DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Specification
3. The specification is objected to at least for the following discrepancy. The phrase, “non-transitive”, as implied per the line “. . . the computer code and the software is preferably stored on one or more tangible non-transitive memory-storage devices” (see [0052] of the original specification, emphasis added), appears to be a typographical error for --non-transitory--; and thus, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 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 (“demonstrating a plurality of educational concepts to the student”); receiving input from the user (“allowing the student to choose to 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
● Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(a) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 13 recites, “wherein at least a portion of the method is performed by a computer processor operating on instructions that are stored in non-tangible computer readable media” (emphasis added).
However, the original specification lacks sufficient written description regarding such non-tangible computer-readable media, which supposedly stores instructions that the computer processor is executing.
6. 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.
● Claims 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
claim 18 recites, “wherein milestones and other information relating to the student can be input into a profile of the student by the student and/or by a parent of the student” (emphasis added).
However, the term “other information” renders the claim indefinite since the term “other information” is unbounded.
In addition, given the context of the term “can be” as recited above, the claim is further ambiguous since it appears to be referring to an optional limitation. Thus, for examination purpose, claim 18 is considered to be referring to an optional limitation.
Given their direct or indirect dependency on claim 18, it is worth to note that each of claims 19 and 20 also subjected to the same findings noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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: demonstrating 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, which allow the student to choose to perform any one or more of the plurality of educational concepts, Sherman already suggests that the system’s server can provide an interface that receives a request for educational material corresponding to a certain concept (see [0034] lines 1-6); and furthermore, 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 (see [0035]).
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’s system; for example, by incorporating an adoption that allows the student to select one or more desired concepts—such as, 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 wherein, once the student has selected one or more of the desired concepts, the system proceeds with introduction phase, which demonstrates to the student each of the one or more concepts that the student has selected; and furthermore, before proceeding with the educational materials that relates to the one or more selected concepts, the system also executes the pre-test phase in order to determine the user’s knowledge level per each of the one or more concepts, etc., and thereby, besides being adaptive to the skill level of the student, the system would also be more adaptive to the interests of the student, etc.
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), the teaching 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-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 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, Sherman teaches the claimed limitans as discussed above per claim 13.
The limitation, “wherein milestones and other information relating to the student can be input into a profile of the student by the student and/or by a parent of the student” (emphasis added), is referring to an optional limitation; and thus, Sherman is not necessarily required to teach the above optional limitation. Accordingly, the teaching of Sherman, as discussed per claim 13, already addresses claim 18.
Regarding each of claims 19 and 20, Sherman teaches the claimed limitans as discussed above.
Note that each of claims 19 and 20 is directly or indirectly dependent on claim 18; and wherein claim 18 is directed to an optional limitation (see finding above regarding claim 18). Consequently, claims 19 and 20 are also directed to an optional limitation given their direct or indirect dependency on claim 18.
Thus, here also the teaching of Sherman, as discussed per claim 13, already addresses each of claims 19 and 20.
Sherman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Sherman further teaches:
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).
Conclusion
8. 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 on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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