is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 13-19 are dependent from claim 12 and include all the limitations of the independent claim. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 13, 15, and 19 recite further abstract ideas including receiving a notification that a coin has been awarded (CMOHA; mental process), accessing the coin object to determine that the awarded coin matches the desired coin (mental process), incrementing an experience metric (mental process), receive a request to feed a pet (mental process), identify a desired food of the pet (mental process), incrementing a hearts metric based on determining the food matches (mental process), and wherein each of the pet collections is created in response to the student’s request to purchase a pet (CMOHA; mental process). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities and instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device including loading the pet and pet collection and rendering a representation of the pet. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims
The limitations of claims 14, 16, and 17 recite clarification of the types of data used/comprising the module including the coin being associated with a desired behavior and the amount a metric is incremented by. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claim 18 recite further instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device including storing serialized versions of the data in association with identifiers of a student. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 13-19 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
Claim 20 recites a computer system for performing a process, the process including the steps of receiving a notification that a first student has purchased a first pet from the reward store; creating a pet collection for the first student; creating a first pet object for the first pet; receiving a notification that a first teacher has sent a coin to the first pet; creating a first coin object for the coin sent to the first pet; receiving a notification that the first student has earned a coin; accessing the first coin object in the pet collection for the first student to determine that the earned coin matches the coin sent to the first pet; and incrementing an experience metric in the pet collection for the first student. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are receiving notification that a student has purchased a pet from the store, creating a pet collection for the student, creating a pet object for the pet, receiving a notification that a teacher has sent a coin, creating the coin object for the coin, receiving a notification that the student earned a coin, determining if the earned coin matches the sent coin by accessing the coin object, and incrementing an experience metric. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (judgement (creating a pet collection; creating a first pet object; creating a first coin object; determining that the earned coin matches the coin sent; incrementing an experience metric), observation (receiving the notifications (purchase, sent coin, earned coin)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (receiving a notification that a first student has purchased a first pet; receiving a notification that a teacher has sent a coin; receiving a notification that the student has earned a coin). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claim 20 recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are one or more hardware components on which an API server is deployed, the API server including a pet collection module, a reward store in which pets are available for purchase, and one or more application programming interfaces by which client-side components access the pet collection module and the reward store; wherein the pet collection module is configured to facilitate proactive engagement of specific student behaviors within the educational system by performing the method; storing the first pet object in the pet collection for the first student; and storing the first coin object in the pet collection for the first student. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are merely storing data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The other additional elements of one or more hardware components, an API server including a pet collection module, a reward store, and one or more APIs on a client-side component are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraphs 0016, 0019, 0053, and 0054 of the specification states the client devices may be a desktop, laptop, tablet, or other computing devices and the system may be practiced in a networked or distributed environment known to those skilled in the art. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) of storing the first pet object and storing the first coin object is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of one or more hardware components, an API server, a Pet collection module, a reward store, and one or more APIs used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claim 20 is not directed to eligible subject matter as it is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. (US PGPub 20230009304), hereinafter referred to as Jakobsson, in view of Schramm-Apple et al. (US PGPub 20030217159), hereinafter referred to as Schramm and supported by Dohring et al. (US PGPub 20140099624), hereinafter referred to as Dohring.
With regard to claim 1, Jakobsson teaches one or more computer storage media storing computer executable instructions (Paragraphs 0024, 0086, 0105, 0184, 0297 teach the system can include non-transitory computer readable storage mediums having instructions executable by the processor to perform the processes) which when executed implement an architecture for an educational system to facilitate proactive engagement of specific student behaviors (Paragraphs 0305, 0370 teach the system can be applied to various environments including classroom/educational settings to support and motivate students using rendered content), the architecture comprising:
a pet collection module configured to be deployed on an API server and to interface with client-side components that render a virtual environment (Paragraphs 0024, 0161, 0184, 0281, 0284, 0331 teach the system includes executable instructions executed by a processor which may be on a server computer or enterprise server networked with another device (client-side components) executing the process instructions including APIs in order to render a virtual environment);
wherein, in response to a student purchasing a pet within the educational system (Paragraphs 0148, 0160-0162 teach the user can purchase NFTs including NFTs of pets), the pet collection module is configured to create a pet object for the pet within a pet collection of the student (Paragraphs 0148, 0284, 0318 teach the system can render the content including models based on the NFTs purchased including pet NFTs such that the system includes creating pet models/objects as part of a user’s digital wallet (collection)).
Jakobsson may not explicitly teach serialize the pet collection of the student, and store the serialized pet collection of the student in association with an account of the student within the educational system. However, Schramm teaches a system and method for sharing educational session information including serializing and storing a user profile object including user data and session data (Paragraphs 0039-0044), and Dohring teaches data serialization of user data files including learner accounts within an educational system are known to hose in the art wherein the account includes data describing each learner (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Schramm by applying the technique of serializing user data including a user profile/account of Schramm for the user media wallet/NFT collection of Jakobsson, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Schramm to improve Jakobsson as the use of serialization and deserialization as a means of data management and transmission is well-known in the art as supported by Dohring. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson by coding the system to serialize user purchased media and content including NFTs of pets and the corresponding models and content into a user data object stored in association with a user/student profile/account within the system. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson would include serialize the pet collection of the student, and store the serialized pet collection of the student in association with an account of the student within the educational system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Schramm with Jakobsson’s system and method in order to store and transmit user data as needed as serialization is a well-known technique per Dohring.
With regard to claim 2, Jakobsson further teaches wherein the architecture includes one or more user data structures (Paragraphs 0161-0162, 0182, 0194, 0455 teach the system can include various data structures including blockchain, media wallets, and hash structures), and wherein storing the serialized pet collection of the student in association with the account of the student within the educational system comprises storing the serialized pet collection of the student in an entry for the student in the one or more user data structures (Paragraphs 0161-0162, 0182, 0194, 0455 teach the NFTs including user NFTs and data can be stored in a user wallet associated with a specific user storing the corresponding NFTs including pet NFTs).
With regard to claim 3, Jakobsson further teaches wherein, in response to the student purchasing the pet within the educational system, the pet collection module receives a request to create the pet that includes an identifier of the student and an identifier of the pet (Paragraphs 0161-0162, 0165, 0170, 0220 teach a user can use their specific wallet to purchase or transact NFTs, which, as discussed above, can include pet NFTs and models, wherein the NFT and user have unique keys (identifiers) used to authenticate the transaction).
With regard to claim 4, Jakobsson, as discussed above, teaches the user can utilize wallet application to obtain and transfer NFTs including pet NFTs and models wherein a user purchasing an NFT would add the NFT and model to their wallet/collection (Paragraphs 0148, 0160-0162, 0284, 0318), but may not explicitly teach wherein creating the pet object for the pet within the pet collection of the student comprises one of: instantiating a pet collection, deserializing the serialized pet collection of the student into the instantiated pet collection, and adding the pet object for the pet to the instantiated pet collection; or instantiating a default pet collection and adding the pet object for the pet to the instantiated pet collection. However, as discussed above, Schramm teaches a system and method for sharing educational session information including serializing and storing a user profile object including user data and session data and deserialization of the user profiled and data to continue a session (Paragraphs 0039-0044), and Dohring teaches data serialization of user data files including learner accounts within an educational system are known to hose in the art wherein the account includes data describing each learner (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Schramm by applying the technique of serializing user data including a user profile/account of Schramm for the user media wallet/NFT collection of Jakobsson, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Schramm to improve Jakobsson as the use of serialization and deserialization as a means of data management and transmission is well-known in the art as supported by Dohring. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson by coding the system to serialize user purchased media and content including NFTs of pets and the corresponding models and content into a user data object stored in association with a user/student profile/account within the system such that the user’s wallet is serialized and can then be deserialized when the user opens a new instance of a media wallet application and can add new purchases and session data to the wallet/deserialized profile. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson would include instantiating a pet collection, deserializing the serialized pet collection of the student into the instantiated pet collection, and adding the pet object for the pet to the instantiated pet collection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Schramm with Jakobsson’s system and method in order to store and transmit user data as needed as serialization and deserialization are well-known techniques per Dohring.
With regard to claim 5, Jakobsson further teaches wherein creating the pet object for the pet within the pet collection comprises adding the pet object to a list of pet objects in the pet collection (Paragraphs 0157, 0165, 0219, 0222 teach the user can utilize media wallets to obtain and/or transfer NFTs including purchasing NFTs which are thereby added to the wallet which includes lists/indexes including gallery views of the owned NFTs such that added NFTs including pet NFTs are added to the lists upon addition to the wallet).
Claim(s) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tojek et al. (US PGPub 20030059760), hereinafter referred to as Tojek, and further in view of Kong (US 8628392).
With regard to claim 6, Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring teach serializing and deserializing user data for storage and transmission as discussed above (see prior art rejections of claims 1 and 4) but may not explicitly teach wherein the pet collection module is further configured to: receive a request, initiated by a teacher, to add a desired coin to the pet collection of the student; in response to the request to add the desired coin, loading the serialized pet collection of the student; creating a coin object for the desired coin and adding the coin object to the pet collection of the student; after the coin object has been added to the pet collection of the student, serialize the pet collection and store the serialized pet collection in association with the account of the student within the educational system; and cause the client-side components to render, in the virtual environment, a representation of the pet in which the pet desires the desired coin to thereby incentivize the student to earn the desired coin within the educational system. However, Tojek teaches a learning system and method for incentivizing student behavior by awarding electronic tokens to students when a student satisfies a predefined incentive criterion wherein the token (coin) and academic data including criterion are stored in a user’s profile and the predefined criterion can be assigned by the teacher/instructor (Paragraphs 0039, 0059)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring to incorporate the teachings of Tojek by applying the technique of allowing teachers to assign educational content to a student including criterion that when completed deliver a token incentive to the student of Tojek for the educational content and management of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Tojek to improve Jakobsson in the same way by providing means to incentivize student learning. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring by coding the system to allow teachers/instructors to assign educational content including assignments and instructional material including tasks/predefined criterion for students to complete to receive electronic tokens that are added, in addition to the other educational data including the criterion (desired tokens), to the student profile which would thereby be included in the user data and wallet upon serializing the data. Further, the electronic token can be modeled by the system of Jakobsson to include a model (coin object) of the awarded tokens as displayed content. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring would include receive a request, initiated by a teacher, to add a desired coin to the pet collection of the student; in response to the request to add the desired coin, loading the serialized pet collection of the student; creating a coin object for the desired coin and adding the coin object to the pet collection of the student; after the coin object has been added to the pet collection of the student, serialize the pet collection and store the serialized pet collection in association with the account of the student within the educational system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Tojek with Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring’s system and method in order to incentivize student engagement with educational content and track user performance and data.
Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek may not explicitly teach cause the client-side components to render, in the virtual environment, a representation of the pet in which the pet desires the desired coin to thereby incentivize the student to earn the desired coin within the educational system. However, Kong teaches an educational game method and system for facilitating managing tasks by providing a user a virtual pet with needs linked to task completion by a user such that the virtual pet has a rendered/displayed status such as hunger or thirst wherein the completion of user tasks can include rewards including feeding or caring for the virtual pet thereby linking completion of the task to the desires and animation (rendering) of the pet (Abstract; Col 2, line 57 – Col 3, line 2; Col 7, line 30 – Col 8, line 40; Col 8, lines 56-66; Col 10, lines 16-26; Col 11, lines 48-52).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek to incorporate the teachings of Kong by linking the completion of user tasks/criteria with a virtual pets status and rendering the pet animations of Kong for the rendered educational content of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems including virtual pets. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek by coding the system to animate/render the pet NFT model of Jakobsson to include animation of the pets status wherein the status would be linked to the user’s criteria/tasks assigned by a teacher as taught by Tojek wherein completion of the tasks awards tokens/coins for use with the rendered virtual pet to feed and care for the pet such that when the pet health or hunger is a threshold the animation would include incentive for the student to earn a token based on predefined criteria. Examiner notes that the exact animation is non-functional printed matter and an aesthetic design choice as the functional limitations of the instant application are to assign a desired task/target (coin) and present a reward (the coin) to the user upon completion including using a virtual character/avatar/pet to incentivize the student. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found these functions obvious in view of the teachings of the cited reference and the exact design of the reward (coin object) and desires of the pet are merely aesthetic design choices that would require no further modification of the cited combination beyond design choices. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek would include cause the client-side components to render, in the virtual environment, a representation of the pet in which the pet desires the desired coin to thereby incentivize the student to earn the desired coin within the educational system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kong with Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek’s system and method in order to further incentivize student engagement with educational content and incentivize a user to complete assigned tasks/criterion.
With regard to claim 7, Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring may not explicitly teach wherein the desired coin is associated with a desired student behavior. However, as discussed above, Tojek teaches a learning system and method for incentivizing student behavior by awarding electronic tokens to students when a student satisfies a predefined incentive criterion wherein the token (coin) is thereby associated with the predefined criterion (desired behavior) (Paragraphs 0039, 0059).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring to incorporate the teachings of Tojek by applying the technique of allowing teachers to assign educational content to a student including criterion that when completed deliver a token incentive to the student of Tojek for the educational content and management of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Tojek to improve Jakobsson in the same way by providing means to incentivize student learning. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring by coding the system to allow teachers/instructors to assign educational content including assignments and instructional material including tasks/predefined criterion for students to complete to receive electronic tokens that are added, in addition to the other educational data including the criterion (desired tokens), to the student profile which would thereby be included in the user data and wallet upon serializing the data. Further, the electronic token can be modeled by the system of Jakobsson to include a model (coin object) of the awarded tokens as displayed content. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring would include wherein the desired coin is associated with a desired student behavior. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Tojek with Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring’s system and method in order to incentivize student engagement with educational content and track user performance and data.
With regard to claim 8, Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring teach serializing and deserializing user data for storage and transmission as discussed above (see prior art rejections of claims 1 and 4) but may not explicitly teach wherein the pet collection module is further configured to: in response to receiving a notification that the student has earned a coin within the educational system, loading the serialized pet collection of the student; accessing the coin object in the pet collection of the student to determine that the earned coin matches the desired coin; in response to determining that the earned coin matches the desired coin, updating an experience metric in the pet collection of the student; and after updating the experience metric in the pet collection of the student, serialize the pet collection and store the serialized pet collection in association with the account of the student within the educational system. However, as discussed above, Tojek teaches a learning system and method for incentivizing student behavior by awarding electronic tokens to students when a student satisfies a predefined incentive criterion wherein the token (coin) is thereby associated with the predefined criterion (desired behavior) thereby matching the token with a desired coin and updating a number of earned tokens (experience metric) within a student profile which can be displayed (Paragraphs 0039, 0059).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring to incorporate the teachings of Tojek by applying the technique of allowing teachers to assign educational content to a student including criterion that when completed deliver a token incentive to the student of Tojek for the educational content and management of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Tojek to improve Jakobsson in the same way by providing means to incentivize student learning. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring by coding the system to allow teachers/instructors to assign educational content including assignments and instructional material including tasks/predefined criterion for students to complete to receive electronic tokens that are added, in addition to the other educational data including the criterion (desired tokens), to the student profile which would thereby be included in the user data and wallet upon serializing the data/profile wherein the earned token is for the completed predefined criterion thereby matching the criterion (desired coin) and tracking earned coins in a displayed number. While the number of earned tokens is not explicitly an “experience metric”, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the number of earned tokens a metric and reflective of a student’s performance/experience which is incremented upon receipt of tokens. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring would include wherein the pet collection module is further configured to: in response to receiving a notification that the student has earned a coin within the educational system, loading the serialized pet collection of the student; accessing the coin object in the pet collection of the student to determine that the earned coin matches the desired coin; in response to determining that the earned coin matches the desired coin, updating an experience metric in the pet collection of the student; and after updating the experience metric in the pet collection of the student, serialize the pet collection and store the serialized pet collection in association with the account of the student within the educational system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Tojek with Jakobsson in view of Schramm and Dohring’s system and method in order to incentivize student engagement with educational content and track user performance and data.
With regard to claim 9, Jakobsson further teaches wherein, in response to the student purchasing an accessory within the educational system (Paragraph 0356 teach the user can buy accessories for their characters (pets)), the pet collection module is configured to: create an accessory object for the accessory within the pet collection of the student; update the pet object for the pet within the pet collection of the student to associate the accessory with the pet; after creating the accessory object for the accessory within the pet collection and updating the pet object for the pet to associate the accessory with the pet (Paragraphs 0148, 0284, 0318, 0356 teach the system can render the content including models based on the NFTs purchased including pet NFTs and purchased accessories such that the system includes creating pet models/objects and accessories such that purchased accessories are associated/used with the character/pet and update the corresponding character/pet as part of a user’s digital wallet (collection)) but may not explicitly teach wherein, in response to the student purchasing an accessory within the educational system, the pet collection module is configured to: load the serialized pet collection of the student; after creating the accessory object for the accessory within the pet collection and updating the pet object for the pet to associate the accessory with the pet, serialize the pet collection of the student; and store the serialized pet collection of the student in association with an account of the student within the educational system. However, as discussed above, Schramm teaches a system and method for sharing educational session information including serializing and storing a user profile object including user data and session data and deserialization of the user profiled and data to continue a session (Paragraphs 0039-0044), and Dohring teaches data serialization of user data files including learner accounts within an educational system are known to hose in the art wherein the account includes data describing each learner (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Schramm by applying the technique of serializing user data including a user profile/account of Schramm for the user media wallet/NFT collection of Jakobsson, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Schramm to improve Jakobsson as the use of serialization and deserialization as a means of data management and transmission is well-known in the art as supported by Dohring. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson by coding the system to serialize user purchased media and content including NFTs of pets and the corresponding models and content into a user data object stored in association with a user/student profile/account within the system such that the user’s wallet is serialized and can then be deserialized when the user opens a new instance of a media wallet application and can add new purchases and session data to the wallet/deserialized profile. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson would include wherein, in response to the student purchasing an accessory within the educational system, the pet collection module is configured to: load the serialized pet collection of the student; after creating the accessory object for the accessory within the pet collection and updating the pet object for the pet to associate the accessory with the pet, serialize the pet collection of the student; and store the serialized pet collection of the student in association with an account of the student within the educational system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Schramm with Jakobsson’s system and method in order to store and transmit user data as needed as serialization and deserialization are well-known techniques per Dohring.
With regard to claim 10, Jakobsson may not explicitly teach wherein the pet collection module is further configured to: receive a request, initiated by the student, to feed a type of food to the pet; in response to the request to feed the type of food to the pet, loading the serialized pet collection of the student; accessing the pet object within the pet collection of the student to determine a desired food of the pet; in response to determining that the type of food matches the desired food, incrementing a hearts metric defined in the pet object for the pet; after incrementing the hearts metric, serialize the pet collection of the student; and store the serialized pet collection of the student in association with an account of the student within the educational system. However, as discussed above, Schramm teaches a system and method for sharing educational session information including serializing and storing a user profile object including user data and session data and deserialization of the user profiled and data to continue a session (Paragraphs 0039-0044), and Dohring teaches data serialization of user data files including learner accounts within an educational system are known to hose in the art wherein the account includes data describing each learner (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Schramm by applying the technique of serializing user data including a user profile/account of Schramm for the user media wallet/NFT collection of Jakobsson, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Schramm to improve Jakobsson as the use of serialization and deserialization as a means of data management and transmission is well-known in the art as supported by Dohring. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson by coding the system to serialize user purchased media and content including NFTs of pets and the corresponding models and content into a user data object stored in association with a user/student profile/account within the system such that the user’s wallet is serialized and can then be deserialized when the user opens a new instance of a media wallet application and can add new purchases and session data to the wallet/deserialized profile. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson would include wherein the pet collection module is configured to: loading the serialized pet collection of the student; serialize the pet collection of the student; and store the serialized pet collection of the student in association with an account of the student within the educational system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Schramm with Jakobsson’s system and method in order to store and transmit user data as needed as serialization and deserialization are well-known techniques per Dohring.
Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek may not explicitly teach receive a request, initiated by the student, to feed a type of food to the pet; in response to the request to feed the type of food to the pet, loading the serialized pet collection of the student; accessing the pet object within the pet collection of the student to determine a desired food of the pet; in response to determining that the type of food matches the desired food, incrementing a hearts metric defined in the pet object for the pet; after incrementing the hearts metric, serialize the pet collection of the student. However, Kong further teaches the system includes the ability to feed the virtual pet based in part on the virtual pet being hungry, the pet’s diet list, and seeking food and upon feeding the pet increasing (incrementing) the pet’s hunger points (Col 8, lines 5-48; Col 9, Lines 47 – Col 10, line 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek to incorporate the teachings of Kong by including feeding a pet based on a pet diet list of Kong for the content of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems including virtual pets. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek by coding the system to include a pet diet list linked to the predefined criteria and feeding the pet when the pet exhibits hunger for food such that a user feeds a pet upon completing a task (matched food with desired food/task) and increasing a virtual pet’s hunger points (hearts metric) upon completing the feeding and then storing the pet and corresponding data in the wallet for serialization. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek would include receive a request, initiated by the student, to feed a type of food to the pet; in response to the request to feed the type of food to the pet, loading the serialized pet collection of the student; accessing the pet object within the pet collection of the student to determine a desired food of the pet; in response to determining that the type of food matches the desired food, incrementing a hearts metric defined in the pet object for the pet; after incrementing the hearts metric, serialize the pet collection of the student. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kong with Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek’s system and method in order to further incentivize student engagement with educational content and incentivize a user to complete assigned tasks/criterion.
With regard to claim 11, Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek may not explicitly teach wherein the pet collection module is further configured to: in conjunction with determining that the type of food matches the desired food, select new desired food for the pet and adding the new desired food to the pet object; and cause the client-side components to render, in the virtual environment, a representation of the pet in which the pet desires the new desired food. However, Kong further teaches the pet includes a pet diet list comprising a list of tasks for feeding the pet that can be made and revised such that completing a task would change the list such that when the pet’s hunger is animated a new task/food from the list is desired (Col 9, line 48 – Col 10, line 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek to incorporate the teachings of Kong by including feeding a pet based on a pet diet list of Kong for the content of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems including virtual pets. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek by coding the system to include a pet diet list linked to the predefined criteria and feeding the pet when the pet exhibits hunger for food such that a user feeds a pet upon completing a task (matched food with desired food/task) and increasing a virtual pet’s hunger points (hearts metric) upon completing the feeding and then storing the pet and corresponding data in the wallet for serialization wherein completion of a task/food or adding a task would revise the list such that a new food is needed for the pet which can be animated as hungry for the new food. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek would include wherein the pet collection module is further configured to: in conjunction with determining that the type of food matches the desired food, select new desired food for the pet and adding the new desired food to the pet object; and cause the client-side components to render, in the virtual environment, a representation of the pet in which the pet desires the new desired food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kong with Jakobsson in view of Schramm, Dohring, and Tojek’s system and method in order to further incentivize student engagement with educational content and incentivize a user to complete assigned tasks/criterion.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kon.
With regard to claim 12, Jakobsson teaches a method, implemented by an architecture that includes a pet collection module (Paragraphs 0024, 0086, 0105, 0184, 0297 teach a method implemented by non-transitory computer readable storage mediums having instructions executable by the processor to perform the processes), for facilitating proactive engagement of specific student behaviors within an educational system (Paragraphs 0305, 0370 teach the system can be applied to various environments including classroom/educational settings to support and motivate students using rendered content), the method comprising:
creating, for each of a plurality of students, a pet collection that defines the respective student’s pet in a virtual environment of the educational system and any coins desired by the respective student’s pet, including a pet collection of a first student that includes a first pet object defining a first pet of the first student (Paragraphs 0148, 0157, 0284, 0318 teach the system can render the content including models based on the NFTs purchased including pet NFTs such that the system includes creating pet models/objects as part of a user’s digital wallet (collection) including any accessories or other content (desired coins) wherein each user such as a first student has a respective unique digital media wallet);
in response to the request, loading the pet collection of the first student (Paragraphs 0161-0162 teach the users can access their NFTs via the media wallet application (loading the wallet/NFTs) and transfer/exchange content between wallets such that a teacher could issue NFTs such as a desired coin to a student’s wallet).
Jakobsson may not explicitly teach receiving a request, initiated by a teacher, to cause the first pet of the first student of the plurality of students to desire a first coin; and creating a coin object for the first coin and adding the coin object to the pet collection of the first student to thereby represent that the first pet of the first student desires the first coin; and causing a representation of the first pet of the first student to be presented in the virtual environment with a representation of the first coin. However, Tojek teaches a learning system and method for incentivizing student behavior by awarding electronic tokens to students when a student satisfies a predefined incentive criterion wherein the token (coin) and academic data including criterion are stored in a user’s profile and the predefined criterion can be assigned by the teacher/instructor (Paragraphs 0039, 0059)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Tojek by applying the technique of allowing teachers to assign educational content to a student including criterion that when completed deliver a token incentive to the student of Tojek for the educational content and management of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Tojek to improve Jakobsson in the same way by providing means to incentivize student learning. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson by coding the system to allow teachers/instructors to assign educational content including assignments and instructional material including tasks/predefined criterion for students to complete to receive electronic tokens that are added, in addition to the other educational data including the criterion (desired tokens), to the student profile which would thereby be included in the user data and wallet (collection). Further, the electronic token can be modeled by the system of Jakobsson to include a model (coin object) of the awarded tokens as displayed content. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson would include receiving a request, initiated by a teacher, to cause the first pet of the first student of the plurality of students to desire a first coin; and creating a coin object for the first coin and adding the coin object to the pet collection of the first student to thereby represent that the first pet of the first student desires the first coin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Tojek with Jakobsson’s system and method in order to incentivize student engagement with educational content and track user performance and data.
Jakobsson in view of Tojek may not explicitly teach cause the client-side components to render, in the virtual environment, a representation of the pet in which the pet desires the desired coin to thereby incentivize the student to earn the desired coin within the educational system. However, Kong teaches an educational game method and system for facilitating managing tasks by providing a user a virtual pet with needs linked to task completion by a user such that the virtual pet has a rendered/displayed status such as hunger or thirst wherein the completion of user tasks can include rewards including feeding or caring for the virtual pet thereby linking completion of the task to the desires and animation (rendering) of the pet (Abstract; Col 2, line 57 – Col 3, line 2; Col 7, line 30 – Col 8, line 40; Col 8, lines 56-66; Col 10, lines 16-26; Col 11, lines 48-52).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view of Tojek to incorporate the teachings of Kong by linking the completion of user tasks/criteria with a virtual pets status and rendering the pet animations of Kong for the rendered educational content of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems including virtual pets. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Tojek by coding the system to animate/render the pet NFT model of Jakobsson to include animation of the pets status wherein the status would be linked to the user’s criteria/tasks assigned by a teacher as taught by Tojek wherein completion of the tasks awards tokens/coins for use with the rendered virtual pet to feed and care for the pet such that when the pet health or hunger is a threshold the animation would include incentive for the student to earn a token based on predefined criteria. Examiner notes that the exact animation is non-functional printed matter and an aesthetic design choice as the functional limitations of the instant application are to assign a desired task/target (coin) and present a reward (the coin) to the user upon completion including using a virtual character/avatar/pet to incentivize the student. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found these functions obvious in view of the teachings of the cited reference and the exact design of the reward (coin object) and desires of the pet are merely aesthetic design choices that would require no further modification of the cited combination beyond design choices. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Tojek would include cause the client-side components to render, in the virtual environment, a representation of the pet in which the pet desires the desired coin to thereby incentivize the student to earn the desired coin within the educational system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kong with Jakobsson in view of Tojek’s system and method in order to further incentivize student engagement with educational content and incentivize a user to complete assigned tasks/criterion.
With regard to claim 13, Jakobsson may not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving a notification that a coin has been awarded to the first student within the educational system; in response to the request, loading the pet collection of the first student; accessing the coin object for the first coin in the pet collection of the first student to determine that the coin that has been awarded to the first student matches the first coin to thereby determine that the student has earned the first coin that is desired by the first pet of the first student; and incrementing an experience metric of the pet collection of the first student. However, as discussed above, Tojek teaches a learning system and method for incentivizing student behavior by awarding electronic tokens to students when a student satisfies a predefined incentive criterion wherein the token (coin) is thereby associated with the predefined criterion (desired behavior) thereby matching the token with a desired coin and updating a number of earned tokens (experience metric) within a student profile which can be displayed (Paragraphs 0039, 0059).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Tojek by applying the technique of allowing teachers to assign educational content to a student including criterion that when completed deliver a token incentive to the student of Tojek for the educational content and management of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Tojek to improve Jakobsson in the same way by providing means to incentivize student learning. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson by coding the system to allow teachers/instructors to assign educational content including assignments and instructional material including tasks/predefined criterion for students to complete to receive electronic tokens that are added, in addition to the other educational data including the criterion (desired tokens), to the student profile which would thereby be included in the user data and wallet wherein the earned token is for the completed predefined criterion thereby matching the criterion (desired coin) and tracking earned coins in a displayed number. While the number of earned tokens is not explicitly an “experience metric”, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the number of earned tokens a metric and reflective of a student’s performance/experience which is incremented upon receipt of tokens. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson would include further comprising: receiving a notification that a coin has been awarded to the first student within the educational system; in response to the request, loading the pet collection of the first student; accessing the coin object for the first coin in the pet collection of the first student to determine that the coin that has been awarded to the first student matches the first coin to thereby determine that the student has earned the first coin that is desired by the first pet of the first student; and incrementing an experience metric of the pet collection of the first student. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Tojek with Jakobsson’s system and method in order to incentivize student engagement with educational content and track user performance and data.
With regard to claim 14, Jakobsson may not explicitly teach wherein the first coin is associated with a desired student behavior. However, as discussed above, Tojek teaches a learning system and method for incentivizing student behavior by awarding electronic tokens to students when a student satisfies a predefined incentive criterion wherein the token (coin) is thereby associated with the predefined criterion (desired behavior) (Paragraphs 0039, 0059).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Tojek by applying the technique of allowing teachers to assign educational content to a student including criterion that when completed deliver a token incentive to the student of Tojek for the educational content and management of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Tojek to improve Jakobsson in the same way by providing means to incentivize student learning. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson by coding the system to allow teachers/instructors to assign educational content including assignments and instructional material including tasks/predefined criterion for students to complete to receive electronic tokens that are added, in addition to the other educational data including the criterion (desired tokens), to the student profile which would thereby be included in the user data and wallet (collection). Further, the electronic token can be modeled by the system of Jakobsson to include a model (coin object) of the awarded tokens as displayed content. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson would include wherein the desired coin is associated with a desired student behavior. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Tojek with Jakobsson’s system and method in order to incentivize student engagement with educational content and track user performance and data.
With regard to claim 15, Jakobsson in view of Tojek may not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving a request, initiated by the first student, to feed the first pet a first type of food; in response to the request to feed the first pet the first type of food, loading the pet collection of the first student; accessing the first pet object in the pet collection of the first student to identify a desired food of the first pet; and in response to determining that the desired food matches the first type of food, incrementing a hearts metric defined in the pet collection of the first student by a first amount. However, Kong further teaches the system includes the ability to feed the virtual pet based in part on the virtual pet being hungry, the pet’s diet list, and seeking food and upon feeding the pet increasing (incrementing) the pet’s hunger points (Col 8, lines 5-48; Col 9, Lines 47 – Col 10, line 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view Tojek to incorporate the teachings of Kong by including feeding a pet based on a pet diet list of Kong for the content of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems including virtual pets. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Tojek by coding the system to include a pet diet list linked to the predefined criteria, loading a user’s media wallet, rendering the pet content and animation, and feeding the pet when the pet exhibits hunger for food such that a user feeds a pet upon completing a task (matched food with desired food/task) and increasing a virtual pet’s hunger points (hearts metric) upon completing the feeding. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Tojek would include further comprising: receiving a request, initiated by the first student, to feed the first pet a first type of food; in response to the request to feed the first pet the first type of food, loading the pet collection of the first student; accessing the first pet object in the pet collection of the first student to identify a desired food of the first pet; and in response to determining that the desired food matches the first type of food, incrementing a hearts metric defined in the pet collection of the first student by a first amount. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kong with Jakobsson in view of Tojek’s system and method in order to further incentivize student engagement with educational content and incentivize a user to complete assigned tasks/criterion.
With regard to claim 19, Jakobsson further teaches wherein each of the pet collections is created in response to the respective student’s request to purchase a pet in the educational system (Paragraphs 0148, 0160-0162 teach the user can purchase NFTs including NFTs of pets which are added to the users wallet where when a user first purchases any NFT a wallet would need to be created or exist to receive the NFT)
With regard to claim 20, Jakobsson teaches an education system (Paragraphs 0305, 0370 teach the system can be applied to various environments including classroom/educational settings to support and motivate students using rendered content) comprising: one or more hardware components on which an API server is deployed (Paragraphs 0024, 0161, 0184, 0281, 0284, 0331 teach the system includes executable instructions executed by a processor which may be on a server computer or enterprise server networked with another device (hardware components) executing the process instructions including APIs in order to render a virtual environment), the API server including a pet collection module (Interpreted as a software module; paragraphs 0024, 0161, 0184, 0281, 0284, 0331), and one or more application programming interfaces by which client-side components access the pet collection module and the reward store (Paragraphs 0024, 0161, 0184, 0281, 0284, 0331 teach the system includes executable instructions executed by a processor which may be on a server computer or enterprise server networked with another device (client-side components) executing the process instructions including APIs in order to render a virtual environment); wherein the pet collection module is configured to facilitate proactive engagement of specific student behaviors within the educational system (Paragraphs 0305, 0370 teach the system can be applied to various environments including classroom/educational settings to support and motivate students using rendered content) by performing the following: receiving a notification that a first student has purchased a first pet (Paragraphs 0148, 0160-0162 teach the user can purchase NFTs including NFTs of pets); creating a pet collection for the first student; creating a first pet object for the first pet; storing the first pet object in the pet collection for the first student (Paragraphs 0148, 0157, 0284, 0318 teach the system can render the content including models based on the NFTs purchased including pet NFTs such that the system includes creating pet models/objects as part of and stored in a user’s digital wallet (collection) including any accessories or other content (desired coins) wherein each user such as a first student has a respective unique digital media wallet).
Jakobsson may not explicitly teach a reward store in which pets are available for purchase; receiving a notification that a first teacher has sent a coin to the first pet; creating a first coin object for the coin sent to the first pet; storing the first coin object in the pet collection for the first student; receiving a notification that the first student has earned a coin; accessing the first coin object in the pet collection for the first student to determine that the earned coin matches the coin sent to the first pet; and incrementing an experience metric in the pet collection for the first student. However, Tojek teaches a learning system and method for incentivizing student behavior by awarding electronic tokens to students when a student satisfies a predefined incentive criterion wherein the token (coin) and academic data including criterion are stored in a user’s profile and the predefined criterion can be assigned by the teacher/instructor wherein the token (coin) is thereby associated with the predefined criterion (desired behavior) thereby matching the token with a desired coin and updating a number of earned tokens (experience metric) within a student profile which can be displayed (Paragraphs 0039, 0059). Tojek further teaches the tokens can be redeemed at a third party vendor (Paragraph 0039).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Tojek by applying the technique of allowing teachers to assign educational content to a student including criterion that when completed deliver a token incentive to the student of Tojek for the educational content and management of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Tojek to improve Jakobsson in the same way by providing means to incentivize student learning. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson by coding the system to allow teachers/instructors to assign educational content including assignments and instructional material including tasks/predefined criterion for students to complete to receive electronic tokens that are added, in addition to the other educational data including the criterion (desired tokens), to the student profile which would thereby be included in the user data and wallet (collection) wherein the earned token is for the completed predefined criterion thereby matching the criterion (desired coin) and tracking earned coins in a displayed number. Further, the electronic token can be modeled by the system of Jakobsson to include a model (coin object) of the awarded tokens as displayed content. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson would include receiving a notification that a first teacher has sent a coin to the first pet; creating a first coin object for the coin sent to the first pet; storing the first coin object in the pet collection for the first student; receiving a notification that the first student has earned a coin; accessing the first coin object in the pet collection for the first student to determine that the earned coin matches the coin sent to the first pet; and incrementing an experience metric in the pet collection for the first student. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Tojek with Jakobsson’s system and method in order to incentivize student engagement with educational content and track user performance and data.
Jakobsson in view of Tojek may not explicitly teach a reward store in which pets are available for purchase. However, Kong teaches the system including a virtual store in which a user can purchase items for a virtual pet or additional pets (Col 9, line 48 – Col 10, line 4; Col 10, lines 16-26).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view of Tojek to incorporate the teachings of Kong by including the virtual store of Kong as a location to make NFT pet purchases of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems including virtual pets. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Tojek by coding the system to include a virtual (reward) store from which a use can purchase NFTs/items including pets to add to their digital media wallets. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Tojek would include a reward store in which pets are available for purchase. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Kong with Jakobsson in view of Tojek’s system and method in order to further incentivize student engagement with educational content and allow users to purchase rewards using their awarded tokens from Tojek.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Poffin (Electronic article NPL “Poffin” referring to a game mechanic of the Pokemon Diamond and Pearl games released April 2007; document cited to at least January 13, 2021; see NPL reference for cited text).
With regard to claims 16 and 17, Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong may not explicitly teach wherein the first amount is based on a value of the first type of food [claim 16] and wherein the first amount is a multiple of the value of the first type of food because the desired food matches the first type of food [claim 17] as while Kong teaches increasing a pet metric (see prior art rejection of claim 15), the references fail to teach a specific value for the food. However, Poffin teaches the Pokemon games Diamond and Pearl, released in 2007, include a feeding mechanic/technique for Pokémon (pets) wherein a Poffin (food) can be feed to the creature wherein the Poffin has a specific value based on its type and creation and wherein when fed to the creature has a multiplier based on whether the creature likes, dislikes, or is neutral to the food type wherein when a creature likes the food (matches a desired type) the value of the food is multiplied to a higher value (Pages 1-3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view Tojek and Kong to incorporate the teachings of Poffin by including the foods fed to the pets having a specific value and multiplier based on a pet’s desires of Poffin for the pet content of Jakobsson in view of Kong, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to virtual pet system and methods including rendering virtual pet content. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong by coding the system to include a value for each food on the diet list and giving the pet desired food types such that feeding the pet a food applies a specific value and multiplier in order to provide further interaction and detail to the pet behavior. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong would include wherein the first amount is based on a value of the first type of food [claim 16] and wherein the first amount is a multiple of the value of the first type of food because the desired food matches the first type of food [claim 17]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Poffin with Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong’s system and method in order to provide further interaction with the pets and as the technique is well known in the art and applying a specific value and multiplier to the virtual food is merely a design choice that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Poffin.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Schramm and Dohring.
With regard to claim 18, Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong may not explicitly teach further comprising: storing serialized versions of the pet collections in conjunction with identifiers of the respective students, though Jakobsson teaches a user can use their specific wallet to purchase or transact NFTs, which, as discussed above, can include pet NFTs and models, wherein the NFT and user have unique keys (identifiers) used to authenticate the transaction (Paragraphs 0161-0162, 0165, 0170, 0220). However, Schramm teaches a system and method for sharing educational session information including serializing and storing a user profile object including user data and session data (Paragraphs 0039-0044), and Dohring teaches data serialization of user data files including learner accounts within an educational system are known to hose in the art wherein the account includes data describing each learner (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong to incorporate the teachings of Schramm by applying the technique of serializing user data including a user profile/account of Schramm for the user media wallet/NFT collection of Jakobsson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational management systems that include managing user profiles/data. Assuming in arguendo, the references are in different fields of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Schramm to improve Jakobsson as the use of serialization and deserialization as a means of data management and transmission is well-known in the art as supported by Dohring. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong by coding the system to serialize user purchased media and content including NFTs of pets and the corresponding models and content into a user data object stored in association with a user/student profile/account within the system. Upon such modification, the method and system of Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong would include further comprising: storing serialized versions of the pet collections in conjunction with identifiers of the respective students. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Schramm with Jakobsson in view of Tojek and Kong’s system and method in order to store and transmit user data as needed as serialization is a well-known technique per Dohring.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715