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 04/28/2026.
Claims 1-11,13-18 and 20 have been amended; claims 12 and 19 have been canceled; and new claims—claims 21 and 22—have been added. Therefore, currently claims 1-11, 13-18 and 20-22 are currently pending in this application.
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 1-11, 13-18 and 20-22 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 à Prong One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 15 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea (note that an avatar is essentially a fictional or a pictorial character; and therefore, the term “character” is used below in order to provide proper context to the recited abstract idea):
[collect] a characteristic of a registered entity within a structured data record;
create a [character] for the registered entity;
generate and [show] pages of visual aids including the [character] as the registered entity interacts with the pages of the visual aids;
monitor the structured data record to detect an update;
determine that the registered entity completed a predefined task of the visual aids based on the update; and
in response to the completed predefined task, modify accessibility of available [options].
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; such as teaching. It is worth noting that the “registered entity”, as recited per the current claims, is a user who is interacting with a computer (a user who is taking training). In particular, during the onboarding/registration phase, the user provides information/characteristics, which is used to build the user’s profile as part of the user’s account; and subsequently, the user is then presented with training content, including visual aids; and accordingly, the user views and/or interacts with the visual aids as part of performing the training, etc. (e.g., see [0024]; [0025]; [0030]; [0033]; [0036], etc.).
Thus, when interpreting the claims in light of the specification, the claims do recite an abstract idea—such as, the sub-grouping managing personal behavior, under the group certain methods of organizing human activity. For instance, once the user has registered, which includes recording the characteristic of the user into a data record, the user is presented with one or more pages depicting content items (e.g., visual aids, a character, etc.); wherein the user interacts with one or more of the content items as part of performing the training; and furthermore, based on evaluating an update (if any) in the data record above, it is determined whether user has completed a predefined task of the visual aids; and accordingly, in response to the completed predefined task, accessibility to available .
Similarly, given the limitations that recites the process of: displaying pages of visual aids including the [character] as the user interacts with the pages of the visual aids; monitoring a structured data record to detect an update; determining that the user completed a predefined task of the visual aids based on the update, etc., the claims also correspond to the group mental processes; such as, an observation, an evaluation and/or a judgment process, etc.
Step 2A à Prong Two:
The claim(s) recite additional element(s), wherein a computer that comprises a processor, a memory, a display, etc., is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: collecting and/or storing information (e.g., “onboarding a registered entity with a software application, wherein the onboarding comprises storing a characteristic of the registered entity within a structured data record of the software application stored in memory; creating an avatar for the registered entity within the software application”); presenting a user with one or more content items (e.g., “generating and displaying pages of visual aids including the avatar on a user interface of the software application as the account interacts with the pages of the visual aids”); evaluating the user’s interaction with the presented content items (e.g., “monitoring the structured data record in the memory to detect an update”, “determining that the registered entity completed a predefined task of the visual aids based on the update”); generating one or more relevant results based on the evaluation above (e.g., “in response to the completed predefined task, modifying accessible functionality of the software available within a dashboard of the user interface”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, 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 an 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, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (e.g., see the discussion under Prong Two above regarding such consideration of the claim as a whole), none of the claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth noting, per the original disclosure, that the current claimed apparatus/method is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the specification describes a system that implements one or more commercially available conventional computing devices (e.g., a general-purpose computer, i.e., a desktop computer, a laptop, etc.); wherein the devices communicate—via the conventional communication network (e.g., the Internet)—with one or more online servers; and thereby the system presents a user with interactive training materials (e.g., see [0110] to [0120], etc.).
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network system to facilitate the presentation of interactive content items (e.g., educational materials) to a user, including generating—based on the analysis of the user’s interaction—one or more results (e.g., one or more of: textual data, graphical data, etc.), etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2017/0206797; US 2008/0254426; US 2008/0268418, 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 2-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18 and 20-22). 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 (i.e., the arguments filed on 04/28/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while attempting to summarize the 2019 PEG and MPEP 2106.04, Applicant asserts that “when Claim 1 is viewed ‘as a whole’, Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept, but rather a software control system that maintains and monitors a structured data record in memory, and detects updates to the record. In response, the system can determine the task has completed based on the detected modification, and automatically activate previously unavailable functionality within the software application. Claim 1 includes monitoring a structured data record stored in memory for updates, determining an update changes a state of the system and automatically activate a feature within the software application which is previously unavailable” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant appears to fail to properly apply the inquiry under Prong One of Step 2A. In particular, while relying on the claimed computer elements (e.g., the claimed software, and/or the functionality of the software, etc.), Applicant is attempting to challenge the Office’s findings under Prong One. In contrast, Prong One does not require one to consider any of the claimed computer elements. Instead, Prong One requires one to identify only the limitations that recites the judicial exception; such as, an 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.
Consequently, Applicant’s attempt to challenge the Office’s findings presented under Prong One, while emphasizing the claimed computer elements, is not persuasive. This is again because none of the computer elements is part of the abstract idea; rather, the computer elements are part of the additional elements, which are evaluated under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B. In this regard, Applicant appears to conflate the two different inquiries—i.e., the inquiry under Prong One and the inquiry under Prong Two.
Applicant further asserts, “[t]he process of detecting a modification to a structured data record and triggering a state-based change in available application functionality is not something capable of abstractly being performed in the human mind. Furthermore, activation of previously unavailable functionality is not a mental process or a fundamental economic practice. The claim recites a specific technological implementation involving memory monitoring and automated application-state transitions, not an abstract idea . . . the inquiry into the abstraction of Applicant's claims should end at this first prong as Applicant's claims do not fall into any of the enumerated groupings and therefore cannot be abstract” (emphasis added).
However, once again Applicant is incorrectly relying on the alleged functions and/or components of the claimed computer elements in an attempt to challenge the Office’s finding under Prong One—i.e., the finding regarding mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. In contrast, as already pointed out above, the inquiry under Prong One does not require one to consider any of the claimed computer element, which includes the process of “detecting a modification to a structured data record and triggering a state-based change in available application functionality”, and/or “activation of previously unavailable functionality” of software, etc. (emphasis added). Instead, Prong One requires one to consider only the limitations that recite the judicial exception (also see above the citation from the MPEP). Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since the arguments are not even relevant to the findings presented under Prong One of Step 2A.
Secondly, regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, Applicant asserts that “claims impose meaningful, practical, and succinct operations that continuously monitors for updates to a structured data record, and detected modifications can be used to determine completion of predefined tasks. The system uses the determination to controls activation of previously unavailable functionality within the software application. The claim changes how the software application operates . . . activation of previously unavailable functionality creates a reconfiguration of the software application and it is performed based on updates to a data record stored in memory. The processor does not merely display information or provide guidance. Instead, it modifies the functional capabilities available within the application” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant appears to fail to address the core issue under Prong Two of Step 2A. In particular, Applicant fails to demonstrate whether any of the claims (or even the disclosure) is implementing an element—a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Instead, Applicant appears to provide a generic summary regarding the functions or processes that the claimed computer is performing—such as, the process of: monitoring for updates to a structured data record; detecting modifications in order to determine the completion of predefined tasks; activating unavailable function based on the determination above, etc.
However, none of the assertions above, alone or in any ordered combination, demonstrates a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. For instance, regarding the current limitation, Applicant fails to articulate what the so-called “structured data record” is representing, much less demonstrate what technological feature (if any) it is signifying. Nevertheless, the limitation “structured data record” is a generic term that covers various scenarios—such as, one or more documents stored in the computer’s memory. In this regard, the specification describes that the system collects and stores data related to the user—such as, the user’s age, which the system uses to provide the user with age-appropriate content ([0058] lines 1-8). Thus, such document that comprises the student’s information is considered to be the so-called “structured data record” that Applicant is implying. Of course, the system also evaluates whether the user has completed one or more predefined tasks (e.g., “track[ing] user interaction with the visual aids, determining when a visual aid has been viewed and the associated training implemented”); and subsequently, when it determines that the user has completed the task (e.g., “the [user] completes different educational modules or achieves set financial goals”), the system moves an avatar to a different position from its initial position (see [0058], lines 17-23). In this regard, based on one’s interpretation, the completion of the tasks above, which the system recognizes, represents the update being made to the so-called “structured data record”. Accordingly, the system changes the position of the avatar based on the evaluation of the update above, which shows the completion of the predefined tasks.
Of course, the dilemma here is whether such changing position of the avatar is considered to be the so-called “activation of previously unavailable functionality within the software application”, which Applicant is implying above. Nevertheless, the specification describes a further scenario where the system performs the process of “determining that the current age of the user has reached a predefined age threshold, and in response, activating an ability for the user to customize one or more features of the software application . . . dynamically activating one or more educational media files and enabling the one or more educational media files to be played via the user interface” ([0095], emphasis added).
Thus, the predefined age threshold, which the user is reaching above, also suggests the update to the so-called “structured data record” (e.g., updating the record by replacing the previous age value with the new value). Similarly, the permission that the system is granting the user to do one or more customizations after the user has reached the age threshold, and/or the activation that the system is doing to one or more educational media files after the user has reached the age threshold, corresponds to the so-called “activation of previously unavailable functionality” of the software. It is worth noting that such “activation of previously unavailable functionality” further indicates the alleged “reconfiguration of the software application” that Applicant is emphasizing.
Although it is puzzling how the age threshold, which the user reaches after a period of time, is considered to be the completion of “a predefined task of the visual aids” (as currently claimed), the observation above confirms that neither Applicant’s assertions nor the specification demonstrates a technological improvement. Instead, the current claims, including the original disclosure as the whole, are demonstrating that the claimed and the disclosed system/method is utilizing the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate the abstract idea; such as, presenting interactive educational materials to the user, etc. Thus, given the lack of technological improvement, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—that integrates the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, while attempting to summarize the recent Ex parte Desjardins decision, Applicant asserts that “Claim 1 is directed to a software control architecture that monitors a structured data record in memory, detects updates to that record, determines task completion based on the detected modification, and automatically reconfigures the functionality of the software application. The process is not directed to managing financial interactions or organizing human activity, but to a specific mechanism for detecting a change in state to a structured data record in memory and triggering automated activation of previously unavailable application functionality . . . Applicant's numerous claim limitations would clearly integrate an alleged abstract idea into a practical application that does not monopolize a judicial exception and are thereby patent eligible because the practical application of Applicant's claims allow for a real-world benefit through computing systems” (emphasis added).
However, except for simply repeating the same assertion regarding the alleged functions that the claimed computer is supposedly performing, Applicant fails to demonstrate how/why Ex parte Desjardins is relevant to any of the current claims (or even any part of description in the specification). Nevertheless, neither the current claims nor the specification is even remotely relevant to the case of Desjardins. For instance, unlike the current claims and the original disclosure, Desjardins does provide a technological improvement; such as (i) reducing the storage space that the computer normally requires, and (ii) reducing the complexity of the system, etc. In particular, Desjardins is implementing an improved machine-learning (ML) training scheme, which allows the ML model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks (i.e., overcoming “the problem of ‘catastrophic forgetting’ encountered in continual learning systems”); and this enables the same ML model to learn multiple tasks.
In contrast, neither Applicant’s current claims nor the original disclosure contemplates any particular manner of training any ML or AI model, much less an advanced training methodology. Instead, the specification is merely providing a generic description regarding the use of AI to facilitate the presentation educational materials to a user (e.g., see [0038], [0040], [0057], [0072]). Of course, besides the lack of any advanced AI or ML feature, the claims (including the original specification) also lack any improvement related to efficiency and/or memory management (e.g., Enfish). Instead, as already pointed out above, the current claims, including the original disclosure, are relying on the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate the presentation of educational material to the user. Consequently, none of Applicant’s assertions, including the alleged “specific mechanism”, which purportedly detects a change of state of the structured data record and triggers automated activation of previously unavailable application functionality, is persuasive. In particular, except for the labeling, “specific mechanism”, Applicant fails to demonstrate a claimed/disclosed element (if any)—or a combination of elements (if any)—that is considered to be the alleged “specific mechanism”.
Note also that Applicant’s attempt to show an alleged eligibility of the current claims, while simply asserting “a real-world benefit” that the claimed system/method is supposedly providing, is also not relevant to show eligibility under Prong Two. This is because such benefit does not necessarily signify a technological improvement. In fact, as part of one of its fundamental characteristics, the existing computer/network technology provides various real-world benefits to users in various fields (e.g., the medical field, the entertainment field, the education field, etc.).
Similarly, it is irrelevant whether Applicant is assuming that the claimed (or even the disclosed) system/method “does not monopolize a judicial exception”. This is because the eligibility analysis is not necessarily limited merely to a claim that attempts to monopolize or preempt a judicial exception. Of course, the Supreme Court has described the concern driving the judicial exceptions as preemption; however, the courts do not use preemption as a stand‐alone test for eligibility; see MPEP 2106.04(I) (emphasis added),
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection").
Accordingly, at least for the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments directed to Prong Two of Step 2A are also not persuasive.
Thirdly, regarding Step 2B, Applicant concludes that “under the second step (2B) of Alice the ordered combination of elements in the independent claims are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception” (emphasis added).
However, except for the conclusory assertion above, Applicant fails to show how the ordered combination of elements is assumed to be “significantly more” than a judicial exception. In contrast, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (including the original disclosure), the claimed system/method is directed to the conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. Accordingly, such conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements, along with the lack of technological improvement, none of the claims—considered as a whole—amounts to “significantly more” than the judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Thus, at least for the reasons above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—implements an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
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 1-11, 13-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(a) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Each of claims 1, 8 and 15 recites, “in response to the completed predefined task, modify[] accessible functionality of the software application available within a dashboard of the user interface” (emphasis added).
However, per the original specification, the modification of the accessible functionality of the software application does not appear to be based on the completion of the predefined task. Instead, the specification appears to rely on the age of the user to modify accessible functionality of the software application (see [0058]; [0093] to [0095]).
The age of the user does not correspond to a “predefined task” that the user completes; and therefore, the current claims constitute new subject matter at least for the reason specified above.
Note that, when an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a), or first paragraph (pre-AIA ), a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not "new matter" is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP 2163.06).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 3, 4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dohring 2014/0248597.
Regarding each of claims 1, 8 and 15, Dohring teaches the following claimed limitations: an apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to (or “a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored therein which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform:”, per claim 15) ([0076]; [0084]; [0102]: e.g., a computer-based system/method for teaching a user—such as a child—one or more subjects; wherein the system comprises at least one computing device that includes basic computer components, including: a processor, a memory, etc.) (or “a method comprising:”, per claim 8): onboard a registered entity with a software application and store a characteristic of the registered entity within a structured data record of the software application stored in the memory (see [0213]: e.g., at least one authorized user, such as a mentor, creates an account to the child, wherein the child corresponds to the registered entity; wherein the mentor also instructs the child how to log in and navigate the computer environment. Thus, the above corresponds to the process of onboarding a registered entity with a software application and store a characteristic of the registered entity within a structured data record of the software application. Thus, such creation of an account—such as, a file/document—that comprises data elements or profile related to the child indicates the structured data record); create an avatar for the registered entity within the software application ([0170]: e.g., an avatar that represents the child is created. The above indicates the creation of an avatar associated with the registered entity within the software application. This is because the child already has an account; and wherein the avatar is representing the child); generate and display pages of visual aids including the avatar on a user interface of the software application as the registered entity interacts with the pages of the visual aids; monitor the structured data record in the memory to detect an update; determine that the registered entity completed a predefined task of the visual aids based on the update ([0145]; [0171] to [0175]; [0177]: e.g., the system already stores one or more lessons that the child learns in a linear succession. Thus, besides the avatar being displayed to the child, the system presents the child with interactive elements; such as, animals, plants, etc., which the child reveals and learn facts pertaining to such elements. Accordingly, one or more of the lessons, and/or the interactive elements, correspond to the predefined tasks of the visual aids. Furthermore, based on monitoring the child’s progress—such as, completion of “a subject, a level of learning, a lesson”, etc., the system rewards the child. Note that the system tracks and maintains the child’s progress in the form of “progress reports”, “progress records”, etc., see [0145] to [0150]. Thus, based on monitoring the structured data record in the memory to detect an update; the system determines that the registered entity completed a predefined task of the visual aids based on the update); in response to the completed predefined task, modify accessible functionality of the software application available within a dashboard of the user interface ([00145]; [177] to [0183]: e.g., as already pointed out above, the system determines—based on monitoring the child’s progress—whether the child has satisfied one or more specified targets—such as, attaining a specified level of learning, etc., and accordingly, once the child attains a specified target, the system provides the child with reward units/tickets, which allows the child to access one or more features/functionalities of the application; such as, (i) virtual games, (ii) virtual items to customize the child’s avatar, etc. Thus, the above is the process of modifying—in response to completed predefined task—accessible functionality of the software application available within a dashboard of the user interface).
Dohring teaches the claimed limitations as discussed per claims 1, 8 and 15 above. Dohring further teaches:
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, receive an instruction input on the user interface of the software application, and in response, change an order in which the pages of the visual aids are displayed ([0116] to [0118]; [0199] to [0202]: e.g., the system provides the child with an option to sort learning activities according to one or more preferences; wherein the child selectively makes activities available based on each activity’s association with levels of learning; such as, preschool, pre-K, kindergarten, first grade, etc. Thus, the processor is already configured to receive an instruction input on the user interface of the software application, and in response, change an order in which the pages of the visual aids are displayed);
Regarding claims 4 and 18, display an animated game with educational content therein via a page of the software application and move the avatar within the animated game to reflect the completion of the predefined task (see FIG 34 to FIG 37; [0102]; [0171] to [0175]: e.g., the system generates an animated game environment for teaching the child one or more educational subjects; wherein the animated game environment includes a plurality of animated graphical elements and an avatar that represents the child; and based on the child’s interaction with a lesson, the avatar progresses—in a step-by-step fashion—from one position to another in the animated game environment);
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, move the avatar along a gameboard within a page of the software application to reflect the completion of the predefined task (FIG 34 to FIG 37: e.g., the system monitors the activities of the child; and subsequently, as the child completes a lesson, the system moves the avatar from one position to another position within the virtual environment—such as, a virtual landscape. The virtual landscape above corresponds to a virtual gameboard within the page of the software application; and wherein the processor moves the avatar along the above gameboard to reflect the completion of the predefined task);
Regarding claims 7 and 14, receive a sharing input via the user interface of the software application, and in response, share a position of the avatar within the pages of the visual aids via a different user interface of a different registered entity of the software application ([0195]; [0196]: e.g., the system already implements various communication means, including a virtual mail that allows the child to present his/her educational work products to friends and mentors. In this regard, the child’s educational work products already encompass the page that depicts the progress that the child’s avatar has made, which reflects the one or more lessons that the child has completed. Accordingly, the above indicates the process of sharing—in response to a sharing input via the user interface—the position of the avatar within the pages of the visual aids via a different user interface of a different registered entity of the software application);
Regarding claims 9 and 16, receiving feedback about a position of the avatar within the pages of the visual aids and changing the position of the avatar within the pages of the visual aids based on the feedback ([0172] to [0175]: e.g., the system monitors the child’s interaction with one or more graphic elements—such as, the child clicking a given graphical element to reveal and learn facts pertinent to the environment, etc., and based on such monitoring, the system visually progresses the avatar from one position to another in a step-by-step fashion. Accordingly, such process already indicates that the process is receiving feedback about the position of the avatar within the pages of the visual aids—such as, feedback regarding the most recent position of the avatar; and subsequently, the processor changes this position—such as progressing the avatar to the next position—based on the child’s interaction);
Regarding claim 11, the displaying the pages of the visual aids comprises displaying an animated game with educational content therein via a page of the software application and moving the avatar within the animated game to reflect the
implemented training (FIG 34 to FIG 37; [0102]; [0171] to [0175]: e.g., the system is already generating an animated game environment for teaching the child one or more educational subjects; wherein the animated game environment includes a plurality of animated graphical elements and an avatar that represents the child; and wherein, based on the child’s interaction with a lesson, the avatar progresses—in a step-by-step fashion—from one position to another in the animated game environment);
Regarding claim 21, determine that the structured data record satisfies a threshold condition based on the update, and enable the previously-unavailable functionality based on satisfaction of the threshold condition ([0177] to [0183]: e.g., one of the conditions to get reward units is a level of learning that the child must achieve in a subject; this corresponds to the threshold condition, which must be satisfied in the structured data record. Accordingly, once the child achieves the above level of learning, i.e., once the record is updated to show that the child has attained the threshold, the child gets the reward units/tickets, which the child uses to access games, including virtual items that the child uses to customize his/her avatar, etc.);
Regarding claim 22, determine a current status of the characteristic based on a stored timestamp and a system clock and enable the previously-unavailable functionality based on the current status ([0177] to [0183]: e.g., one of the conditions to get reward units is “time spent on the activity”, which indicates the time duration that the child must spend on a learning activity. Of course, once the child achieves the above time duration, the child gets the reward units/tickets, which the child uses to access games, including virtual items that the child uses to customize his/her avatar, etc. Thus, the above indicates that the system determines the current status of the characteristic based on a stored timestamp and a system clock and enable the previously-unavailable functionality based on the current status).
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.
● Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Dohring 2014/0248597 in view of Solomon 2017/0206797.
Regarding claim 2, Dohring teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Dohring further teaches, the processor is further configured to receive feedback about a position of the avatar within the pages of the visual aids and change the position of the avatar within the pages of the visual aids based on the feedback ([0172] to [0175]: e.g., the system monitors the child’s interaction with one or more graphic elements; such as, the child clicking a given graphical element to reveal and learn facts pertinent to the environment, etc., and based on such monitoring, the system visually progresses the avatar from one position to another in a step-by-step fashion. Accordingly, such process already indicates that the processor is receiving feedback about the position of the avatar within the pages of the visual aids—such as, feedback regarding the most recent position of the avatar; and subsequently, the processor changes this position—such as progressing the avatar to the next position—based on the child’s interaction).
Dohring does not describe that the avatar is created based on an artificial intelligence chatbot interacting with the software application.
However, Solomon discloses a computer-based system that provides one or more educational games to a user; and wherein, the system implements one or more artificial intelligence algorithms to generate one or more virtual scenarios, including an avatar in the form of a chatbot conversational agent, etc. ([0035]; [0044]; [0051]).
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 the invention of Dohring in view of Solomon; for example, by incorporating one or more artificial intelligence algorithms for generating one or more scenarios in the virtual game environment; such as, configuring the child’s avatar to interact with the child in a natural language; thereby allowing the child to easily interact with the avatar, including asking the avatar one or more questions related to one or more of the lessons that the child is learning; and wherein the avatar provides the child with a proper response (e.g., audibly, and/or textually as part of the chat function [0195], etc.) in a more realistic manner (e.g., a natural dialog); and such implementation helps the child to easily and naturally interact with his/he studies.
● Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Dohring 2014/0248597 in view of Rao 2019/0286439.
Regarding claim 5, Dohring teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
Dohring already teaches the process of determining a progress of the registered entity on the pages of the visual aids ([0171] to [0173]: e.g., the system monitors the child as the child performs each of the one or more lessons in the virtual environment; and thereby, the system determines the child’s progress. The above indicates the process of determining a progress of the registered entity on the pages of the visual aids).
Dohring does not expressly teach, determining that a different registered entity has not progressed as much as the registered entity, and displaying a leaderboard via the user interface which comprises an identifier of the registered entity and an identifier of the different registered entity.
However, Rao discloses a gamified virtual environment, which allows a plurality of individuals to participate; wherein each of the one or more individual is performing a corresponding task ([0144]; [0148]; [0149]); and furthermore, the system implements a leaderboard feature, which allows a first individual (or a first team) to evaluate his/her ranking when compared to second individual (or second team); and wherein the leaderboard shows, based on a respective identifiers associated with each of the first individual and the second individual, whether the first individual is leading the second individual or not ([0168] to [0172]).
Accordingly. given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Dohring in view of Rao; for example, by incorporating additional features, including a graphical leaderboard, which is trigger automatically and/or based on the user’s request; so that, the child would be able to easily view and evaluate his/her ranking against at least one friend (e.g., another child of the same age, etc.) who is conducting the same/similar type of training; wherein the child would be able to easily determine whether he is ahead of—or lagging behind—his friend; and thereby, the child would be motivated to improve his/her skills, etc.
Response to Arguments.
8. Applicant’s arguments directed to the prior art have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 04/28/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while attempting to summarize the teaching of Dohring (pages 11 and 12 of the argument), Applicant asserts that “Dohring fails to anticipate or render obvious the features of Claim 1, because Dohring fails to describe or suggest, ‘monitor the structured data record in the memory to detect an update; . . . in response to the completed predefined task, modify accessible functionality of the software application within a dashboard of the user interface’ . . . fails to describe or suggest monitoring a structured data record in memory to detect an update. Instead, the methods of Dohring focus on a software module that monitors a child's progress . . . The monitoring identifies progress by tracking activities within the learning experience. However Dohring fails to describe detecting a modification to a structured data record stored in memory. There is no description of backend record update detection as a trigger for subsequent application behavior"” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant appears to fail to properly construe the teaching of Dohring. In particular, Applicant appears to fail to appreciate what constitutes “structured data record” per the teaching of Dohring. It is worth noting that Applicant’s original specification does not provide any specific definition regarding the current term, “structured data record”. In fact, the specification does not even use the term, much provide a specific definition. Instead, it is a new terminology that Applicant incorporated per the current claim amendment.
Thus, when the reasonable interpretation of the term “structured data record” is considered, it broadly encompasses a digital data/record that the computer keeps in its memory (e.g., one or more data elements that signify: the user, the activities that the user performs, etc.). In this regard, Dohring already monitors and updates its digital record (i.e., “structured data record”) based on the progress that the user is making with respect to one or more of the lessons/activities—such as, percentage of completion of each subject, one or more levels attained per each subject, etc. ([0145] to [149]). Of course, Dohring also describes an exemplary scenario where the system tracks the progress that the user is making with respect to one or more learning activities; and subsequently, Dohring moves the user’s avatar—within the virtual environment—to a given position that reflects the user’s current achievement ([0171] to [0175]).
Accordingly, the teaching above confirms that Dohring not only the implements a “structured data record”, but also detects one or more updates (if any) that are applied to the “structured data record” based on monitoring the record. So far, Applicant fails to address the above teaching; and consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Secondly, Applicant asserts that “Dohring appears to describe a process of earning tickets and exchanging them for avatar items upon completion of activities (see, paragraph [0182], but this process does not involve determining task completion based on detecting a modification to a persistent structured data record. The system of Dohring advances through activities and represents progress visually, but it does not describe a processor detecting updates to stored data structures and making determinations based on those updates . . . Dohring does not disclose modifying accessible functionality of the software application within a dashboard of the user interface in response to task completion. The methods of Dohring advances an avatar along a path and provide rewards within a learning environment, but Dohring does not describe reconfiguring dashboard-level functionality or altering which application functions are accessible” (emphasis added).
However, here also Applicant appears to fail to properly construe the teaching of Dohring. Nevertheless, even basic common sense dictates that Dohring does evaluate a modification (if any) to the digital data record (i.e., the “structured data record”) in order to determine whether the user has achieved a particular progress. It is again worth recalling that Dohring monitors and updates, its digital record, based on the user’s progress—such as, the percentage of completion of a subject, a level attained per a given subject, etc. (see [0145] to [149]). In this regard, again basic common sense dictates that the above digital record is updated as the user is progressing (e.g., a parameter that represents the percentage of completion of a subject is updated—i.e., incremented—as the user completes one or more parts of the subject, etc.).
Of course, once Dohring determines, based on the monitoring of the digital record as discussed above, that the user has satisfied one or more desired learning targets—such as, a specified level of learning, etc., Dohring provides the user with one or more virtual reward units/tickets, which allow the user to access one or more features/functionalities of the application; such as, (i) virtual games, (ii) virtual items to customize the child’s avatar, etc. It is important to note that the above features or functionalities of the application are unavailable to the user until the user completes the desired criteria (e.g., a percentage of completion, etc.). Thus, Dohring not only detects an update in its digital data record, but also modifies accessible functionality of the software application within the dashboard of the user interface, as currently claimed. In fact, the modification that Dohring is applying above is consistent with the exemplary scenario described in Applicant’s the specification. For instance, Applicant’s disclosed system is “activating an ability for the user to customize one or more features of the software application . . . activating one or more educational media files and enabling the one or more educational media files to be played via the user interface” (see [0095], emphasis added). In this regard, Dohring is also activating at least the ability for the user to customize the avatar, which is a feature/functionality of the application that is available only after the user has completed the predefined task (e.g., a percentage of completion, etc.). Nevertheless, regardless of one’s interpretation regarding the specific scenario described in the specification, Dohring’s teaching directed to the current broad claims is still intact. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that the current claims fail to overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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