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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to application filed 10/13/2023. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 generic placeholders (module) that is coupled with functional language (used for…) without reciting sufficient structure/algorithm to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "… data acquisition module is used for …", "… database module is used for …" and "… analysis module is used for …" in claim 1. As a result, claim 1 is interpreted under 112(f). This interpretation is consistent with MPEP § 2181.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure/algorithm described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In particular, the published specification discloses: ¶ 9: The database module is used for storing a science multidimensional ability database and a user personal science database; the science multidimensional ability database comprises the assessment standard of the science multidimensional ability; and the user personal science database stores the related information of the personal science learning/practicing of the user; ¶ 10: The analysis module is used for analyzing and assessing the science multidimensional ability of the user through the data of science learning/practicing of the user and recommending a science teaching plan suitable for the user according to the science multidimensional ability of the user and the related information of personal science learning/practicing of the user; ¶ 29: obtain the contents of the test papers, the exercise sets, the exercise books and the workbooks through the data acquisition module 11 such as a scanner, or record a class video through an image sensor and analyze the class video to obtain the contents of the answers to classroom questions and discussion of exercises, or the user/teacher/parent inputs the data that can reflect the science level of the user through computer input equipment such as a keyboard and a mouse, or obtains the data of science learning/practicing of the user from other systems/databases through a relevant data interface; ¶ 31: The database module 12 is used for storing a science multidimensional ability database and a user personal science database; ¶ 49: The analysis module 13 is used for analyzing and assessing the science multidimensional ability of the user through the data of science learning/practicing of the user and recommending a science teaching plan suitable for the user according to the science multidimensional ability of the user and the related information of personal science learning/practicing of the user; ¶ 50: The analysis module 13 analyzes and assesses the science multidimensional ability of the user through the data of science learning/practicing of the user... However, the above non-limiting description of each the "database module" (¶¶ 9, 31) and "analysis module" (¶¶ 10, 49, 50) is not a proper indication as to what structure/algorithm the "database module" and "analysis module" are to incorporate or entail. Because of such inadequate corresponding disclosure for § 112(f)/112 6th limitations, each of the noted claim limitations becomes an unbounded purely functional limitation, no limits imposed by structure, material or acts and covers all ways of performing a function – known and unknown. Since § 112(f) or 112 6th has been invoked, and there is no disclosure of corresponding structure/algorithms that performs the claimed functions, therefore, claim 1 and dependents thereof are also rejected under 35 USC 112 (a)/ 35 USC 112 1st paragraph as lacking an adequate written description support and under 35 USC 112 (b)/ 35 USC 112 2nd paragraph as being indefinite for the means-plus-function claim terms "database module" and "analysis module".
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and dependents thereof 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. Since § 112(f) or 112 6th has been invoked, and the instant specification discloses no algorithm corresponding to the computer-enabled means-plus-function limitations "database module" and "analysis module", claim 1 and dependents thereof are also rejected under 35 USC 112 (a)/ 35 USC 112 1st paragraph as lacking an adequate written description support. See MPEP § 2163.03 (VI) (If a specification “fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function” of a means-plus-function claim limitation, the limitation “lacks an adequate written description as required by [35 U.S.C. § 112(a)].”).
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.
Claim 1 and dependents thereof 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. In particular, the claims are rendered indefinite because the claims invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the claims must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification as performing each entire claimed function and "equivalents thereof." More specifically, the Office has interpreted the "database module" and "analysis module" limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph. However, it is unclear whether the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph because as per the specification ¶ 9: The database module is used for storing a science multidimensional ability database and a user personal science database; the science multidimensional ability database comprises the assessment standard of the science multidimensional ability; and the user personal science database stores the related information of the personal science learning/practicing of the user; ¶ 10: The analysis module is used for analyzing and assessing the science multidimensional ability of the user through the data of science learning/practicing of the user and recommending a science teaching plan suitable for the user according to the science multidimensional ability of the user and the related information of personal science learning/practicing of the user; ¶ 31: The database module 12 is used for storing a science multidimensional ability database and a user personal science database; ¶ 49: The analysis module 13 is used for analyzing and assessing the science multidimensional ability of the user through the data of science learning/practicing of the user and recommending a science teaching plan suitable for the user according to the science multidimensional ability of the user and the related information of personal science learning/practicing of the user; ¶ 50: The analysis module 13 analyzes and assesses the science multidimensional ability of the user through the data of science learning/practicing of the user. The above non-limiting description of each of the "database module" and "analysis module" is not a proper indication as to what structure/algorithm each of the "database module" and "analysis module" is to incorporate or entail. Hence, as per Applicant's published disclosure, the functions associated with the "database module" and "analysis module" are broad enough to encompass all possible ways of performing these functions. Without knowing the exact corresponding structure, materials, or acts, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and consequently the scope of the claims are unclear.
Additionally, independent claim 10 recites “a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the steps of the method for using the science teaching system of claim 9 are realized when the computer program is executed by a processor”. The claim is unclear because claim 1 recites “a method for using the science teaching system of claim 1”.
For purpose of examination the claim will be interpreted to recite “a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the steps of the method for using the science teaching system of claim 1 are realized when the computer program is executed by a processor”.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Independent claim 1 recites “science teaching system, comprising: a data acquisition module, an analysis module and a database module, wherein the data acquisition module is used for obtaining the data of science learning/practicing of a user; the database module is used for storing a science multidimensional ability database and a user personal science database; the science multidimensional ability database comprises an assessment standard of the science multidimensional ability; and the user personal science database stores the related information of the personal science learning/practicing of the user; the analysis module is used for analyzing and assessing the science multidimensional ability of the user through the data of science learning/practicing of the user and/or recommending a science teaching plan suitable for the user according to the science multidimensional ability of the user and the related information of personal science learning/practicing of the user”. Each of the above recitations of “module” (“data acquisition module”, “analysis module” and “database module”) appears to be a software component. "Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment." Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). As the Supreme Court has made clear, "[a]n idea of itself is not patentable." In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360 (quoting Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498, 507 (1874)). See also MPEP § 2106(I)(vi) (examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories: "a computer program per se") (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 72 (1972)). Because software per se is directed to an abstract idea, it is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Step 1: NO).
Because independent claim 1 could be amended to fall within a statutory category, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues under that assumption.
Independent claim 9 recites “a method for using the science teaching system of claim 1” which is a statutory category of invention (i.e. a process) within § 101, i.e., process and machine. (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 10 recites “a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program” which is interpreted, in view of the published Specification (¶¶ 2, 6, 22, 23, 88, 89, 90), to include patent-ineligible transitory signals because neither the claim nor the Specification defines “computer-readable storage medium” so as to exclude transitory media. Consequently, the claimed “computer-readable storage medium” encompasses transitory media, which is not patent eligible. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential); see also In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2007); and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). (Step 1: NO).
Because independent claim 10 could be amended to fall within a statutory category by amending the claim to recite "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium … ", the subject matter eligibility analysis continues under that assumption.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 1, analyzed as representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are shown in italics. The additional element(s) recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
A science teaching system, comprising:
[L1] a data acquisition module, an analysis module and a database module, wherein the data acquisition module is used for obtaining the data of science learning/practicing of a user;
[L2] the database module is used for storing a science multidimensional ability database and a user personal science database;
[L3] the science multidimensional ability database comprises an assessment standard of the science multidimensional ability; and
the user personal science database stores the related information of the personal science learning/practicing of the user;
[L4] the analysis module is used for analyzing and assessing the science multidimensional ability of the user through the data of science learning/practicing of the user
[L5] and/or recommending a science teaching plan suitable for the user according to the science multidimensional ability of the user and the related information of personal science learning/practicing of the user.
As per the published Specification, “the present invention is to provide a science teaching system and a method for using same”. Pre-computer era, in "brick and mortar" environments, educators have long provided teaching plan suitable to students according to the students’ abilities. The claimed invention simply replaces common "brick and mortar" environments related to providing education with the claimed “science teaching system”. Thus, other than reciting the “science multidimensional ability database” and “user personal science database” additional non-abstract elements in representative independent claim 1 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least the italicized claim limitations may be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, and judgments and may also be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A: Prong 1. (Step 2A – Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The computer component(s), namely the “science multidimensional ability database” and “user personal science database” are each recited at a high level of generality, as evident in the published Specification: at least ¶ 29: the user/teacher/parent inputs the data that can reflect the science level of the user through computer input equipment such as a keyboard and a mouse, or obtains the data of science learning/practicing of the user from other systems/databases through a relevant data interface.…; ¶ 31: The database module 12 is used for storing a science multidimensional ability database and a user personal science database…; ¶ 80: … the data acquisition module 11, the analysis module 13 and the database module 12 can be installed on a server, and the assessment result and the recommended plans can be directly fed back to the display module or smart phone or computer of the user remotely through the network … The lack of details about the “science multidimensional ability database” and “user personal science database” indicates that the additional element(s) is/are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions claimed. The additional elements [L1]: “obtaining the data of science learning/practicing of a user” (data gathering), [L2]: “storing a science multidimensional ability database and a user personal science database” (data gathering) and [L3]: “comprises an assessment standard of the science multidimensional ability” (data gathering) simply add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering. Data gathering is generic and conventional. No technological implementation details are recited. The claim limitations do not purport to improve the functioning of the “science multidimensional ability database” and “user personal science database”, do not improve the technology of the technical field, and do not require a “particular machine.” Rather, they are performed using generic computer components. Further, the claim fails to effect any particular transformation of an article to a different state. The recited steps in the claim fail to provide meaningful limitations to limit the judicial exception. In this case, the claim merely uses the claimed computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Considering the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered combination” the functions implemented on the “science multidimensional ability database” and “user personal science database” at each step of the method are purely conventional. Each step performed in the claim does no more than require a generic computer to perform a generic computer function. Thus, the claimed elements have not been shown to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as set forth in the Revised Guidance which references the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h). Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the “science multidimensional ability database” and “user personal science database” in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the published Specification, as noted above (for example, ¶¶ 29, 31, 80) describes the “science multidimensional ability database” and “user personal science database” in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the published Specification sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element(s) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Furthermore, the Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional element(s) “in a manner that indicates that the additional element(s) is/are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element(s) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.” The generic description of the “science multidimensional ability database” and “user personal science database” indicates the steps are well-known enough that no further description is required for a skilled artisan to understand the process and that these computer components are all used in a manner that is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In particular, the recited data gathering steps [L1]: “obtaining the data of science learning/practicing of a user”, [L2]: “storing a science multidimensional ability database and a user personal science database” and [L3]: “comprises an assessment standard of the science multidimensional ability” amount to nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because these limitations are not distinguished from generic, conventional data gathering with a computer.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of representative independent claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the steps is equally generic and conventional. See Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission). Hence, the additional element(s) is/are generic, well-known, and conventional computing element(s). The use of the additional element(s) either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent Claim 9:
Independent claim 16 recites “a method for using the science teaching system of claim 1”. Accordingly, independent claim 9 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 1.
In regard to independent Claim 10
In view of the earlier rejection of claim 10 under 112(b), assuming arguendo the claim recites “a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the steps of the method for using the science teaching system of claim 1 are realized when the computer program is executed by a processor”, independent claim 10 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 1.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2-8 include all the limitations of corresponding independent claim 1 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for corresponding independent claim 1. The dependent claims do not appear to remedy the issues noted above. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2-8 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, while dependent claims 2-8 may have a narrower scope than corresponding independent claim 1, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ram (US 20190286751 A1).
Re claims 1 and 9-10:
[Claim 1] Ram discloses a science teaching system, comprising: a data acquisition module, an analysis module and a database module, wherein the data acquisition module is used for obtaining the data of science learning/practicing of a user; the database module is used for storing a science multidimensional ability database and a user personal science database (at least ¶ 48: FIG. 9-11, an Environmental Science course; ¶ 54: Educational system 160 may determine content to present and suggest based on information from some or all of taxonomy table 502, a crosswalk table 504, a concept graph table 506, learning maps table 508, suggest table 510, zoom surface table 512, and learner competency profile 514); the science multidimensional ability database comprises an assessment standard of the science multidimensional ability (at least ¶ 29: FIG. 25 shows a user interface providing a suggested route for target destination competency for a learner; ¶ 41: Performance Section 802 may provide various progress and competency metrics associated with the user based on, for example, completion of learning activities, assessment scores; ¶ 44: Proficiency information 406 may be measured and recorded for the learner based on any suitable metrics, such as test results, benchmarks; ¶ 45: educational system 160 generates a crosswalk table that maps educational standards from multiple sources to competencies in the competency database. Mapping multiple standards to a competency may aid in identifying relevant learning resources …); and the user personal science database stores the related information of the personal science learning/practicing of the user (at least ¶ 49: a user may select a learning destination, i.e., a competency that the user wishes to complete. Educational system 160 may then suggest a route for the user to achieve the desired competency. FIG. 13 shows a list-view user interface 1320 showing an adaptive learning route); the analysis module is used for analyzing and assessing the science multidimensional ability of the user through the data of science learning/practicing of the user and/or recommending a science teaching plan suitable for the user according to the science multidimensional ability of the user and the related information of personal science learning/practicing of the user (at least ¶ 42: The content selected for display may be based on the learner's competency profile and analytics based on user data including, by way of example, assessment performance, educational activities completed, educational standards; ¶ 54: with reference to FIGS. 2 and 3, educational system 160 determines what content to present and suggest based on a user's competency profile. FIG. 5 is a block diagram describing the generation and presentation of suggestions and route planning for an adaptive learning path, according to an example embodiment. Educational system 160 may determine content to present and suggest based on information from some or all of taxonomy table 502, a crosswalk table 504, a concept graph table 506, learning maps table 508, suggest table 510, zoom surface table 512, and learner competency profile 514; ¶ 64: FIG. 25 shows a user interface 2500 providing a suggested route for target destination competency for a learner … Based on a learner's competency profile, the system can provide a suggested learning path for any target competency that the learner wants to master; ¶ 65: Based on a learner's performance in any competency that the learner is studying, the system may provide a suggestion as the learner goes through the learning activities).
Alternatively, in the event Ram is viewed as disclosing all the claim limitations but the claim limitations are viewed as not being part of a single embodiment and/or the claim elements are not disclosed as claimed, for example, any of the claimed databases, because these limitations are at least suggested, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ram as claimed, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
[Claim 9] The claim is a method for using the science teaching system of claim 1, comprising: obtaining data of science learning/practicing of a user; analyzing and assessing a science multidimensional ability of the user by means of the data of science learning/practicing of the user; recommending a science teaching plan suitable for the user according to the science multidimensional ability of the user and related information of personal science learning/practicing of the user (at least ¶ 54: with reference to FIGS. 2 and 3, educational system 160 determines what content to present and suggest based on a user's competency profile. FIG. 5 is a block diagram describing the generation and presentation of suggestions and route planning for an adaptive learning path, according to an example embodiment. Educational system 160 may determine content to present and suggest based on information from some or all of taxonomy table 502, a crosswalk table 504, a concept graph table 506, learning maps table 508, suggest table 510, zoom surface table 512, and learner competency profile 514; ¶ 64: FIG. 25 shows a user interface 2500 providing a suggested route for target destination competency for a learner … Based on a learner's competency profile, the system can provide a suggested learning path for any target competency that the learner wants to master; ¶ 65: Based on a learner's performance in any competency that the learner is studying, the system may provide a suggestion as the learner goes through the learning activities).
[Claim 10] In view of the earlier rejection of claim 10 under 112(b), assuming arguendo the claim recites “a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the steps of the method for using the science teaching system of claim 1 are realized when the computer program is executed by a processor”, independent claim 10 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 1.
Re claim 3:
[Claim 3] Ram teaches or at least suggests setting corresponding levels/scores respectively according to the assessment results of each ability of the science multidimensional ability of the user, and setting a comprehensive analysis model of the multidimensional ability comprising the analysis results of each ability according to the actual situation of the user, so as to assess the corresponding levels/scores and the comprehensive analysis model which comprises the comprehensive analysis results and the relationship of each analysis item according to each ability of the user in the science multidimensional ability, wherein within a certain knowledge system, the levels/scores of the comprehensive science ability of the user are assessed for recommending a suitable science teaching plan for the user (at least ¶ 9: FIG. 5 is a block diagram describing the generating and presentation of suggestions and route planning for an adaptive learning path; ¶ 46: educational system 160 may perform route planning to move the user from the current competency to a desired competency by finding a route between the two points in this 3-dimensional space; ¶ 53: a pre-test may be offered that tests whether the user has a sufficient understanding of pre-requisite subject matter to continue studying the selected content. If the pre-test results indicate the user does not have the sufficient understanding, at step 330 educational system 160 offers one or more backfill collections of resources that provides the relevant learning. At step 340, educational system 160 presents resources associated with the lesson and suggestions for additional resources. Learners may elect to study additional related content along their personalized learning path. At step 350 educational system 160 presents one or more post-tests related to the subject matter visited. At step 360, educational system 160 offers an infill collection based on post-test results. As an example, educational system 160 may determine the user performed unsatisfactorily on a particular topic included in a post-test, and based on that offer a collection of resources associated with the topic. At step 370, educational system 160 offers results, such as, for example, a score and benchmarks comparing the learner performance to other learners; ¶ 54: FIG. 5 is a block diagram describing the generation and presentation of suggestions and route planning for an adaptive learning path; ¶ 56: … a competency matrix show a status of “Mastered,” “In Progress,” or “Not Started” for various competencies and topics …).
Re claim 7:
[Claim 7] Ram discloses adjusting or re-recommending a science teaching plan suitable for the user according to the actual situation of the science learning/practicing of the user (at least ¶ 29: FIG. 25 shows a user interface providing a suggested route for target destination competency for a learner; ¶ 38: adaptive learning path generation, suggestion generation, supplementary resources).
Claims 2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ram.
Re claim 2:
[Claim 2] Ram teaches or at least suggests but may not discloses all of wherein the science multidimensional ability comprises at least one ability in understanding, analysis, model/model group establishment, combination of knowledge points, step by step implementation, problem-solving path selection, problem-solving node combination, formula memory, calculation, concentration, psychology and proficiency (at least ¶ 26: FIG. 22 shows a user interface displaying complete competency proficiency for a subject with student's mastery of the competencies; ¶ 49: a user may select a learning destination, i.e., a competency that the user wishes to complete; ¶ 53: a pre-test may be offered that tests whether the user has a sufficient understanding of pre-requisite subject matter to continue studying the selected content; ¶ 54: … crosswalk table 504 may crosswalk the educational standards of all 50 states in the United States and align them with the taxonomy in taxonomy table 502 …; ¶ 56: a Performance section 802 of the application may display an interface 1700 showing the learner's progress in various competencies. In the example shown, a competency matrix show a status of “Mastered,” “In Progress,” or “Not Started” for various competencies and topics). Ram discloses specified learning goals (¶ 6), information related to desired educational topics or goals of the learner … topics of interest (¶ 40), educational standards of all 50 states in the United States (¶ 54). At least in view of the above, modifying Ram as claimed would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Re claim 4:
[Claim 4] Ram teaches or at least suggests but may not discloses all of wherein the science teaching plan comprises a learning plan and/or a practicing plan; the learning plan comprises learning of specific teaching content and review and summary of the specific teaching content after practicing; and the practicing plan comprises practicing goals, difficulty, exercises, practicing points, methods and skills, practicing time and completion standards (at least ¶¶ 2, 3: providing adaptive learning paths based on specified learning goals and student competency profiles; ¶ 53: If the pre-test results indicate the user does not have the sufficient understanding, at step 330 educational system 160 offers one or more backfill collections of resources that provides the relevant learning; ¶ 62: A snapshot of the competency proficiency chart can be created for any given time period and a series of these views provides the learner's progress through the competencies in the subject by course; ¶ 64: The system computes the learning path based on the student's proficiency to identify the competencies that the learner would need to study, and master, to be able to master the target competency. This computed path is called the suggested learning path. The learning path is a series of lessons comprising of learning activities that are suggested based on the student's profile). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ram as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 5:
[Claim 5] Ram teaches or at least suggests but may not discloses all of wherein the science multidimensional ability database further comprises marking the learning content/exercise sources on which the content/exercise is based, grade, course, difficulty, type, learning/problem-solving points, knowledge points involved, and formulas involved (at least ¶ 41: Performance Section 802 may provide various progress and competency metrics associated with the user based on, for example, completion of learning activities, assessment scores, etc.; ¶ 45: educational system 160 may receive profile information describing a user as an 8th grade student from California; ¶ 56: A vertical axis may correspond to the level of competency in the K-12 context (e.g., 7th grade, 8th grade, etc.) while the horizontal axis corresponds to various subject matters or topics). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ram as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 6:
[Claim 6] Ram teaches or at least suggests but may not discloses all of which also recommends teaching video/audio/text/picture materials suitable for the user according to the science multidimensional ability of the user and the related information of personal science learning/practicing of the user (at least ¶ 29: FIG. 25 shows a user interface providing a suggested route for target destination competency for a learner; ¶ 38: adaptive learning path generation, suggestion generation, supplementary resources; ¶ 48: Resources 1110 may be any relevant educational resource for learning, such as, by way of example, video lectures, audio lectures, documentaries, podcasts, textbook readings, quizzes, articles). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ram as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 8:
[Claim 8] Ram teaches or at least suggests but may not discloses all of which also performs intelligent analysis and feedback according to the actual situation of the science learning/practicing of the user, wherein the feedback comprises: at least one of feeding analysis results back to the user to enable the user to make targeted improvement; feeding the analysis results back to teachers/parents in real time so that the teachers/parents conduct manual intervention; and issuing an assessment report according to the analysis results (at least ¶ 19: FIG. 15 shows a user interface for refining an adaptive learning route; ¶ 20: FIG. 16 shows a user interface for receiving suggestions for learning resources and routes; ¶ 37: A teacher may user a teacher interface for interacting with students, reviewing student progress, creating learning resource collections, among other things; ). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Ram as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO
Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The exami