DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
3. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to the communications received on 07/01/2026.
Claims 1, 13 and 18 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-25 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
4. The amendment to the specification is sufficient to overcome the objection set forth in the previous office action. Accordingly, the Office withdraws the above objection.
Similarly, (i) the amendment to claim 13 is sufficient to overcome the rejection set forth in the previous office action under section §112(a); (ii) the amendment to claim 18 is sufficient to overcome the rejection set forth in the previous office action under section §112(b). Accordingly, the Office withdraws the above rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering claim 1 as the representative claim, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
demonstrate a plurality of educational concepts to the student;
allow the student to choose to hands-on perform any one or more of the plurality of educational concepts;
maintain indicia of interaction of the student with respect to each of the plurality of educational concepts, the indicia of interaction comprising:
a first field comprising a first record representing a number of attempts by the student performing each respective one of the plurality of educational concepts; and
a second field comprising a second record of whether the student has acquired each respective one of the plurality of educational concepts;
observe the student performing the chosen one or more of the plurality of educational concepts;
evaluate whether the student has acquired at least one of the plurality of educational concepts;
update the first record of the first field for each respective educational concept to indicate the number of times the student was observed to perform the respective educational concept;
compare the first record of the first field to a predetermined value; and
provide reinforcing education to the student for each of the plurality of educational concepts for which the first record of the respective first field meets or exceeds the predetermined value.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior; wherein a student is presented with a plurality of educational concepts, so that the student chooses one or more of the concepts to learn; and wherein, while observing the student’s interactions and maintaining one or more indicia that represent the student’s interactions with the one or more of the educational concepts; the student’s record is updated based on evaluating the student’s performance; and furthermore, based on the number of attempts the student is making to learn each of one or more educational concepts, the student is presented—based on comparing the number of attempts with a threshold—with one or more reinforcing educational materials, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recites the process of: observing the student performing the chosen one or more of the educational concepts; evaluating whether the student has acquired at least one of the plurality of educational concepts; indicating the
number of times the student was observed to perform the respective educational concept, etc., the claims also correspond to the abstract idea group mental processes; such as, an observation, an evaluation, a judgment process.
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two:
None of claims 1-12 and 21-26 positively recites a computer element(s) that represent additional element(s); whereas claims 13-20 recite a computer processor as part of the additional element(s) to perform the recited steps per claims 13-20. Thus, even assuming arguendo that claims 1-12 and 21-26 also recite the such computer elements that claims 13-20 are reciting, they are utilized—merely as a tool—to facilitate the recited steps regarding: presenting educational concepts (“performing a hands-on demonstration a plurality of educational concepts to the student”); receiving input from the user (“allowing the student to choose to hands-on perform any one or more of the plurality of educational concepts”); maintaining or collecting data (“maintaining indicia of interaction of the student with respect to each of the plurality of educational concepts, the indicia of interaction comprising: a first field comprising a first record representing a number of attempts by the student performing each respective one of the plurality of educational concepts; and a second field comprising a second record of whether the student has acquired each respective one of the plurality of educational concepts”); evaluating tasks that the user is performing (“observing the student performing the chosen one or more of the plurality of educational concepts; evaluating whether the student has acquired at least one of the plurality of educational concepts;”); generating one or more results based on analysis (“updating the first record of the first field for each respective educational concept to indicate the number of times the student was observed to perform the respective educational concept; comparing the first record of the first field to a predetermined value”); providing pertinent information to the user (“providing reinforcing education to the student for each of the plurality of educational concepts for which the first record of the respective first field meets or exceeds the predetermined value”), etc.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth to note, per the original disclosure, that the claimed method is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the specification describes a general-purpose computer, which is utilized as a tool to facilitate the claimed steps (e.g., see [0052]; [0053] of the specification).
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the generation of one or more educational materials to the user, including evaluating the student’s performance as with respect to each of the one or more educational materials and presenting the user with pertinent information, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., US 2016/0343263; US 2014/0272847; US 2011/0055035, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-26). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 07/01/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, regarding Prong One of Step 2A, Applicant is asserting that “claims 1-26 are not directed towards an enumerated patent ineligible category of judicial exceptions under Step 2A - Prong One and are therefore patent eligible . . . claim 1, considered as a whole, is not directed to the judicial exception of ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ under Step 2A - Prong One . . . A person skilled in the art would understand the distinctions between ‘providing education’ and ‘teaching’ and that these terms cannot be used interchangeably. Applicant's specification at [0008] itself points out the challenges with providing educational development in a Montessori school environment because it ‘can be challenging because the educational approach emphasizes individualized learning and self-directed exploration.’ In other words, the student is acquiring skills and developing knowledge through their own repetitive efforts rather than simply having skills or knowledge imparted on them by another person (which is the very definition of ‘teaching’). Accordingly, Applicant's specification describes the challenges with evaluating student education in a Montessori environment because the student is learning on their own rather than having someone teach them. Accordingly, Applicant's claims are directed to the addressing the issues created when there is no ‘teaching’ as that term is conventionally understood . . . a person skilled in the art would therefore not understand claim 1 to be directed towards the enumerated category of ‘teaching’. Accordingly, claim 1 falls outside of the enumerated categories of MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(11) and is therefore directed to patent eligible subject matter” (emphasis added).
However, besides drafting a new or hypothetical theory that contradicts basic common sense, Applicant appears to fail to properly construe the inquiry under Prong One of Step 2A. For instance, unlike Applicant’s subjective theory above, the meaning of the term “providing education” is not necessarily distinct from that of “teaching”. For instance, when a teacher, or a computer-based automated system, is providing education to the student regarding a given concept (e.g., the law of gravity, etc.), the teacher—or the computer-based automated system—is essentially teaching the student about that concept. Accordingly, quite contrary to Applicant’s theory, the two terms; namely, “providing education” and “teaching”, are indeed interchangeable. Moreover, again unlike Applicant’s assertion above, none of the paragraphs in the original specification—including [0008]—supports Applicant’s theory. In fact, the above paragraph ([0008]) is merely describing some alleged problems that Montessori school is assumed to be facing.
In addition, even Applicant’s argument confirms that the claimed method is directed to teaching. In particular, while emphasizing some of the alleged problems that Montessori school is facing—namely, the lack of another person who is imparting knowledge to students, Applicant is asserting that the claimed method is attempting to solve the above challenge. Of course, the above alleged challenge is addressed by introducing “another person”—i.e., a teacher—who is going to impart knowledge to students. This admission itself is sufficient to confirm the fact that the claimed method is indeed directed to teaching. Of course, the fact above is further evident given the various descriptions in the original specification, “. . . the teacher may decide they need to demonstrate the work to the student using some other method or concept or by first introducing the student to some other work in order to better enable the student to grasp the concept and thus acquire the concept” ([0034], emphasis added). Accordingly, the specification also confirms that a teacher is teaching the student about a given concept.
Thus, the observation above demonstrates that Applicant’s argument is not only inconsistent with common sense facts that PHOSITA readily recognizes, but also inconsistent with the description in the specification.
Furthermore, Applicant appears to fail to address the crux of the inquiry under Prong One of Step 2A. This is because Applicant’s entire argument is directed to the alleged issues that a Montessori school environment has, and/or the alleged solutions (if any) that the claimed—and/or the disclosed—method is providing to address the alleged issues above. However, the inquiry under Prong One has nothing to do with any of the alleged issues—and/or the alleged solutions—that Applicant is speculating. Instead, the inquiry under Pong One requires one to determine whether the claim is reciting any judicial exception—such as, an abstract idea; and if so, identifying the limitations that recite the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.07(a), emphasis added),
For Step 2A Prong One, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception. For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the rejection should identify the abstract idea as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is an abstract idea.
Thus, if Applicant does not acknowledge the abstract idea that the current claims are reciting (e.g., see above the limitations identified under Prong One), Applicant may provide a proper rationale (if any) to challenge the Office’s findings. However, simply listing some alleged issues that a Montessori school is assumed to have, and/or some alleged solutions that the claimed method is assumed to be providing to address the alleged issues above, etc., has nothing to do with challenging the Office’s findings presented under Prong One. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, while attempting to summarize a section from the MPEP—namely, MPEP 2106.04(a), and the Board’s decision regarding Ex parte Hannun (i.e., Appeal 2018-003323), Applicant asserts, “Applicant nonetheless notes that MPEP § 2106.04(a) defines ‘mental processes’ as ‘concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In Ex parte Hannun (Appeal 2018-003323), the PTAB applied the USPTO's 2019 revised guidance on patent eligible subject matter. The PTAB clarified that mental processes and methods of organizing human activity are two separate categories of abstract ideas . . . claim 1, considered as a whole, is not directed to the judicial exception of ‘mental processes’ under Step 2A - Prong One, as the steps of claim 1 are not able to practically be performed mentally. The Specification outlines the technical problem to be solved by the present invention at paragraphs [0003] - [0008]. The technical problem is that student development and progress in Montessori environments is impractical to assess using mental processes. The Specification states that teachers usually make notes on student progress on an ad hoc basis which is insufficient to measure student development and progress in an environment where a strictly numerical approach to assessing progress (e.g., grading system) is not used, students are given individualized and self-directed projects, students are not compared relative to one another, and students work at their own pace. Claim 1 is directed towards a technical solution to this problem by presenting an objective method of evaluating student progress and development in an individualized and self-directed learning environment, but this method does not fall within the enumerated category of ‘mental processes’ because the steps cannot be practically performed using mental processes alone” (emphasis added).
However, as an initial matter, it is immaterial whether Applicant is noting, regarding the Ex parte Hannun decision above, that “mental processes and methods of organizing human activity are two separate categories of abstract ideas” (emphasis added). This is because the office action is not asserting that the two categories above are the same; rather, the Office is pointing out the fact that Applicant’s claims recite abstract idea that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and also abstract idea that correspond to mental processes. In contrast, while failing to properly construe the Office’s analysis above, Applicant is misapplying both the MPEP and the Board’s decision (Ex parte Hannun) to challenge the Office’s findings. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, Applicant’s attempt to rely on part of the specification ([0003] to [0008]), which supposedly describes some alleged solutions that the claimed method is assumed to be providing (to address some alleged issues that Montessori environments are assumed to be facing), also fails to negate the Office’s finding regarding mental processes. If anything, Applicant appears to confirm the Office’s finding that the claimed method indeed recites mental processes. For instance, as part of the solution that the current claimed (and/or the disclsoed) method is providing to address the issues, which the Montessori environment is facing, Applicant is emphasizing the numerical approach—namely grading—that the claimed (and/or the disclosed) method is implementing in order to measure student development and progress. Applicant is also emphasizing the need to compare students relative to one another; and such implementation allows the claimed method to present “an objective method of evaluating student progress and development in an individualized and self-directed learning environment” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, as quite evident from the observation above, Applicant is effectively demonstrating the reason why the claimed method is reciting mental processes; such as, the process of evaluating and/or judging a student’s progress/development, which includes: (i) determining a numerical grade that reflects the student’s development and progress, (ii) comparing the student’s development and progress with that of another student, etc. Consequently, it is immaterial whether Applicant is assuming that some of the claimed steps “cannot be practically performed using mental processes alone” (emphasis added). This is because Prong One does not necessarily require the entire steps of the claim to recite an abstract idea. Instead, while excluding the limitations that do not recite an abstract idea, Prong One requires one to identify only the limitations that recite an abstract idea (e.g., see MPEP 2106.07(a) above). Thus, Applicant’s theory directed to mental processes does not appear to be consistent with the inquiry set forth under Prong One of Step 2A.
Secondly, regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, Applicant has attempted to summarize part of the MPEP, along with some court decisions and an example from the 2019 USPTO guidance (e.g., claim 1 of Example 42), in order to substantiate the assertion that “claims 1-26 integrate a practical application under Step 2A - Prong Two and recite specific improvements over prior art methods and are therefore patent eligible” (emphasis added). In addition, while attempting to summarize the Board’s decision regarding Ex parte Moritz (Appeal 2020-004626), Applicant asserts, “if claim 1 recites the judicial exception of a method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes under Step 2A - Prong One, like USPTO Example 42, claim 1 nonetheless recites a combination of additional elements that integrates ‘the method of organizing human activity’ into a practical application under Step 2A - Prong Two and recites a specific improvement over prior art methods. The present specification illustrates the technical problem to be solved: how can one objectively assess a student's ability and progress in a Montessori classroom, where children are not compared to each other and work at their own pace on individual projects?” (emphasis added).
Thus, quite similar to the pattern noted above regarding Prong One, here also Applicant appears to fail to address the core of the inquiry under Prong Two of Step 2A. In particular, while referring to the objectives of the claimed/disclosed method, which supposedly provides the alleged solution (e.g., grading) to objectively assess and/or compare students, Applicant appears to be mistaking part of the abstract idea for an alleged “specific improvement”, which supposedly integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. In contrast, the inquiry under Prong Two requires one to determine a feature (if any)—or a combination of features (if any)—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. It is worth noting, per Applicant’s current claims and original disclosure, that the claimed (and disclosed) method is utilizing a computer-based system (e.g., [0052]) to facilitate the claimed and disclosed process of providing educational development to the student. Accordingly, if Applicant is assuming that any of the claims—considered as a whole—integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application, Applicant should demonstrate a feature (if any)—or a combination of features (if any) that provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology; such as, an improvement in the functioning of the claimed/disclosed computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a), etc.
In contrast, while misapplying the MPEP and the court/Board decisions that Applicant mentioned in the argument, including the analysis that relates to claim 1 of Example 42 from the USPTO’s 2019 PEG, Applicant is incorrectly relying on part of the abstract idea—as opposed to a technological feature (if any)—to substantiate the alleged technological improvement. Consequently, none of Applicant’s conclusory assertions is persuasive, including “the present specification presents a significant technical improvement over traditional methods of assessing student development and performance (thus the claimed ‘providing educational development’) through the reliance on a grading system and standardized testing because claim 1 is directed towards a method of objectively assessing how readily a student is acquiring a new skill through repetition and providing reinforcing education if a threshold repetition value is met or exceeded. This allows a student to gain new skills through the Montessori method of individualized learning and self-directed exploration while simultaneously allowing one to objectively assess student progress and provide reinforcing education in areas where the student needs additional support” (emphasis added). In particular, none of the assertions above is specific to a technological feature(s), much less an advanced technological feature(s). Instead, Applicant is emphasizing some teaching and/or evaluation strategies, which an individual (e.g., a teacher, a parent of the student, etc.) may use to (i) evaluate a student’s educational progress, and/or (ii) help the student acquire new skills, etc. Accordingly, while repeatedly mistaking the abstract idea for an alleged technological improvement, Applicant is as attempting to negate the Office’s findings presented under Prong Two of Step 2A. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Although Applicant has attempted to discuss some features from claim 1 in order to substantiate the alleged improvement, it is worth noting that claim 1 does not even recite any technological feature, much less provide an improvement to one. Given this fact, it is does not appear plausible to even mention technology, let alone an improvement to one.
Thirdly, while referring to parts of the MPEP and some court decisions, Applicant has also attempted to challenge the Office’s findings under Step 2B. For instance, Applicant asserts, “claims 1-26 amount to an inventive concept under Step 2B . . . claim 1 as amended and when considered as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept . . . The combination of steps amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, by allowing one to objective assessing how readily a student is acquiring a new hands-on skill through repetition and providing reinforcing education if a threshold repetition value is met or exceeded. As discussed in the Specification, the technical problem addressed by the present invention is how to objectively assess the educational and developmental progress of students when the student is engaged in the Montessori method of individualized learning and self-directed exploration. Like the claims of DOR Holdings, the steps in the method of claim 1, when considered as a whole, differ from the conventional methods of assessing student progress, such as comparing student progress relative to that of other students and assigning grades, which are inadequate to assess student progress in a Montessori learning environment . . . claim 1 amounts to an inventive concept. As claims 2-26 depend from claim 1, Applicant submits that claims 2-26 also amount to an inventive concept” (emphasis added).
However, here also Applicant is once again resorting to part of the abstract idea in order to support the alleged inventive concept that the current claims are supposedly providing. In particular, while attempting to compare the claimed method with that of the Montessori scheme, Applicant is asserting that the claimed method is (i) addressing the alleged technical problem of “how to objectively assess the educational and developmental progress of students”, and (ii) differ from the conventional methods of assessing student progress—namely, “comparing student progress relative to that of other students and assigning grades”, etc. However, none of the assertions above, alone or in combination, is relevant to the core inquiry under Step 2B. In particular, Step 2B is not concerned with the particularity of the abstract idea that the claim is reciting. Instead, while considering the claim as a whole, Step 2B determines whether the claim is directed to a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. In the instant case, it is evident that the claimed and the disclosed method is relying on the conventional computer/network technology (if any) to facilitate the claimed (and the disclosed) abstract idea—i.e., the process of providing educational development to a student (e.g., see claim 1). Accordingly, given the fact above, each of the current claims, when considered as a whole, is directed to the generic and conventional arrangement of the additional elements. The finding above confirms that none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, implements an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Note also that besides Prong Two of Step 2A, the inquiry under Step 2B also considers technological improvement to determine whether a given claim is implementing an inventive concept; see MPEP 2106.05(a), (emphasis added),
While improvements were evaluated in Alice Corp. as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A). See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, an examiner should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis.
Accordingly, given the lack of technological improvement over the relevant existing technology, along with the generic and conventional arrangement of the additional elements, none of the claims—when considered as a whole—implements an inventive concept.
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that neither the current claims nor the original disclosure as a whole complies with section §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Sherman 2022/0044583 in view of Bedor 2020/0051460.
Regarding claim 1, Sherman teaches the following claimed limitations: a method for providing educational development of a student ([0024]: e.g. a system/method that provides personalized educational material to a student), the method comprising: performing demonstration of a plurality of educational concepts to the student ([0068]; [0069]: e.g., the system provides the user with introduction regarding a plurality of concepts; and furthermore, prior to presenting one or more of concepts to learn, the system determines the student’s skill level with respect to the concepts to be learnt); maintaining indicia of interaction of the student with respect to each of the plurality of educational concepts, the indicia of interaction comprising: a first field comprising a first record representing a number of attempts by the student performing each respective one of the plurality of educational concepts; and a second field comprising a second record of whether the student has acquired each respective one of the plurality of educational concepts ([0070]; [0102]; [0103]; [0104] lines 1-10: e.g., the system presents the student with educational materials related to one or more of the concepts to be learnt; and furthermore, once the student has studied the educational materials, the system provides the student with a relevant assessment material related to each of the one or more concepts; and the system records, as part of the student’s multi-dimensional matrix, various interaction parameters, including (a) indications regarding whether the student has mastered each of the one or more concepts, (b) indications regarding the number of times that the student has attempted mastery of a selected concept, etc. It is worth to note that part (b) above corresponds to the “first record comprising the first field”, whereas part (a) above corresponds to the “second record”); observing the student performing the chosen one or more of the plurality of educational concepts; evaluating whether the student has acquired at least one of the plurality of educational concepts; updating the first record of the first field for each respective educational concept to indicate the number of times the student was observed to perform the respective educational concept [0102]; [0103]; [0104] lines 1-10; [0110]: Note that the limitations above are merely repeating the subject matter that the previous limitations are encompassing; and thus, as already discussed above, the system provides the student with a relevant assessment material related to each of the one or more concepts, after the student has studied the educational materials presented to him/her; and thereby, the system records one or more interaction parameters, including (a) indicating in the record—the student profile—each of the one or more concepts (if any) that the student has mastered, (b) indicating the number of times that the student has attempted mastery of a selected concept, etc. It is understood that the system repeats the above process for each time the student is interacting with educational materials related to the same concept or a different concept. Thus, the student updates the information in the student profile, which includes updating the first record of the first field for each respective educational concepts, etc.); comparing the first record of the first field to a predetermined value; and providing reinforcing education to the student for each of the plurality of educational concepts for which the first record of the respective first field meets or exceeds the predetermined value ([0104] lines 10-16; [0105]; [0111]: e.g., the system compares the number of attempts, which the student made to master a given concept, with a threshold in order to determine whether the number of attempts is within the allowed threshold or exceeding the threshold, etc., and thereby, the system adapts the student’s concept learning profile; and wherein, such adaptation of the student’s learning profile already includes providing new and/or additional educational materials relating to the concept that the student has failed to master).
Although Sherman does not expressly describe an exemplary scenario that requires performing hands-on demonstration, including allowing the student to choose to hands-on perform any one or more of the plurality of educational concepts, Sherman already teaches that the student’s device can function as an electronic textbook, which allows the student to find a particular concept that the student is interested in ([0035]).
Moreover, Bedor discloses a system and method for teaching; and Bedor already contemplates a teaching scenario where a hands-on demonstration is presented to the student regarding an educational concept—such as: a teacher visually presenting the concepts, and/or presentations in the form of videos, etc. ([0134]); and furthermore, as part of the learning process, the student also performs one or more hands-on educational activities—such as, experiments ([0135]; [0154]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sherman in view of Bedor; for example, by providing the student with the option to select one or more desired concepts to study (e.g., a display interface, which lists to the student a number of concepts to be selected and/or an input field that allows the student search for one or more concepts to study, etc.); and furthermore, one or more additional educational options are also incorporated, including the old and well-known Montessori setting, which requires the demonstration of hands-on educational activities to the students—such as, the teacher physically (or a game scenario) demonstrating to the student the educational activity or experiment that the student has selected; and furthermore, the student attempts to replicate the activity/experiment based on the demonstration, etc., so that the student would have a better chance to fully comprehend the subject matter that he/she is studying.
Regarding claim 2, Sherman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Sherman does not expressly describe that the predetermined number is different for at least two of the plurality of educational concepts.
However, the above is describing merely the threshold number associated with a given concept.
It is also worth to note that Sherman already describes that the system provides the student with different types of concepts to learn—such as, trigonometry, integral calculus, differential calculus, world history, biology, etc. ([0068]; [0070]; [0101]); and furthermore, the system allows the student to try a number of times to master a given concept, wherein the student’s number of attempts is compared to a predetermined threshold in order to determine whether the student’s concept learning profile should be adapted; and wherein the above threshold is defined by an authorized user; such as, the system operator ([0104]).
In this regard, one of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes that such different concepts (e.g., when comparing trigonometry and integral calculus, and/or world history and calculus, etc.) have different levels of complexity and/or difficulty (e.g., a teacher readily recognizes, given his/her teaching experience, that integral calculus is more difficult than trigonometry or world history, etc.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sherman’s system; for example, by providing an option that allows an authorized user (e.g., a teacher, etc.) to establish at least one threshold value as applied to each of the one or more concepts that the student is learning; and wherein, depending on the complexity and/or difficulty of the concept, a threshold for a given concept (e.g., integral calculus) may be different from a threshold for a second concept (e.g., trigonometry), etc., and therefore, before the system modifies the student’s concept learning profile related to a given concept, the system provides the student with a reasonable number of opportunities to master the given concept, etc.
Sherman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Sherman further teaches:
Regarding claim 3, updating the second record of the second field to indicate competency when the results of the evaluation step result in a finding of competency ([0103] lines 1-6: e.g., when the student has mastered a given concept, the system records the outcome of the concept in a database associated with the student’s profile);
Regarding claim 4, presenting a new educational concept to the student after a finding of competency for at least one of the plurality of educational concepts ([0070] lines 9-27; [0103] lines 1-6: e.g., after the student has learnt a given concept—such as, trigonometry, the system subsequently provides the student with the next new educational concept—such as, calculus; and wherein the system also updates the student’s profile in the database; and this includes recording the outcome of each of the concepts that the student is learning, etc.);
Regarding claim 5, maintaining indicia of interaction comprises maintaining a
database file ([0103]; [0104]: e.g., the system records in the database not only the outcome of the student’s assessment related to each of the concepts that the student is learning, but also the number of times that the student is attempting to master a given concept, etc. Thus, basic common sense dictatress that the system already maintains a database file regarding indicial of interaction, etc.);
Regarding claim 6, the predetermined value comprises a whole number ([0104]; e.g., the number of times a student repeats a given concept is already a whole number since it is countable. Note also that claim 6 merely describing attributes of a number, which has nothing to do with structural and/or functional features);
Regarding claim 7, providing reinforcing education to the student comprises
demonstrating each of the plurality of educational concepts for which the first record of the respective first field meets or exceeds the predetermined value ([0104]; [0105]; [0111]: e.g., if the user fails to master a given concept, and the student’s number of attempts exceeds the set threshold, the system adapts the student’s concept learning profile; and wherein such adaptation involves providing the student with new and/or additional educational materials. Thus, such delivery of new and/or additional educational materials relating to the concept, which the student has failed to master despite the number of attempts he/she has made, corresponds to the process of providing reinforcing education to the student comprises demonstrating each of the plurality of educational concepts for which the first record of the respective first field meets or exceeds the predetermined value);
Regarding claim 8, a third field comprising a third record representing results of observed social or emotional condition or observed social or emotional progress of the student, selected from the group consisting of: self-control, social maturity, cooperativeness, assuming responsibility for actions, self-confidence, acceptance of guidance, working well with others, dependability, self-motivation, adaptability, responding well to challenges, identifying feelings, and expressing feelings ([0026]; [0048] lines 20-44: e.g., the multi-dimensional matrix of the student’s profile, which the system utilizes to select pertinent educational materials to the student, already comprises a plurality of fields; and wherein one or more of such fields include: the student’s online persona per one or more social media accounts; the student’s preferred cultural background of the student; the student’s chronological age, etc. Thus, at least one of such fields already corresponds to the third field, which represents the results of the student’s observed social or emotional condition/progress regarding one or more of self-control/confidence, social maturity, etc.)
Regarding claim 9, Sherman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Although Sherman does not expressly describe, “a third field comprising a fourth record representing results of an observed physical condition or physical progress of the student, selected from the group consisting of lifts head, smiles, turning to face stimulus, sits up with support . . . drinks from a cup, and scribbles”, Sherman already teaches a scenario where the student interacts, via a video conference, with a qualified tutor regarding one or more concepts that the student is learning ([0036]; [0037]).
Thus, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify Sherman’s teaching; for example, adding one or more additional fields to the multi-dimensional matrix of the student’s profile; such as, one or more parameters that indicate the student’s physical reaction/response, as the student is interacting with the tutor during the video conference; wherein such parameter may be provided by (i) the tutor based on the tutor’s observation (e.g., as the tutor requests the student to turn the textbook to a particular page, the tutor notices that the student dislikes the textbook since the student fails to physically turn the textbook to the particular page as requested), and/or (ii) the system automatically (e.g., based on the video being captured during the video conference); and wherein the system further utilizes such additional parameters when selecting one or more educational materials that are more appropriate to the student (e.g., if it is determined, per the parameter that relates to the student’s observed physical response, that the student dislikes the particular textbook, the system provides the student with a supplemental material—such as a video—that teaches the student the same concept that the textbook is covering, etc.); and accordingly, such implementation helps the student to easily learn one or more of the concepts that the student is studying.
Regarding each of claims 10-12, Sherman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed per claim 1 above.
Each of claims 10-12 is referring merely to the content (e.g., the topic) of the educational concepts; i.e., physical educational concepts (per claim 10), academic educational concepts (per claim 11), and the so-called hands-on Montessori works (per claim 12).
However, such content of an educational concept does not patentably distinguish any of the claims from the prior art since it directed to nonfunctional descriptive matter (note also that no new and nonobvious functional relationship with the known method exists).
Accordingly, given the fact that Sherman already teaches educational materials involving one or more concepts ([0068]; [0101] lines 12-17), including the modification discussed per claim 1 that incorporates experimental or hands-on educational activities, the modifieds system of Sherman above already addresses each of the claims above.
Sherman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Sherman further teaches:
Regarding claim 13, at least a portion of the method is performed by a computer processor operating on instructions that are stored in non-transitory tangible computer readable media ([0028] to [0031]: e.g., the system implements at least one computing device; such as, a desktop computer or a laptop computer, which communicates with one or more online servers, etc.; and thus, the computer incorporates a processor that executes instructions stored in oner or more non-transitory tangible computer readable media);
Regarding claim 14, the processor updates the indicia of interaction of the student ([0103] lines 1-6: e.g., based on the outcome of the student’s assessment, the system’s processor updates the student’s record in the database);
Regarding claim 15, wherein the processor compares the first record of the first field to the predetermined value ([0104]: e.g., as the student is attempting to master a given concept, it is the system’s processor that (a) tracks the number of times the student is trying, and also (b) compares the number of attempts to a given threshold);
Regarding claim 16, providing a parent portal and wherein educational progress of a parent's respective student can be displayed on a user interface ([0103] lines 1-10: e.g., besides updating the student’s record related to each of the one or more concepts, the system further generates a notification to the student’s family; and wherein such notification displays to the family the concept that the student has mastered, etc. Although the process of displaying the information may be optional, given the claim language “can be”, the notification above does teach the required limitation, i.e., “providing a parent portal”; and therefore, such process of presenting a notification to the family corresponds to the process of providing a parent portal and wherein educational progress of a parent's respective student can be displayed on a user interface);
Regarding claim 17, wherein information regarding educational concepts are displayed on the user interface ([0103] lines 1-10: e.g., as already pointed out per claim 16 above, the system generates a notification to the student’s family; and thus, the device, which the student’s family member is utilizing, already incorporates a user interface to display information);
Regarding claim 18, wherein milestones relating to the student are input into a profile of the student by the student and/or by a parent of the student ([0046]; [0047]: e.g., the student sets his/her profile; and the student profile includes various attributes, including one or more learning preferences of the student. Thus, the above indicates that milestones relating to the student are input into a profile of the student by the student);
Regarding claim 19, the profile of the student also includes information relating to educational developmental milestones which are entered by an instructor ([0093]: e.g., teachers can insert one or more attributes into the student’s learning profile; such as, a lesson standard that the teacher wants to use for his/her student. This incites that the profile of the student already includes information relating to educational developmental milestones which are entered by an instructor);
Regarding claim 20, the profile of the student is successively added to year after year throughout a period of years of a childhood of the student and wherein the profile comprises a selectable field associated with a plurality of items of information such that the student and/or the student's parent can select at least some of the items of information from the first record and/or the second record and wherein the selected items can be extracted and shared electronically with secondary schools and/or employers ([0045] to [0047]; [0058]; [0106]; [0110] : e.g., the student’s profile or record already stores various attributes related to the student, including: educational concepts that the student has studied, test results/grades the student achieved, etc., and the system also updates the attributes based on progress that the student is making overtime; and furthermore, besides allowing the user to associate his/her profile with one or more social media accounts and/or employer’s website, the system also implements a GUI that allows the user to access and view desired information—including reports and progress graphs, etc. Thus, besides successively adding or updating the profile of the student year after year throughout a period of years of a childhood of the student, the profile already comprises a selectable field associated with a plurality of items of information such that at least the student can select some of the items of information from the first/second record, and wherein the selected items can be extracted and shared electronically with secondary schools and/or employers);
Regarding claim 21, the step of maintaining indicia of interaction of the student is
performed by a first instructor of an organization and wherein a second instructor of the organization reviews at least some of the maintained indicia to determine an appropriate course of instruction for the student such that the second instructor can begin working with the student at or near a level where the first instructor stopped ([0036]; [0037]; [0048]: e.g., based on the student’s learning profile, the system already matches-up the student with a qualified tutor; and furthermore, the system already allows a teacher to adjust the student’s learning profile above, which comprises the multi-dimensional data matrix that includes the plurality of interaction parameters related to the student. Thus, the teacher corresponds to the first instructor of an organization that maintains indicia of interaction of the student; whereas, the tutor is the second instructor of the organization, who reviews at least some of the maintained indicia to determine an appropriate course of instruction for the student; so that the second instructor can begin working with the student at or near a level where the first instructor stopped);
Regarding claim 22, evaluating whether the student has acquired at least one of the plurality of educational concepts comprises recording indicia of acquisition of an acquired educational concept ([0103] lines 1-6: e.g., as the student masters a given concept, the system records—in a database associated with the student’s profile—the outcome of assessment regarding the concept, etc.; and this already indicates the process of recording indicia of acquisition of an acquired educational concept after evaluating whether the student has acquired at least one of the plurality of educational concepts);
Regarding claim 23, comprising monitoring the student while the student teaches the acquired educational concept to a second student who has not acquired the educational concept. ([0036]; [0037]; [0039]: e.g., once the student has qualified to be a tutor, the effectiveness of the student to properly teach a second student is further evaluated based on various factors, including: a grade or ranking that the second student is assigning to the tutor, the level of success of the second student regarding the concept that the tutor has taught the second student, etc.);
Regarding claim 24, reevaluating whether the student has acquired the acquired educational concept based on the results of the monitoring ([0036]; [0037]; [0039]: e.g., as already pointed out per claim 23 above, the effectiveness of the student to properly teach a second student is evaluated based on various factors, including: a grade or ranking that the second student is assigning to the tutor, the level of success of the second student regarding the concept that the tutor has taught the second student, etc. Thus, such evaluation already corresponds to the process of reevaluating—based on the result of monitoring—whether the student has acquired the acquired educational concept);
Regarding claim 25, identifying a subject of interest to the student based at least in part on information contained in the first field and/or the second field ([0011]; [0035]; [0048] lines 20-32: e.g., as already discussed per claim 1 above, the system implements a multi-dimensional matrix of the student’s profile, which indicates the concepts that the students has mastered or not; and wherein such induction also involves the student’s level of interest regarding a given concept);
Regarding claim 26, challenging the student with one or more further educational concepts in the identified subject of interest ([0048] lines 20-32; [0068]; [0069]: e.g., prior to the student starts to learn the given concept, the system provides the student with at least a pre-test in order to determine the student’s knowledge level as applied to the concept; and thus, the above corresponds to the process of challenging the student with one or more further educational concepts in the identified subject of interest).
Response to Arguments.
7. Applicant’s arguments directed to section §103 have been fully considered (see pages 14 to 15 of the arguments filed on 07/01/2026). Applicant’s arguments are directed to the amendment made to the current claims. However, a new ground of rejection is presented in this current office action due to the amendment to the current claims. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
8. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this final office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filled within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights