Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
Intended Use
3. Claim 1, “in a server… using executable code stored in the memory to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions over a network to: receive…; generate… to display one or more recommendations to users;…; use … to group students for optimal learning patterns …”
Claims 5-7, “wherein the executable code stored in the memory further causes the one or more processors to execute control action over the network to: provide…”
Claim 11, “a memory… storing executable code configured to cause the one or more processors to execute control action over a network to:…”
The language “causes the one or more processors to execute control action over the network to” represents an intended result of the executable code (claims 1, 5 and 7). Claim 11 also as it recites similar language. “to group…” (claim 1) represents the intended use of “the plurality of models”. According to the MPEP, such language will not differentiate a claim from the prior art (MPEP 2103 I C).
Not positively recited
4. Claims 3 and 4, “wherein the student progression models are trained…”
Claim 8, “wherein student activity… are assessed.”
Claim 9, “wherein the teacher planning preferences are generated…”
Claim 10, “wherein the teacher planning model is built…”
The language “trained”, “assessed”, “generated”, and “is built” does not further describe a previous act of training, assessing, generating and building. Nor are they a method step performed by the server. Therefore, the language will not differentiate the claim from the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
7. Claim 1 recites:
receive… student progression data sets for a plurality of different students from one or more content sources;
generate… a plurality of learning progression models specific to each of the plurality of different students;
receive… one or more inputs designating teacher planning preferences;
modify the plurality of learning progression models based on the teacher planning preferences;
modify the plurality of learning progression models based on the teacher knowledge of the plurality of students;
identify circumstantial instances and adapt the plurality of learning progression models based on the circumstantial instances;
… for the plurality of students to display one or more recommendations to users;
[implementing an algorithm];
use the plurality of student models to group students for optimal learning patterns based on defined criteria.
.
Therefore, the claim recites “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress”, which is a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (i.e. organizing human activity) and an abstract idea.
The additional elements of “in a server, with one or more processors and a memory”, “using executable code stored in the memory to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions over a network”, “using the one or more processors at the server, over the network”, “generate a graphical user interface” and “execute a clustering algorithm in a machine learning engine” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the training of a user and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “generate a graphical user interface” and “execute a clustering algorithm in a machine learning engine”, the claim lacks technological details, beyond mere automation, regarding how the “graphical user interface” and “clustering algorithm” are generated and executed, respectively, and therefore, represent no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
8. Claim 11 also recites the abstract idea of “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress” as well as the additional elements of “using the one or more processors at the server over the network”, “generate a graphical user interface” and “execute a clustering algorithm in a machine learning engine”. The claim further recites “a server, comprising one or more processors” and “a memory coupled to the one or more processors, storing executable code configured to cause the one or more processors to execute contract action over a network”. The additional elements represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the training of a user and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as they do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
Hence, claim 11 is also not patent eligible.
9. Claims 2 and 12 recite “wherein the users are either students or instructors” which further describes “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress”.
10. Claims 3 and 13 recite “wherein the student progression models are [updated] by data sets including student assessment and performance data points”, which further describes the abstract idea of “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress”. The additional element of ”trained” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
11. Claims 4 and 14 recite “wherein the student progression models are [updated] by data sets including daily skill practice data and daily skill performance data points”, which further describes the abstract idea of “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress”. The additional element of ”trained” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
12. Claims 5 and 15 recite “… provide an output... wherein the output indicates a student growth pattern and a growth rate” which further describes the abstract idea of “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress”. The additional elements of ”wherein the executable code stored in the memory further causes the one or more processors to execute control action over the network to” and “in a user interface” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
13. Claims 6 and 16 recite “… provide an output... wherein the output indicates a student skill mastery” which further describes the abstract idea of “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress”. The additional elements of ”wherein the executable code stored in the memory further causes the one or more processors to execute control action over the network to” and “in a user interface” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
14. Claims 7 and 17 recite “provide a student intervention program” which further describes the abstract idea of “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress”. The additional element of ”wherein the executable code stored in the memory further causes the one or more processors to execute control action over the network to” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
15. Claims 8 and 18 recite “wherein student activity, skill, difficulty and metadata are assessed” which further describes “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress”.
16. Claims 9 and 19 recite “wherein the teacher planning preferences are generated by a teacher planning model configured to define a planning purpose, one or more planning configuration preferences, a teacher student knowledge graph, a representation of time allotment, an indication of lost instructional time and one or more selected educational alignments” which further describes “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress”.
17. Claims 10 and 20 recite “wherein the teacher planning model is built with teacher feedback provided in real-time” which further describes “tracking student progress and grouping students together based on the tracked progress”.
18. Additionally, claim 1 recites “in a server, with one or more processors and a memory, using executable code stored in the memory to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions over a network to” where “to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions over a network to” as well as the subsequent steps of “receive …etc.” are intended use. Therefore, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation it merely recites “in a server, with one or more processors and a memory, using executable code stored in the memory” (MPEP 2103 I C). Given this interpretation, claim 1 recites “using a product” (“… using … code stored in…”) which is a commercial or legal interaction (i.e. organizing human activity) and an abstract idea.
The additional elements of “in a server, with one or more processors and a memory… executable… stored in the memory” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
This applies to claims 2-10 also as each recites intended use (e.g. claim 5 “wherein the executable code stored in the memory further causes the one or more processors to execute control action over the network to: …”) and/or further describes the intended use of claim 1.
19. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also non-statutory.
35 U.S.C. 112(a)
20. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
21. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
22. Claim 1 recites “in a server… using executable code stored in the memory to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions over a network…” Claims 5-7, 11 and 15-17 recite similar language. However, the Specification fails to describe what “control actions” are. Nor, are they terms of art. Therefore, Applicant has not provided one of ordinary skill with the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform “execute control actions over a network” such that one of ordinary skill would understand how Applicant intended the function to be performed (MPEP 2161.01 I; MPEP 2163 II 3 (a) ii)).
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected as each depends from either claim 1 or claim 11.
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
23. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
24. Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Use claims
25. Claim 1 recites “in a server, with one or more processors, using executable code… to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions over a network”. While claims 1 and 11 recite “use the plurality of student models to group…” In each instance, the limitations merely recite a use (e.g. using executable code, using models) without any active, positive steps delimiting how the use is practiced. As a result, the claims are indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Lack of antecedent basis
26. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the users" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites similar language.
More than one interpretation
27. Claims 13 and 14 recite “wherein the student progression models are trained…” While 18-20 recite, “wherein student activity… are assessed”, “wherein the teacher planning preferences are generated…” and “wherein the teacher planning model is built…”, respectively. The claims depend from claim 11 which attributes the functionality of it, and its dependents, to a “server, comprising one or more processors” and “a memory… storing executable code configured to cause the one or more processors …”. Claims 13, 14, 18 and 20, however, do not identify what performs the training, assessing and building. And, in the case of claim 19, the “teacher planning model” is not part of the claimed system. Therefore, it is unclear whether training, assessing and building are performed by the “one or more processors”, or another device comprised in, or separate from, the system (MPEP 2173.02 I).
Dependent Claims
28. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected as each depends from either claim 1 or claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
29. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
30. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurani, US 20200258420.
31. As per claim 1, The claim 1 recites “in a server, with one or more processors and a memory, using executable code stored in the memory to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions over a network to” where “to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions over a network to” as well as the subsequent steps of “receive …etc.” are intended use and will not differentiate the claim from the prior art (MPEP 2103 I C).Therefore, as Kurani teaches “in a server, with one or more processors and a memory, using executable code stored in the memory” (figs 6 and 10) it is sufficient in terms of prior art.
Claims 2-10 each recites intended use (e.g. claim 5 “wherein the executable code stored in the memory further causes the one or more processors to execute control action over the network to: …”) and/or further describes the intended use of claim 1 and therefore, will not differentiate the claims from the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
32. 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.
33. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurani US 20200258420 in view of Snyder et al. US 20040009461 As per claims 1 and 11, Kurani teaches a method comprising:
in a server, with one or more processors and a memory, using executable code stored in the memory to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions (fig. 7; para 87) over a network to (fig. 7; para 20): receive, using the one or more processors at the server, over the network, student progression data sets for a plurality of different students from one or more content sources; (paras 58 and 62)
generate, using the one or more processors at the server, over the network, a plurality of learning progression models specific to each of the plurality of different students; (fig. 2; paras 23, 53, 59, 62, 81, 82 and 90; claim 1)
receive, using the one or more processors, one or more inputs designating teacher planning preferences; (paras 33, 52, and 54)
modify the plurality of learning progression models based on the teacher planning preferences; (paras 54)
modify the plurality of learning progression models based on the teacher knowledge of the plurality of students; (para 54)
identify circumstantial instances and adapt the plurality of learning progression models based on the circumstantial instances; (paras 54, 59, 61 and 86)
generate a graphical user interface for the plurality of students to display one or more recommendations (“My Courses provides has pull down menu with various courses. It includes of announcements, syllabus, lessons, discussions, files, conferences, collaborations, people, grades, award and competency information.”) to users; (fig. 6; fig 10, item 1010 “Show Lessons”; paras 86 and 90)
execute a clustering algorithm in a machine learning engine (paras 61, 62 and 73-80).
With respect to claim 11, Kurani also teaches:
a server comprising one or more processors; (fig. 7)
a memory coupled to the one or more processors, storing executable code configured to cause the one or more processors to execute control action over a network to: stored in the memory to cause the one or more processors to execute control actions (fig. 7; paras 20 and 87) over a network to:…
Kurani does not specifically disclose the “use the plurality of student models to group students for optimal learning patterns based on defined criteria.”. Snyder et al. teach using a plurality of student models (paras 31, 137, 193, 197, 225, and 229) to group students based on defined criteria (paras 31, 137, 170, 173, 197, 225, 229, and 346). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kurani and Snyder et al. in order to optimize student learning (‘420, para 45) such as by determining a student’s competency (‘420, paras 49, 54 and 56; ‘461, paras 173 and 192-194) and creating a classroom environment were students are of like competency (‘461, para 137) or identifying a high performing student and assigning the student to a class or other student, where the student will serve as a peer tutor (‘461, paras 192-3).
34. As per claims 2 and 12,
Kurani teaches “wherein the users are either students or instructors” (fig. 6, para 86)
35. As per claims 3 and 13,
Kurani teaches “wherein the student progression models are trained by data sets including student assessment and performance data points” (paras 23, 40, 49, 54, 56 and 59; claims 1 and 8).
36. As per claims 4 and 14, Kurani teaches “wherein the student progression models are trained by data sets (paras 23, 40, 49, 54, 56 and 59; claims 1 and 8), where the data sets include assessments, lessons and quizzes (para 59), while not explicitly disclosing the periodicity with which the assessments, lessons and quizzes take place. On the other hand, Kurani does implement his teaching using time based learning such as “curriculum planning” (“A plan or a timetable of a group of educational activities for a particular course—aims, content, methods, evaluation”, para 30), “lesson” (“an amount of teaching given at one time; a period of learning or teaching”, para 38) and “lesson plan” (“A ‘sketch map’ of a particular session for a particular group of students, based on objectives and teaching methods with intended timing of activities.”, para 39). Therefore, the period of time over which these activities occur (e.g. daily, once a week, twice a week) represent, to one of ordinary skill, mere design choice and insufficient for differentiating the claims over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 I).
37. As per claims 5 and 15, Kurani teaches “wherein the executable code stored in the memory further causes the one or more processors to execute control action over the network to: provide an output in a user interface wherein the output indicates a student growth pattern and a growth rate” (fig 6; paras 86 and 90).
38. As per claims 6 and 16,
Kurani teaches “wherein the executable code stored in the memory further causes the one or more processors to execute control action over the network to: provide an output in a user interface wherein the output indicates a student skill mastery” (fig 6; paras 86 and 90).
39. As per claims 7 and 17, Kurani teaches “wherein the executable code stored in the memory further causes the one or more processors to execute control action over the network to: provide a student intervention program” (paras 23, 48, and 54).
40. As per claims 8 and 18,
Kurani teaches “wherein student activity, skill, difficulty and metadata are assessed” (paras 23, 42, 48, 49, 53, 54 and 62).
41. As per claims 9 , 10, 19 and 20,
Kurani teaches “teacher planning preferences” (paras 33, 52 and 54) and collecting preferences such as teacher feedback and incorporating the feedback into a machine learning model in real-time (paras 33 and 54).
Kurani does not explicitly disclose wherein the model is a teacher planning model configured to define a planning purpose, one or more planning configuration preferences, a teacher student knowledge graph, a representation of time allotment, an indication of lost instructional time and one or more selected educational alignments. Snyder et al. teach wherein teacher planning preferences are generated by a teacher planning model (paras 28, 116, 138 and 140) configured to define a planning purpose (paras 28, 116), one or more planning configuration preferences (para 28), a teacher student knowledge graph (para 77), a representation of time allotment (para 149), an indication of lost instructional time (paras 164 “… some limitation to prevent ‘burn-out’…”, 169 and 182) and one or more selected educational alignments (paras 66, 147). Snyder et al. also teach evaluating the effects of learning progression models in real-time (para 289).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kurani and Snyder et al. in order to improve student learning (‘420, paras 23 and 52) by more specifically incorporated student and teacher classroom requirements (‘420, paras 52, 56, 58 and 62; ‘461, paras 28, 164, 169, 182, 198, and 199).
Conclusion
42. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Cisco Internetworking Basics (2000-2002) describes the TCP/IP model
Thompsen Primo et al., US 20170076620 disclose a class-builder module
Benevento et al., US 20040161728 teach a distance learning system including customized lesson plans, where teachers and students can revise the customized plans
Pinel et al., US 20160224896 teach creating teams using machine learning
Covell et al., US 20220301087 teach using machine learning optimize virtual breakout rooms.
43. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN L HEWITT II whose telephone number is (571)272-6709. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a-7p.
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.
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.
/CALVIN L HEWITT II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights