DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 16 February 2026. It is noted that this application benefits from Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/448,020 filed 24 February 2023. Claims 1, 10, 12, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
[3] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 12, and 17 are directed to methods and a system and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 12, and 17 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of directing actions and tasks to human user/school certifying official related to managing students enrolled in an educational program, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing interactions between people (e.g., teaching and following rules or instructions).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 1. In particular, claim 1 includes:
“…receiving…input corresponding to an action…the action being related to at least one of the student information or the SCO information, and the input including any input information required for the platform to perform the action; performing…the action related to the responsibilities of the SCO; updating…at least one of the student information or the SCO information…based on results of the action; generating…a log entry in response to performance of the action…and outputting…output data related to completion of the action…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of directing actions and tasks to human user/school certifying official related to managing students enrolled in an educational program, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing interactions between people (e.g., teaching and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The technical elements identified in claim 1 are limited to: “server”, “memory”, “database”, “user device”, and “platform”. These technical elements and the recited functions constitute technical features which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As presented by amendment, additional elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject matter include:
(1) The “server” is identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in storing data usable by the platform and hosting the platform.
(2) The “memory” is identified as storing a database of student information a data related to the responsibilities of the SCO.
(3) The “database” is identified as storing student information a data related to the responsibilities of the SCO.
(4) The “user device” is identified as accessing the platform via electrical connection with the server and receiving outputs from the platform/server.
(5) The “platform” is identified as being hosted by the server, receiving inputs of actions and data, and performing in a general and unspecified manner, the actions initiated by the user.
With respect to additional elements, claim 1 has been amended with respect to the previously recited “…performing, by the platform, the action related to the responsibilities of the SCO…” to further specify “by executing stored logic rules corresponding to a type of action and modifying at least one data field of the student information or SCO information in accordance with stored logic rules…”.
While the amendment specifies that rules associated with specifies actions are followed/executed as associated with the performance of an action, the actions performed are limited to modifying a data field in accordance with the applicable rules. While the platform is generally associated with the claimed modification in an unspecified manner, following rules associated with changing student action is reasonably performable by a human operator employing mental processing.
Claim 1 has been amended with respect to the previously recited “…generating, by the platform, a log entry…” to further specify “…the log entry including (i) an identifier of the action, (ii) a timestamp, and (iii) at least one prior value and updated value of a modified data field…”.
While the amended further specifies particular data elements that are/can be stored as part of the stored log entry, the step of generating a log entry is limited to the storage and retrieval of data from generic computer memory.
Claim 1 as amended adds an additional step function of “automatically generating a new task in response to detection of a specific type of action, wherein the platform retrieves a stored task template previously associated with the specific type of action and populates at least one task field of the new task based on the stored task template…”.
While the amendment specifies that a stored template is used to receive information associated with a new task and fill information associated with the task into template fields, the actions performed by the recited platform are limited to retrieval of stored data/forms and an action of inputting information into the form which, absent clarification of functions performed by the recited platform, is reasonably performable by a human operator employing mental processing.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., information and data are stored, inputs are received, actions are performed, information is updated in a database, and results of actions are outputted to a device etc.) as associated with a respective “platform” or “server”. The limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “server” and “platform” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a platform” or “by a server”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., inputs, actions, data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., data related to responsibilities of a user and student information and templates associated with tasks/actions); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., students lists and actions or tasks) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of directing actions and tasks to human user/school certifying official related to managing students enrolled in an educational program using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed directing actions and tasks to human user/school certifying official related to managing students enrolled in an educational program benefit from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0044]-[0051]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
(1) The “server” is identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in storing data usable by the platform and hosting the platform.
(2) The “memory” is identified as storing a database of student information a data related to the responsibilities of the SCO.
(3) The “database” is identified as storing student information a data related to the responsibilities of the SCO.
(4) The “user device” is identified as accessing the platform via electrical connection with the server and receiving outputs from the platform/server.
(5) The “platform” is identified as being hosted by the server, receiving inputs of actions and data, and performing in a general and unspecified manner, the actions initiated by the user.
With respect to additional elements, claim 1 has been amended with respect to the previously recited “…performing, by the platform, the action related to the responsibilities of the SCO…” to further specify “by executing stored logic rules corresponding to a type of action and modifying at least one data field of the student information or SCO information in accordance with stored logic rules…”.
While the amendment specifies that rules associated with specifies actions are followed/executed as associated with the performance of an action, the actions performed are limited to modifying a data field in accordance with the applicable rules. While the platform is generally associated with the claimed modification in an unspecified manner, following rules associated with changing student action is reasonably performable by a human operator employing mental processing.
Claim 1 has been amended with respect to the previously recited “…generating, by the platform, a log entry…” to further specify “…the log entry including (i) an identifier of the action, (ii) a timestamp, and (iii) at least one prior value and updated value of a modified data field…”.
While the amended further specifies particular data elements that are/can be stored as part of the stored log entry, the step of generating a log entry is limited to the storage and retrieval of data from generic computer memory.
Claim 1 as amended adds an additional step function of “automatically generating a new task in response to detection of a specific type of action, wherein the platform retrieves a stored task template previously associated with the specific type of action and populates at least one task field of the new task based on the stored task template…”.
While the amendment specifies that a stored template is used to receive information associated with a new task and fill information associated with the task into template fields, the actions performed by the recited platform are limited to retrieval of stored data/forms and an action of inputting information into the form which, absent clarification of functions performed by the recited platform, is reasonably performable by a human operator employing mental processing.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., inputs, actions, data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., data related to responsibilities of a user and student information and templates associated with tasks/actions); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., students lists and actions or tasks).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of directing actions and tasks to human user/school certifying official related to managing students enrolled in an educational program. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., directing actions and tasks to human user/school certifying official related to managing students enrolled in an educational program, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of directing actions and tasks to human user/school certifying official related to managing students enrolled in an educational program benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 12 and 17, directed to an alternate iteration of the method and an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
[4] Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bright et al. (United States Patent No. 11,790,468, hereinafter ‘Bright’) in view of Fowler et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0253963 hereinafter ‘Fowler’).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 1, Bright discloses a method for managing responsibilities of a school certifying official (SCO), the method comprising: storing, on a server, information usable to host a platform for managing responsibilities of the SCO (Bright et al.; col. 6, lines 41-60, col. 15, lines 53-67, and col. 16, lines 1-8; See at least accrediting and program standards/criterion including due date assigned to faculty. See further tracking and logging student and supervisor activity and actions in relation to program standards criteria); storing, on the server or in a memory, a database of stored data related to the responsibilities of the SCO, and including student information related to a plurality of students assigned to the SCO and SCO information related to the responsibilities of the SCO (Bright et al.; col. 22, lines 3-8 and 55-67, col. 24, lines 1-13; See at least supervisor GUI and display of program actions and students), the student information including a list of students assigned to the SCO that correspond to the plurality of students assigned to the SCO and student information associated with each student in the list of students (Bright et al.; col. 24, lines 1-20, col. 25, lines 1-20; See at least filterable listing of assigned students including student time records and activity logs), and the SCO information including a list of tasks to be completed by the SCO (Bright et al.; col. 26, lines 15-50; See at least action buttons and reminders); accessing, by a user, the platform using a user device that is separate from the server and in electrical communication with the server (Bright et al.; col. 9, lines 50-67, col. 15, lines 53-67, and col. 16, lines 1-8; See at least user devices logging into server to access system GUIs. See further tracking and logging student and supervisor activity and actions in relation to program standards criteria); receiving, from the user device, input corresponding to an action to be performed by the platform, the action being related to at least one of the student information or the SCO information, and the input including any input information required for the platform to perform the action (Bright et al.; col. 25, lines 20-29, col. 26, lines 15-28, col. 28, lines 53-67; See at least inputs to initiate actions. See at least student activity approvals and logging); performing, by the platform, the action related to the responsibilities of the SCO (Bright et al.; col. 24, lines 21-37, col. 25, lines 21-29; See at least approval functions associated with program criterion related to students assigned to supervisor. See further system performs the approval responsive to the input); updating, in the database, at least one of the student information or the SCO information in the stored data based on results of the action (Bright et al.; col. 25, lines 1-30; See at least updating stored time records for student); generating, by the platform, a log entry in response to performance of the action, and storing the log entry in a list of logs in the database (Bright et al.; col. 16, lines 10-35, col. 22, lines 55-67 and col. 23, lines 1-10; See at least logging of student and supervisor activity); and outputting, on the user device, output data related to completion of the action (Bright et al.; col. 26, lines 16-50, col. 35, lines 25-50; See at least summary reports and program reports generated in response to logged activity and comparison to expected program levels of achievement).
With respect to the elements added by amendment, while Bright discloses a platform for administration of an educational institution that includes graphical user interfaces/displays for generating tasks and item lists, tracking student activities in the form of a log of entries associated with action, and utilizes timestamps for clocking activities and applies templates to data entry in a general manner, Bright fails to expressly state the elements added to these functions by amendment.
However, Fowler discloses a system for engaging stakeholders of an educational institution further including performing actions by executing stored logic rules corresponding to a type of action and modifying at least one data field of the student information or SCO information in accordance with stored logic rules (Fowler et al.; paragraphs [0044] [0136]-[0142]; See at least execution of tasks and actions associated with templates having defined execution rules).
Fowler further discloses generating, by the platform, a log entry…including (i) an identifier of the action, (ii) a timestamp, and (iii) at least one prior value and updated value of a modified data field (Fowler et al.; paragraphs [0044] [0127]-[0132]; See at least identifiers/tags, timestamps, and values entered in logs)
Fowler further discloses a step/function of automatically generating a new task in response to detection of a specific type of action, wherein the platform retrieves a stored task template previously associated with the specific type of action and populates at least one task field of the new task based on the stored task template (Fowler et al.; paragraphs [0011] [0044] [0045] [0136] [0142]; See at least triggers and flags associated with action initiates retrieval of template. See further system auto-populates template fields).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the graphical user interfaces/displays for generating tasks and item lists and tracking student activities in the form of a log of entries features of Bright by further including applying known elements of rule-based performance of actions, utilization of templates to enter and store tracking information elements, and tagging data elements using timestamps as taught by Fowler. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of tracking activities associated with the administration of an educational institution. As Bright disclose the use of graphical user interfaces/displays for generating tasks and item lists and tracking student activities in the form of a log of entries in the context of a system and method for tracking activities associated with the administration of an educational institution and Fowler similarly discloses the utility of rule-based performance of actions, utilization of templates to enter and store tracking information elements, and tagging data elements using timestamps in the context of a system and method for tracking activities associated with the administration of an educational institution, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of ensuring accurate and timely cataloguing and dissemination of information to stakeholders in an educational system thereby ensuring that informed actions in compliance of required rules are taken by pertinent actors.
With respect to claim 2, Bright discloses a method wherein the action includes at least one action from a plurality of actions including: adding or removing at least one student from the list of students assigned to the SCO (Bright et al.; col. 22, lines 3-10; See at least toggle to choose a supervisor assigned to the student); changing the student information related to at least one student from the list of students assigned to the SCO (Bright et al.; col. 22, lines 3-8 and 55-67, col. 24, lines 1-13; See at least supervisor GUI and display of program actions and students); adding or revising a document or note associated with at least one student from the list of students assigned to the SCO (Bright et al.; col. 16, lines 10-35, col. 22, lines 55-67 and col. 23, lines 1-10; See at least logging of student and supervisor activity); adding or revising a document or note associated with the SCO (Bright et al.; col. 22, lines 55-67 and col. 23, lines 1-10; See at least editing student time records); or adding or marking as complete a task to be completed by the SCO from the list of tasks associated with the SCO (Bright et al.; col. 25, lines 20-29; See at least approval of time records and checkboxes).
With respect to claim 3, Bright discloses a method wherein the platform is configured to perform each of the plurality of actions (Bright et al.; col. 24, lines 21-37, col. 25, lines 21-29; See at least approval functions associated with program criterion related to students assigned to supervisor. See further system performs the approval responsive to the input).
With respect to claim 4, Bright discloses a method wherein the action includes creating an audit report to include at least a portion of the student information from the database associated with each student in the list of students (Bright et al.; col. 26, lines 16-50, col. 35, lines 25-50; See at least summary reports and program reports generated in response to logged activity and comparison to expected program levels of achievement).
With respect to claim 5, Bright discloses a method further comprising receiving, from the user device, an identifier of information to be included in the audit report, wherein performing the action includes creating the audit report to include the identified information (Bright et al.; col. 35, lines 25-67, col. 36, lines 1-22; See at least program standard reports generated for review of performance with respect to program standards and criteria. The reports are reasonably a form of audit report).
With respect to claim 6, Bright discloses a method further comprising receiving, from the user device, format information corresponding to a desired format of the audit report, wherein performing the action includes creating the audit report to have the desired format (Bright et al.; col. 35, lines 8-25; See at least selected format for program compliance reports).
With respect to claim 7, Bright discloses a method wherein the student information includes at least one of student grades, classes in which each student is enrolled, scholarships awarded to each student, benefits assigned to each student, a document or note associated with at least one student, a program of study in which each student is enrolled, or a branch of military in which each student served (Bright et al.; col. 33, lines 4-23, col. 38, lines 4-12; See at least GPA data and tracking of academic program data).
With respect to claim 8, Bright discloses a method wherein the SCO information includes at least one of the list of tasks to be performed by the SCO, a document or note associated with the SCO, or a calendar with a plurality of calendar entries associated with the SCO (Bright et al.; col. 26, lines 15-50; See at least action buttons and reminders).
With respect to claim 9, Bright discloses a method further comprising: identifying, by the platform, a priority of each task from the list of tasks based on information associated with each task (Bright et al.; col. 6, lines 41-60, col. 26, lines 15-50; See at least action buttons and reminders for actions/tasks based on deadline); and ordering, by the platform, the list of tasks based on at least one of the identified priority or a due date of each task (Bright et al.; col. 6, lines 41-60, col. 28, lines 28-50; See at least tasks/action generated and email notifications based on due date).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 10, Bright discloses a method further comprising: detecting, by the platform, a trigger event corresponding to a specific event (Bright et al.; col. 28, lines 28-50; See at least email notifications sent based on approaching due date, i.e., a form of trigger event); and automatically generating and sending, by the platform, an email having a predetermined format and content identified by the SCO in response to detection of the trigger event (Bright et al.; col. 6, lines 41-60, col. 28, lines 28-50; See at least tasks/action generated and email notifications based on due date).
Bright fails to specify that the trigger event includes “…at least one of: a change in student data, (ii) a task due date, or (iii) a threshold condition associated with a student…”.
However, Fowler discloses this element (Fowler et al.; paragraphs [0139] [0140]; See at least trigger/metrics associated with student timelines for activities).
Regarding claim 10, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 10 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 11, Bright discloses a method further comprising automatically generating and sending, by the platform, an email having information corresponding to an open task and a due date of the open task when the due date of the open task is at least one of the present day or a previous day, wherein the list of tasks includes a due date and a status for each task (Bright et al.; col. 28, lines 28-50, col. 30, lines 10-35; See at least settings for sending alert emails based on a number of days in relation to the due date).
Claims 12-16 and 17-20, as presented by amendment, substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claims 1-11 as directed to a reordered variant of the method of claims 1-11 and to the enabling system and computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions. With respect to these elements, Bright et al. disclose enabling the disclosed method employing analogous systems and executable instructions (See at least Bright et al. columns 9 and 10). Accordingly, claims 12-16 and 17-20 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 1-11.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[5] Applicant's remarks filed 16 February 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 3 December 2025 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05).
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 3 December 2025 have been fully considered and are moot in light of newly added grounds of rejection responsive to the amendments to the subject claims. See revised rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 presented above.
Conclusion
[6] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Williams et al., SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR STUDENT ATTENDANCE MANAGEMENT, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0327009, paragraphs [0038]-[0039]: Relevant Teachings: Williams discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions for the administration of school activities including applying customizable district-specific rules to actions and activities monitored by the system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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 filed 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights