Detailed Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
receive an indication to start a math problem
provide the math problem, wherein the math problem comprises a problem statement
generate a plurality of answers based on the problem statement, wherein the plurality of answers comprises a correct answer and one or more distraction answers
each of the one or more distraction answers corresponds to a respective challenge concept, receive, an answer for the math problem
determine that the answer corresponds to a respective distraction answer of the one or more distraction answers,
identify a challenge concept based on the answer corresponding to the respective distraction answer
generate a second math problem based on the challenge concept for the first client device
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 covers performance of limitations in the mind. A human—using their mind, pen, and paper—is capable of formulating a math problem in multiple-choice form including a correct answer and one or more incorrect answers, present the problem to a user and receive an answer, determine that the answer is incorrect and related to a certain concept or set thereof, and presenting a follow-up question also related to the concept.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Representative claims 1, 7 and 14 recite the additional elements of a “first and second client devices,” “one or more storage media,” and “one or more processors.” Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because:
Client devices — is described in the published specification with a high
degree of generality:
[0031] The client devices 120, 130, and 140 communicate with application service 101 via one or more internets and intranets, the Internet, wired and wireless networks, local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), or any other type of network or combination thereof. Examples of the client devices 120, 130, and 140 may include personal computers, tablet computers, mobile phones, gaming consoles, wearable devices, Internet of Things (IoT) devices.
Thus, it would be reasonable to interpret them as generic computing devices.
One or more storage media — are also described in the published specification with a high degree of generality:
[0086] The storage system 1303 may comprise any computer readable storage media readable by processing system 1302 and capable of storing software 1305. The storage system 1303 may include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Examples of storage media include random access memory, read only memory, magnetic disks, optical disks, flash memory, virtual memory and non-virtual memory, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other suitable storage media.
Thus, it would also be reasonable to interpret these as generic computing devices.
One or more processors — are also described in the published specification with a high degree of generality:
[0085] As illustrated, the computing system1301 includes a processing system 1302 that includes a microprocessor and other circuitry that retrieves and executes software 1305 from storage system 1303. The processing system 1302 may be implemented within a single processing device but may also be distributed across multiple processing devices or sub-systems that cooperate in executing program instructions. Examples of the processing system 1302 include general purpose central processing units, graphical processing units, application specific processors, and logic devices, as well as any other type of processing device, combinations, or variations thereof.
Thus, it would also be reasonable to interpret these as generic computing devices.
The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements which were interpreted under step 2A prong 2 are re-evaluated in step 2B, and evidence is known that they are nothing more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing. Specifically, when taken as a whole, the invention appears to be a database for storing, organizing and retrieving educational content. Storing, categorizing, and retrieving information has been noted by courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d): 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).
Claims 2-11, 13-16, 18 and 20 recite similarly human-performable steps as those noted above and are accordingly found to be ineligible subject matter for the same reasons given supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ivler et al (US 6,743,024 B1)
Regarding claim 1, Ivler discloses a system comprising one or more computer readable storage media and one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media (Fig. 11), and an application comprising program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct a computing system to at least receive, from a first client device, an indication to start a math problem (202: user enters demographic data), provide, by a math engine, the math problem to the first client device, wherein the math problem comprises a problem statement (214), generate, by the math engine, a plurality of answers based on the problem statement (210 – 212), wherein the plurality of answers comprises a correct answer and one or more distraction answers (210 – 212), and each of the one or more distraction answers corresponds to a respective challenge concept (Abstract: testing seeks to define what primitive components of the educational program that the individual doesn't understand), receive, from a first client device, an answer for the math problem (214), determine, by the math engine, that the answer corresponds to a respective distraction answer of the one or more distraction answers (218), identify, by the math engine, a challenge concept based on the answer corresponding to the respective distraction answer (220: increment primitive counter), and generate, by the math engine, a second math problem based on the challenge concept for the first client device (228).
Regarding claim 3, Ivler discloses receiving, from the first client device, a plurality of answers responsive to a plurality of respective math problems (Fig. 2), determining, by the math engine, a pattern based on each of the plurality of answers received responsive to the plurality of respective math problems corresponding to a respective distraction answer (Fig. 2), and determining, by the math engine, that the pattern of each respective distraction answer is associated with the challenge concept (col. 4 line 53: system may identify patterns in the information being stored, such as identifying a high percentage of missed answers to questions by individuals from a particular area).
Claims 7 and 14 recite a system and storage medium, respectively, comprising substantially the same limitations as those in claim 1 above. They are accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra.
Regarding claim 10, Ivler discloses providing, by the math engine, the plurality of answers for the math problem to the first client device in a multiple-choice format, and receiving, from the first client device the answer for the math problem comprises receiving, by the math engine, a selection of the answer from the plurality of answers in the multiple-choice format from the first client device (col. 3 line 50: the test can be designed to make a common error in the primitive component and present that error as a possible solution to the multiple-choice selection … an individual could be presented with the problem 31/4-11/3. … the individual may make an error in borrowing … the individual may be able to arrive at 33/12-14/12, but when borrowing from the 3, the individual may transform 213/12 rather than 215/12 because the borrowed unit was borrowed at 10/12 versus the correct 12/12's).
Regarding claim 13, Ivler discloses receiving, from a second client device, a second indication to start the math problem, providing, by the math engine, the math problem to the second client device, and generating, by the math engine, a second plurality of answers for the math problem based on the problem statement and the second client device, wherein the second plurality of answers is different than the plurality of answers for the first client device (See Fig. 12 and claim 1 supra; system can provide testing services to multiple clients).
Regarding claim 16, Ivler discloses determining, by the math engine, challenges associated with the first client device responsive to receiving the indication to start the math problem from the first client device (Abstract: testing seeks to define what primitive components of the educational program that the individual doesn't understand), and determine, by the math engine, the math problem for the first client device based on the challenges associated with the first client device (Abstract: system adapts to test the primitives that were failed to be understood).
Regarding claim 20, Ivler discloses generating, by the math engine, a second problem statement, and generating, by the math engine, a second plurality of answers comprising at least one distraction answer corresponding to the challenge concept, provide, by the math engine, the second math problem to the first client device, receive, by the math engine, a second answer to the second math problem from the first client device, and compare, by the math engine, the second answer to the second plurality of answers (See Fig. 2 and claim 1 supra; system iterates over multiple questions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivler in view of Fuka (US 9,082,309 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—identifying, by the math engine, a math problem template based on the first client device (Fig. 6), generating, by the math engine, the math problem comprising the problem statement based on the math problem template (Fig. 6), and generating, by the math engine, the plurality of answers for the problem statement based on the math problem template (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler and Fuka in order to allow more flexible creation of test questions.
Regarding claim 5, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—receiving, by the math engine, the answer in a freeform format from the first client device, wherein the freeform format of the answer comprises one of the following: a typed answer input into an answer field by the first client device, or an image captured by the first client device (Fig. 11A). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler and Fuka in order to allow the formulation and presentation of non-multiple-choice questions.
Regarding claim 8, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—determining, by the math engine, an answer template corresponding to the problem statement, and generating, by a content generator of the math engine, the plurality of answers based on the answer template (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler and Fuka in order to allow the formulation and presentation of non-multiple-choice questions.
Regarding claim 9, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—identifying, by the math engine, a math problem template based on the first client device (Fig. 6), generating, by the math engine, the math problem comprising the problem statement based on the math problem template, identifying, by the math engine, an answer template corresponding to the math problem template (Fig. 6) and generating, by the math engine, the plurality of answers for the problem statement based on the answer template (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler and Fuka in order to allow the formulation and presentation of non-multiple-choice questions.
.
Regarding claim 11, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—receiving, from the first client device, a freeform answer to the problem statement, comparing, by the math engine, the freeform answer to the plurality of answers, and determining, by the math engine, a corresponding answer of the plurality of answers for the freeform answer (Fig. 11A). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler and Fuka in order to allow the formulation and presentation of non-multiple-choice questions.
Regarding claim 15, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—identifying, by the math engine, an answer template based on the first client device (Fig. 6), and generating, by a content generator of the math engine, the plurality of answers for the problem statement based on the answer template (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler and Fuka in order to allow the formulation and presentation of non-multiple-choice questions.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivler in view of Gupta (US 2007/0172809 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ivler discloses wherein the math problem is part of a math assignment comprising a plurality of math problems (Fig. 2), and the program instructions further direct the computing system to grade, by the math engine, the math assignment based on answers received from the first client device and generate by the math engine, a grade for the math assignment for the first client device (Fig. 7), wherein the grade comprises one or more challenge concepts identified by the math assignment (col. 11 line 48: a recommended course of action may be presented by the system to an individual being tested … an advertising engine 704 may notify an individual being tested of products and tools available in the marketplace that may be used to correct deficiencies in the primitives requiring more study or work). Gupta suggests—where Ivler does not specifically disclose—wherein the grade comprises an indication of a number of correct answers for the math assignment (Fig. 18a). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler and Gupta in order to apprise the user of his or her progress.
Regarding claim 18, Gupta suggests—where Ivler does not specifically disclose—generating, by the math engine, an assignment summary for the first client device, wherein the assignment summary comprises one or more interactions between the first client device and the math engine, and provide, by the math engine, a display of the assignment summary (Figs. 18a – 19b). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler and Gupta in order to apprise the user of his or her progress.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 is not subject to a prior art rejection herein, but remains rejected under 35 USC § 101 as ineligible subject matter, as noted supra.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715