Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-8 and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In regard to independent claim 7 analyzed as representative claim:
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Independent Claim 7 recites “a method comprising:”. Independent Claim 7 falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The Independent Claim 7/Revised 2019 Guidance Table below identifies in italics the specific claim limitations found to recite an abstract idea and in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations that are generic computer components.
Independent Claim 7
Revised 2019 Guidance
A method comprising:
A method (method) is a statutory
subject matter class. See 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 (“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.”).
[L1] receiving, from a first client device, an indication to start a narrative;
The “first client device” is an additional non-abstract limitation.
Receiving an indication to start a narrative represents insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Abstract:, “receiving an indication to start a narrative …” could be performed as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity. . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” to the extent that humans (person/educator) have long received written instructions and/or the sound of a bell to start a class (reading class).
[L2] generating, by a reading engine, a first chapter of the narrative based on the first client device, wherein the first chapter comprises a first set of challenge words;
The “reading engine” and “first client device” are additional non-abstract limitation.
Abstract:, “generating a first chapter of the narrative …” could be performed as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity. . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” to the extent that humans (person/educator) have long generated text for student consumption, mentally and/or using pen and paper.
[L3a] monitoring, by the reading engine, a reading of the first chapter by the first client device;
The “reading engine” and “first client device” are additional non-abstract limitation.
Abstract: “monitoring a reading of the first chapter” could be performed alternatively as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity. . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” to the extent that humans (person/educator) have long observed students reading.
[L3b] receiving audio of the first chapter being read aloud by a user of the first client device via a microphone of the first client device
The “first client device”, “microphone” and “first client device” are additional non-abstract limitation.
Receiving audio of the first chapter being read aloud by a user represents insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Abstract: “receiving audio of the first chapter being read aloud by a user” could be performed alternatively as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity. . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” to the extent that humans (person/educator) have long listened to students reading.
[L4] determining by a pronunciation module executed, by the reading engine, one or more low fluency words based on the reading of the first chapter of the narrative by the first client device, wherein the one or more low fluency words comprise words that were mispronounced, omitted, or inserted during the reading;
The “pronunciation module”, “reading engine” and “first client device” are additional non-abstract limitations.
Abstract: “determining one or more low fluency words based on the reading” could be performed alternatively as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity. . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” to the extent that humans (person/educator) have long determined information mentally and/or using pen and paper.
[L5a] tagging, by the reading engine, the one or more low fluency words as a second set of challenge words and
The “reading engine” is an additional non-abstract limitation.
Abstract: “tagging the one or more low fluency words as a second set of challenge words” could be performed alternatively as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity. . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” to the extent that humans (person/educator) have long associated information mentally and/or using pen and paper.
[L5b] store the second set of challenge words as part of user-based information associated with the first client device
Stor[ing] audio of the first chapter being read aloud by a user represents insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[L6] providing, by the reading engine, two or more narrative options for continuing the narrative present in the first chapter;
The “reading engine” is an additional non-abstract limitation.
Abstract: “providing two or more narrative options for continuing the narrative present in the first chapter” could be performed alternatively as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity. . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” to the extent that humans (person/educator) have long provided information verbally and/or in writing.
[L7] receiving, by the reading engine, a selection of a first narrative option of the two or more narrative options for continuing the narrative;
The “reading engine” is an additional non-abstract limitation.
Receiving a selection of a first narrative option of the two or more narrative options represents insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Abstract:, “receiving selection of a first narrative option of the two or more narrative options” could be performed as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity. . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” to the extent that humans (person/educator) have long received verbal or written information.
[L8] automatically generating, by the reading engine, a complete second chapter of the narrative responsive to selection of the first narrative option, wherein the second chapter: is generated using (i) the selected first narrative option, (ii) continuity information derived from the first chapter, and (iii) the second set of challenge words; comprises the second set of challenge words comprises a narrative that is coherent with the first chapter of the narrative.
The “reading engine” is an additional non-abstract limitation.
Abstract:, “generating a complete second chapter of the narrative responsive to selection of the first narrative option …” could be performed as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity. . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” to the extent that humans (person/educator) have long generated text for student consumption, mentally and/or using pen and paper.
It is apparent that, other than reciting the “first client device”, “reading engine”, “microphone”, and “pronunciation module” additional non-abstract limitations noted in the Independent Claim 7/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human as a certain method of organizing human activity. . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), in the mind, and/or using pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of the “first client device”, “reading engine”, “microphone”, and “pronunciation module” and automation of a manual process does not take the claim out of the certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A: Prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The body of the claim, as noted in the Independent Claim 7/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, recites the additional limitations of the “first client device”, “reading engine”, “microphone”, and “pronunciation module”. The originally filed disclosure as reproduced in the published Specification provides supporting exemplary descriptions of generic computer components: at least ¶ 34: … the operational environment 100 includes an application service 101, a reading engine 110, and client devices 120, 130 and 140. The application service 101 employs one or more server computers 103 co-located with respect to each other or distributed across one or more data centers. Example servers include web servers, application servers, virtual or physical servers, or any combination or variation thereof, of which computing system 1201 in Figure 12 is broadly representative; ¶ 35: 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 (LAN s ), wide area networks (WAN s ), 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 (loT) devices and any other suitable devices, of which computing system 1201 in Figure 12 is also broadly representative, ¶ 36: … The applications may be natively installed and executed applications, web-based applications that execute in the context of a local browser application, mobile applications, streaming applications, or any other suitable type of application. Example services and resources provided by the application service 101 include front-end servers, application servers, content storage services, authorization and authentication services, and the like… ; ¶ 51: The system 300 includes the reading engine 310 and a client device 330, which may be the same or similar to the reading engine 110 and the client device 130, respectively …; ¶ 59: As part of the reading exercise, the student 350 reads the first chapter out loud. That is, the student verbalizes each word of the first chapter as sound 302. The sound 302 from the student 350 reading the first chapter is captured by a microphone 306. The microphone 306 may be part of the client device 330 or may be separate from the client device 330 but operably coupled to the client device 330 such to provide the sounds 302 from the student's reading to the reading application 321; ¶ 62: Once the reading engine 310 identifies one or more low fluency words from the reading of the first chapter, these low fluency words may be tagged as challenge words for the student 350 and stored as part of the user-based information 304 for subsequent narratives (e.g., follow-up chapters or reading exercises; ¶ 104: Examples of the processing system 1202 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. The lack of details about the “first client device”, “reading engine”, “microphone”, and “pronunciation module” indicates that the above-mentioned additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions claimed. As shown in the Independent Claim 7/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, the additional elements [L1] “receiving an indication to start a narrative” (i.e., data gathering), [L3b] “receiving audio of the first chapter being read aloud by a user” (i.e., data gathering), [L5b] “store audio of the first chapter being read aloud by a user” (i.e., data gathering), and [L7] “receiving a selection of a first narrative option of the two or more narrative options” (i.e., data gathering) simply add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering, each of which is generic. The claim limitations do not purport to improve the functioning of the “first client device”, “reading engine”, “microphone”, and “pronunciation module”, do not improve the technology of the technical field, and do not require a “particular machine.” Rather, they are performed using generic computer components. Further, the claim fails to effect any particular transformation of an article to a different state. The recited steps in the claim fail to provide meaningful limitations to limit the judicial exception. In this case, the claim merely uses the claimed computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The Independent Claim 7/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above also shows that, individually, for each of the claim steps, no technological implementation details are recited. Each of the claim steps recites generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so presents no more than conceptual advice.
Viewed as a whole, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, representative claim 7 simply recites the concept of providing adaptive and enhanced reading exercises. Reviewing courts have found similar types of claims to be abstract. For example, “tagging” is a simple association of information that can be performed mentally. See Secured Mail, in which the Federal Circuit explained that “affixing [barcode identifier] information to a mail object” is an abstract process. 873 F.3d at 912; Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that claims drawn to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing the recognized data were patent ineligible, noting that “humans have always performed these functions”); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (determining “the collection, storage, and recognition of data” to be abstract); WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., 854 F. App’x 367, 371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that claim recited abstract ideas of modifying and deleting data), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 778 (2022) (Mem.); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (determining the parsing, comparing, storing, and editing of data to be abstract).
Considering the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered combination”, the functions implemented on the “first client device”, “reading engine”, “microphone”, and “pronunciation module”, at each step of the method are purely conventional. Each step performed in the claim does no more than require a generic computer to perform a generic computer function. The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the claimed elements have not been shown to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as set forth in the Revised Guidance which references the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h). Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The fact that the Specification (See Spec. ¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 51, 59, 62, 104) does not further describe the “first client device”, “reading engine”, “microphone”, and “pronunciation module”, indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Hence, the additional elements are generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional computing elements. The use of the additional elements either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claim is patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent Claim 1:
Independent claim 1 recites “a system”, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claim recites a system comprising:” generic computer elements, namely, “one or more computer readable storage media”, “one or more processors”, “computing system”, “first client device”, and “reading engine”. Similarly to representative independent Claim 7, the additional elements are generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional computing elements performing steps similar to those of representative independent Claim 7. As a result, independent claim 1 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative independent Claim 7.
In regard to independent Claim 15:
Independent claim 15 recites “computer readable storage media”, which is interpreted, in view of the originally filed Specification (¶¶ 14, 15), to include patent-ineligible transitory signals because neither the claim nor the Specification defines “computer readable-media” so as to exclude transitory media. Consequently, the claimed “computer readable storage media” encompasses transitory media, which is not patent eligible. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential); see also In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2007); and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). (Step 1: NO).
However, because independent claim 15 could be amended to fall within a
statutory category, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues under that
assumption. The claim recites processor-executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors (generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional computing element(s)) to perform steps similarly to representative independent Claim 7, by the same elements of representative independent Claim 7. As a result, independent claim 15 is rejected similarly to representative independent Claim 7.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-14 and 16-20 include all the limitations of respective independent claims 1, 7 and 15 from which they depend and as such recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for respective independent claims 1, 7 and 15. None of the additional claim activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Claims 2-6, 8-14 and 16-20 only provide more detailed limitations of the abstract idea, which do not make the abstract idea(s) any less abstract. Any additional claim elements are each recited as a generic component being used according to its conventional purpose in a conventional manner. See Spec., ¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 51, 59. The Examiner fails to see any claim activity used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. An invocation to use known technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and conventional. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2-6, 8-14 and 16-20 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. While dependent claims 2-6, 8-14 and 16-20 may have a narrower scope than respective independent claims 1, 7 and 15, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
§101 Rejections
Step 2A, Prong One - The Claims Are Not Directed to a Judicial Exception Applicant first argues that the claim “limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. In particular, the claims require receiving and processing audio input captured via a microphone, and determining specific categories of pronunciation-based errors, including mispronunciations, omissions, and insertions. Such operations require computer-based processing of audio signals and structured identification of reading performance characteristics, and therefore are not reasonably performable as mental processes”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
As previously noted, viewed as a whole, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, representative claim 7 simply recites the concept of providing adaptive and enhanced reading exercises. It is common knowledge that reading and writing are interconnected literacy skills that mutually reinforce each other, and effective education in both is essential for student success and lifelong literacy. The claim steps of (1) “receiving an indication to start a narrative”, (2) “generating a first chapter of the narrative”, (3) “monitoring a reading of the first chapter”, (4) “receiving audio of the first chapter being read aloud by a user”, (5) “determining one or more low fluency words based on the reading”, (6) “tagging the one or more low fluency words as a second set of challenge words”, (7) “storing audio of the first chapter being read aloud by a user”, (8) “providing two or more narrative options for continuing the narrative present in the first chapter”, (9) “receiving a selection of a first narrative option of the two or more narrative options”, and (10) “generating a complete second chapter of the narrative responsive to selection of the first narrative option”, contrary to Applicant’s argument, illustrate longstanding practice of teacher/student interactions involving verbal and written observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Each claim step illustrates generic conventional computer operation and no technological implementation details are recited. The claim steps recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results.
The “microphone” and other computer-based components claimed are each used in its generic capacity to perform its known functions. The use of the recited computer components as a “tool” does not render the claims less abstract. An abstract idea does not become non-abstract by limiting the invention to a particular technological environment. Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1367; see also Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 (the fact a computer exists in the physical realm is beside the point).
Applicant then argues “the claims require storing the identified low fluency words as structured user-based information and subsequently using that stored information together with continuity information and a selected narrative option to generate a complete second chapter of a narrative. This generation is constrained by multiple inputs derived from prior processing steps and prior narrative content, including the requirement that the second chapter comprise the stored challenge words and be coherent with the first chapter”. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a teacher listening to a student reading a passage of text could take mental and/or written notes and later use the memorized and/or written notes to select desired information to write a second chapter. Reviewing courts have found similar types of claims to be abstract. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (generating data sets using algorithms and combining/organizing the data sets into a new data set is abstract); see also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367 (parsing documents to determine and extract components and reassemble the components into composite output files for storing and editing is abstract absent evidence that transforming data from source to object code improves computer functionality).
Applicant additionally argues “The claimed system does not merely analyze audio or generate content, but performs generation of a subsequent chapter based on multiple structured inputs-including stored challenge words derived from audio-based reading analysis and continuity information derived from prior narrative content-that are applied together during generation of a coherent narrative. Such operations cannot be practically performed in the human mind and therefore do not recite a mental process”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
As noted earlier, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a teacher listening to a student reading a passage of text could take mental and/or written notes and later use the memorized and/or written notes to select desired information to write a second chapter. As noted in the rejections above, the originally filed disclosure as reproduced in the published Specification supports the finding that the additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions claimed. See Spec. ¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 51, 59, 62, 104. The claimed” microphone” is used in its ordinary capacity of collecting audio data which is then used to derive challenge words (data analysis). Information, as such, is intangible, and data analysis and algorithms that manipulate that information are also abstract ideas. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007). The use of the “microphone” as a “tool” does not render the claims less abstract. An abstract idea does not become non-abstract by limiting the invention to a particular technological environment. Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1367; see also Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 (the fact a computer exists in the physical realm is beside the point).
Step 2A, Prong Two - The Claims Are Integrated Into a Practical Application
Applicant’s argument that “The claims recite a specific technological implementation in which a reading engine receives audio of a user's reading, determines low fluency words based on that audio, stores those words as part of user-based information, and uses that stored information together with continuity information and a selected narrative option to automatically generate a complete second chapter of a narrative” simply illustrates generic conventional computer operation and no technological implementation details of the claimed computer components (i.e., “reading engine”, and “microphone”). Applicant’s arguments that “specific arrangement in which audio-derived reading performance data is stored and subsequently used to control generation of narrative content in a manner that depends on both prior content and user-specific information. This constitutes a practical application of any alleged abstract concept”, at best, describe longstanding reading and writing activities commonly performed in brick-and-mortar environments. Reviewing courts have held that when patent claims can be analogized “to longstanding ‘real-world’ (‘brick and mortar’) activities,” the “similarity to ‘fundamental . . . practices long prevalent’ is yet another clue that the claims may be abstract and unpatentable.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citing Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As previously noted, the claimed invention illustrates generic conventional computer operations and no technological implementation details of the claimed computer components (i.e., “reading engine”, and “microphone”).
Step 2B - The Claims Provide an Inventive Concept
Applicant argues that “the claim recites a specific combination of operations in which audio of a user's reading is received, low fluency words are determined based on that audio, those words are stored as a second set of challenge words associated with the user, and a subsequent chapter is automatically generated using a selected narrative option, continuity information derived from a prior chapter, and the stored challenge words” and that “This combination of elements defines a particular arrangement in which data derived from audio processing is persistently stored and subsequently used to control generation of narrative content that must satisfy multiple conditions, including inclusion of the stored challenge words and coherence with prior narrative content. This is not a conventional use of generic computer components, but rather a specific configuration in which multiple types of information are used together to generate constrained narrative output”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As noted earlier, reading and writing are interconnected literacy skills that mutually reinforce each other, and effective education in both is essential for student success and lifelong literacy. Applicant’s alleged combination of operations automates a mental process that could be performed by a “human analog.” In particular, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the claim steps illustrate longstanding practice of teacher/student interactions involving verbal and written observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Automation of mental processes does not reflect “an improvement to other technology or technical field.” 84 Fed Reg. 55; see also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (indicating “that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology”).
In light of the foregoing, the Examiner maintains that each of Applicant’s pending claims 1-20 considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept.
§103 Rejections
The previous claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and remarks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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, 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 originally filed or unoriginally filed applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unoriginally filed 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights