DETAILED ACTION
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 . This action is made final.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is a method claim. Claim 11 is a system claim. Claim 20 is a product claim. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“identifying, by a task guidance system, from monitored information associated with a user environment, a task to be performed by a user, the task comprising an ordered sequence of steps”
“determining, by the task guidance system, a skill level of the user with respect to the task, wherein the determining comprises accessing a profile of the user identifying a plurality of tasks and a corresponding skill level of the user for each of the plurality of tasks”
“modifying, by the task guidance system, an initial instruction set associated with the task based on the determined skill level of the user with respect to the task, resulting in a modified instruction set associated with the task that has different step detail content for at least one of the steps of the task than the initial instruction set, including selectively removing or adding step-level instruction content for the at least one step”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474]. As an example, the courts have found a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, as a claim directing to a mental process, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“causing at least one output device to present, during performance of the task, the modified instruction set for the steps of the task”
Similar to this claimed presentation of the modified instruction set via the at least one output device, the courts have found selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display to be insignificant extra-solution activity, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“causing at least one output device to present, during performance of the task, the modified instruction set for the steps of the task”
Similar to this claimed presentation of the modified instruction set via the at least one output device, the courts have found selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display to be insignificant extra-solution activity, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Regarding claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“monitoring, within at least one sensor during performance of the task, execution of one or more steps of the task by the user”
“
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“wherein causing at least one output device to present an instruction set for the task”
Similar to this claimed presentation of the instruction set via the at least one output device, the courts have found selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display to be insignificant extra-solution activity, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“wherein causing at least one output device to present an instruction set for the task”
Similar to this claimed presentation of the instruction set via the at least one output device, the courts have found selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display to be insignificant extra-solution activity, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Regarding claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the monitoring is performed utilizing at least one sensor that detects movement of the user during performance of the task”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the monitoring comprises tracking a length of time the user took to perform the steps of the task”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“receiving user feedback regarding performance of the task”
“updating the profile of the user based upon the user feedback”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the receiving user feedback comprises a user identifying a number of times the task has been performed by the user”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the receiving user feedback comprises a user identifying a number of times the task has been performed by the user”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“determining a skill level comprises identifying a skill level of the user for a task having a similarity to the task to be performed”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“comprising updating the profile of the user based upon a number of times a task of the plurality of tasks has been performed and wherein the skill level is updated upon performance of the task of the plurality of tasks a predetermined number of times”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the providing comprises providing an instruction set that is modified from an initial instruction set as the skill level of the user changes”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“identify, by a task guidance system, from monitored information associated with a user environment, a task to be performed by a user, the task comprising an ordered sequence of steps”
“determine, by the task guidance system that employs an artificial intelligence model, a skill level of the user with respect to the task, wherein the determining comprises accessing a profile of the user identifying a plurality of tasks and a corresponding skill level of the user for each of the plurality of tasks”
“modify, by the task guidance system, an initial instruction set associated with the task based on the determined skill level of the user with respect to the task, resulting in a modified instruction set associated with the task that has different step detail content for at least one of the steps of the task than the initial instruction set, including selectively removing or adding step-level instruction content for the at least one step”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474]. As an example, the courts have found a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, as a claim directing to a mental process, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“a processor”
“a memory device that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to”
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“cause at least one output device to present, during performance of the task, the modified instruction set for the steps of the task”
Similar to this claimed presentation of the modified instruction set via the at least one output device, the courts have found selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display to be insignificant extra-solution activity, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“a processor”
“a memory device that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to”
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“cause at least one output device to present, during performance of the task, the modified instruction set for the steps of the task”
Similar to this claimed presentation of the modified instruction set via the at least one output device, the courts have found selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display to be insignificant extra-solution activity, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Regarding claims 12-19, the claims recite a system with corresponding limitations to the method of claims 2-5 and 7-10 and are therefore rejected under the same premises.
Regarding claim 20,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“identify, by a task guidance system, from monitored information associated with a user environment, a task to be performed by a user, the task comprising an ordered sequence of steps”
“determine, by the task guidance system, a skill level of the user with respect to the task, wherein the determining comprises accessing a profile of the user identifying a plurality of tasks and a corresponding skill level of the user for each of the plurality of tasks”
“modify, by the task guidance system, an initial instruction set associated with he task based on the determined skill level of the user with respect ot the task, resulting in a modified instructions et associated with he task that has different step detail content for at least one of the steps of the task than the initial instruction set, including selectively removing or adding step-level instruction content for the at least one step”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474]. As an example, the courts have found a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, as a claim directing to a mental process, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“a non-transitory computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by the processor, causes the product to”
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“causing at least one output device to present, during performance of the task, the modified instruction set for the steps of the task”
Similar to this claimed presentation of the modified instruction set via the at least one output device, the courts have found selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display to be insignificant extra-solution activity, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“a non-transitory computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by the processor, causes the product to”
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“cause at least one output device to present, during performance of the task, the modified instruction set for the steps of the task”
Similar to this claimed presentation of the modified instruction set via the at least one output device, the courts have found selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display to be insignificant extra-solution activity, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein causing at least one output device to present an instruction set for the task, wherein the task guidance system modifies content presented for a subsequent step of the task based upon the skill level of the user and the monitored execution of the one or more steps” in lines 4-7 of the claim. This portion of the claim is incoherent. For the sake of compact prosecution, in light of the Specification and Applicant’s amendments to parent claim 1, the Examiner interprets “wherein causing at least one output device to present an instruction set for the task, wherein the task guidance system modifies content presented for a subsequent step of the task based upon the skill level of the user and the monitored execution of the one or more steps” as “wherein the modifying of the initial instruction set associated with the task comprises modifying content presented for a subsequent step of the task based upon the skill level of the user and the monitored execution of the one or more steps”.
Dependent claims 3 and 4 are also rejected due to inheriting the deficiencies of claim 2.
Claim 12 recites “wherein causing at least one output device to present an instruction set for the task, wherein the task guidance system modifies content presented for a subsequent step of the task based upon the skill level of the user and the monitored execution of the one or more steps” in lines 4-7 of the claim. This portion of the claim is incoherent. For the sake of compact prosecution, in light of the Specification and Applicant’s amendments to parent claim 11, the Examiner interprets “wherein causing at least one output device to present an instruction set for the task, wherein the task guidance system modifies content presented for a subsequent step of the task based upon the skill level of the user and the monitored execution of the one or more steps” as “wherein the modifying of the initial instruction set associated with the task comprises modifying content presented for a subsequent step of the task based upon the skill level of the user and the monitored execution of the one or more steps”.
Dependent claims 13 and 14 are also rejected due to inheriting the deficiencies of claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mall (US 2008/0148150 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mall teaches a method, the method comprising:
identifying, by a task guidance system (system 100 of FIG. 1, including UI experience system 102, and [0018-0019]), a task to be performed by a user, the task comprising an ordered sequence of steps (FIG. 1 and [0025-0029], FIG. 2 and [0044], [0046-0051]: for example, a task guidance system identifies a task identified to be performed by a user, the task being the user operating features 210A, 210B, 210C, and 210D, in some ordered sequence of steps. As described in [0050], a user interface includes “a feature 210A that allows the user 108 to enter data into the application 104, a feature 210B that allows the user 108 to edit data, and features 210C and 210D that allows the user 108 to copy and paste the data, respectively.” Thus an ordered sequence of steps may first be entry of data via feature 210A, then editing of data via feature 210B, then copying data via feature 210C, and then pasting data via feature 210D. Note this is but one exemplary ordered sequence of steps);
determining, by the task guidance system, a skill level of the user with respect to the task, wherein the determining comprises accessing a profile of the user identifying a plurality of tasks and a corresponding skill level of the user for each of the plurality of tasks (FIG. 1 and [0022-0031], [0036-0037], FIG. 2 and [0039-0051]: an experience-level 116 is determined by using the task guidance system. A profile is accessed in that “the UI experience system 102 may retrieve an interaction history, including past usage of the application 104 by the user 108” as supported in [0040]. As detailed in [0043], “Then, for example, based on the user responses 204A, 204B, and 204C, the timer 114, and the monitor's 112 tracking of the user's 108 interactions (i.e., requesting help 206), the monitor module 112 may determine the experience-level 116. According to an example embodiment, experience-level 116 may be based on previously stored information associated with the user 108. For example, the previously stored information may include operations, actions, and/or other information associated with a use of the application 104 by the user 108.” Thus, determining comprises accessing a profile of the user identifying a plurality of tasks, or past user interactions with the application. A profile of the user indicates a corresponding skill level for each of the plurality of tasks. For example, as seen in FIG. 2, the user 108 has a profile identifying tasks, represented by features 210A, 210B, 210C, and/or 210D, with a corresponding experience-level 116a); and
modifying, by the task guidance system, an initial instruction set associated with the task based on the determined skill level of the user with respect to the task, resulting in a modified instruction set associated with the task that has different step detail content for at least one of the steps of the task than the initial instruction set, including selectively removing or adding step-level instruction content for the at least one step (FIG. 1, [0022-0024], [0029-0031], and [0036-0037], FIG. 2 and [0043-0051]: As detailed in [0049], “Then, for example, the processor 118 may provide a predefined user interface 208B (in lieu of, or in addition to, the user interface 208A) to the user 108. The interface 208B may include features 210A, 210B, 210C, and 210D offered to the user via interface 208A as well as additional features, 210E and 210F. In another example embodiment, the application 104 may include only a single user interface having features 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, 210E, and 210F that may be adjusted based on the experience-levels 116A and 116B.” For example, as seen in FIG. 2, an initial instruction set, including features 210A, 210B, 210D, and 210D, is modified to have an increased level of detail to include features 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, 210E, and 210F based upon the skill level of the user being improved from experience-level 116A to experience-level 116B. Contrast user interface 208B with user interface 208A, which does not include the additional features 210E and 210F. Note how step-level instruction content is selectively added such as the addition of features 210E and 210F); and
causing at least one output device to present, during performance of the task, the modified instruction set for the steps of the task (FIG. 1, [0022-0024], [0029-0031], and [0036-0037], FIG. 2 and [0043-0051]: As supported in [0048], “ Then, for example, as the user 108 operates the application 104 via the user interface 108A, the monitor module 112, in association with the timer 114, may track the operations performed by the user 108, including the use of the features 210A, 210B, 210C, and 210D and the time spent on those operations. Then, for example, the monitor module 112 may determine, based on the tracked operations, that the user 108, who previously was associated with the experience-level 116A, has improved to the experience-level 116B.” As further detailed in [0049], “Then, for example, the processor 118 may provide a predefined user interface 208B (in lieu of, or in addition to, the user interface 208A) to the user 108. The interface 208B may include features 210A, 210B, 210C, and 210D offered to the user via interface 208A as well as additional features, 210E and 210F. In another example embodiment, the application 104 may include only a single user interface having features 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, 210E, and 210F that may be adjusted based on the experience-levels 116A and 116B.” The modified set for the steps of the task is provided to the user via user interface 208B.).
Regarding claim 2, Mall further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising method of claim 1, comprising:
monitoring, within at least one sensor during performance of the task, execution of one or more steps of the task by the user (0065]: “a keyboard and a pointing device, e.g., a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide for interaction with a user as well; for example, feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback, e.g., visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback; and input from the user can be received in any form, including acoustic, speech, or tactile input.”; monitor module 112 of FIG. 1 and [0025-0029]: monitor 112, or sensor, may operate with timer 114 which determines “how long the user 108 accomplishes a task or a set of tasks”, as supported in [0027], to help determine the experience-level 116 or change in the experience-level 116. As additionally supported in [0029], “how long it takes the user 108 to complete a set of tasks that may be used to determine to which group the user 108 may belong” is a metric used to help gauge a user’s experience-level 116; monitor module 112 of FIG. 2 and [0041-0043]: As detailed in [0043], “For example, the timer 114 may time how long it takes the user 108 to provide the user responses 204A, 204B, and 204C… Then, for example, based on the user responses 204A, 204B, and 204C, the timer 114, and the monitor's 112 tracking of the user's 108 interactions (i.e., requesting help 206), the monitor module 112 may determine the experience-level 116. ”); and
*wherein causing at least one output device to present an instruction set for the task, wherein the task guidance system modifies content presented for a subsequent step of the task based upon the skill level of the user and the monitored execution of the one or more steps (*see 112(b) rejection for interpretation; FIG. 1, [0022-0024], [0029-0031], and [0036-0037], FIG. 2 and [0043-0051]: As supported in [0048], “ Then, for example, as the user 108 operates the application 104 via the user interface 108A, the monitor module 112, in association with the timer 114, may track the operations performed by the user 108, including the use of the features 210A, 210B, 210C, and 210D and the time spent on those operations. Then, for example, the monitor module 112 may determine, based on the tracked operations, that the user 108, who previously was associated with the experience-level 116A, has improved to the experience-level 116B.” As further detailed in [0049], “Then, for example, the processor 118 may provide a predefined user interface 208B (in lieu of, or in addition to, the user interface 208A) to the user 108. The interface 208B may include features 210A, 210B, 210C, and 210D offered to the user via interface 208A as well as additional features, 210E and 210F. In another example embodiment, the application 104 may include only a single user interface having features 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, 210E, and 210F that may be adjusted based on the experience-levels 116A and 116B.” The modified set for the steps of the task is provided to the user via user interface 208B. Content for a task’s subsequent step, as represented by 210E or 210F, is modified in that it is added based upon the skill level of the user and the monitored execution of the one or more steps).
Regarding claim 3, Mall further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the monitoring is performed utilizing at least one sensor that detects movement of the user during performance of the task ([0065]: “a keyboard and a pointing device, e.g., a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide for interaction with a user as well; for example, feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback, e.g., visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback; and input from the user can be received in any form, including acoustic, speech, or tactile input.”; monitor module 112 of FIG. 1 and [0025-0029]: monitor 112 may operate with timer 114 which determines “how long the user 108 accomplishes a task or a set of tasks”, as supported in [0027], to help determine the experience-level 116 or change in the experience-level 116. As additionally supported in [0029], “how long it takes the user 108 to complete a set of tasks that may be used to determine to which group the user 108 may belong” is a metric used to help gauge a user’s experience-level 116; monitor module 112 of FIG. 2 and [0041-0043]: As detailed in [0043], “For example, the timer 114 may time how long it takes the user 108 to provide the user responses 204A, 204B, and 204C… Then, for example, based on the user responses 204A, 204B, and 204C, the timer 114, and the monitor's 112 tracking of the user's 108 interactions (i.e., requesting help 206), the monitor module 112 may determine the experience-level 116. ” Thus, the monitor uses a sensor such as a mouse to detect user movement and input during performance of the task).
Regarding claim 4, Mall further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the monitoring comprises tracking a length of time the user took to perform the steps of the task (monitor module 112 of FIG. 1 and [0025-0029]: monitor 112 may operate with timer 114 which determines “how long the user 108 accomplishes a task or a set of tasks”, as supported in [0027], to help determine the experience-level 116 or change in the experience-level 116. As additionally supported in [0029], “how long it takes the user 108 to complete a set of tasks that may be used to determine to which group the user 108 may belong” is a metric used to help gauge a user’s experience-level 116; monitor module 112 of FIG. 2 and [0041-0043]: As detailed in [0043], “For example, the timer 114 may time how long it takes the user 108 to provide the user responses 204A, 204B, and 204C… Then, for example, based on the user responses 204A, 204B, and 204C, the timer 114, and the monitor's 112 tracking of the user's 108 interactions (i.e., requesting help 206), the monitor module 112 may determine the experience-level 116.”).
Regarding claim 7, Mall further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising updating the profile of the user based upon at least one training performed by the user for at least one of the plurality of tasks ([0026], FIG. 2 and [0041-0043]: at least one training is performed by the user for at least one of the plurality of tasks when the user activates help button 206. As detailed in [0042], “the help button 206 may provide the user 108 with instructions on how to operate the application 104 or response to the queries 203A, 203B, and 203C.” As further detailed in [0043], “Then, for example, the monitor module 112 may track whether and/or how many times the user 108 activated the help button 206, while the timer 114 may time for how long the help button 206 remained activated. Then, for example, based on the user responses 204A, 204B, and 204C, the timer 114, and the monitor's 112 tracking of the user's 108 interactions (i.e., requesting help 206), the monitor module 112 may determine the experience-level 116.” Thus, the experience-level 116 of the user’s profile is updated based upon at the at least one training performed).
Regarding claim 8, Mall further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining a skill level comprises identifying a skill level of the user for a task having a similarity to the task to be performed ([0027]: “For example, the timer 114 may time how long it takes the user 108 to respond to a question presented by the user interface 106. In an example embodiment, the timer 114 may time how long it takes the user 108 to accomplish a task or a set of tasks on a first day. Then, for example, the timer 114 may time how long it takes the user to accomplish the same or similar task(s) on a second, later day. Then, for example, the monitor module 112 may take into account the time difference and/or any other time measurements as measured by the timer 114 in determining the experience-level 116 (or a change in the experience-level 116) of the user 108.”).
Regarding claim 9, Mall further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising updating the profile of the user based upon a number of times a task of the plurality of tasks has been performed and wherein the skill level is updated upon performance of the task of the plurality of tasks a predetermined number of times (FIG. 1 and [0024-0029], FIG. 2 and [0048]: As explained in [0027], the profile of the user is updated based on, for example, a task being performed once on a first day and then once again on a second or later day. The skill level is updated based upon performance of the task a predetermined number of times, such as twice across those different days).
Regarding claim 10, Mall further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises providing an instruction set that is modified from an initial instruction set as the skill level of the user changes (FIG. 1, [0022-0024], [0029-0031], and [0036-0037], FIG. 2 and [0043-0051]: As detailed in [0049], “Then, for example, the processor 118 may provide a predefined user interface 208B (in lieu of, or in addition to, the user interface 208A) to the user 108. The interface 208B may include features 210A, 210B, 210C, and 210D offered to the user via interface 208A as well as additional features, 210E and 210F. In another example embodiment, the application 104 may include only a single user interface having features 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, 210E, and 210F that may be adjusted based on the experience-levels 116A and 116B.” For example, as seen in FIG. 2, an instruction set, having an increased level of detail which includes features 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, 210E, and 210F based upon the skill level of the user being improved from experience-level 116A to experience-level 116B, is provided to the user via user interface 208B. This is in contrast to the lower level of detail of user interface 208A which does not include the additional features 210E and 210F).
Regarding claims 11-14 and 16-19, the claims recite a system, the system (system 100 of FIG. 1, including UI experience system 102, and [0018-0019]) comprising: a processor; a memory device that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor (processor 118 of FIGS. 1 and 2, [0030-0031], [0036], [0044], and [0049]; “memory” and “processor” of [0064]), causes the system to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1-4 and 7-10, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites a product, the product comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by a processor ([0062]), causes the product to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
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.
Claims 5, 6, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mall (US 2008/0148150 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0011649 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mall teaches the method of claim 1.
Mall does not explicitly teach comprising: receiving user feedback regarding performance of the task; and updating the profile of the user based upon the user feedback.
Lee teaches receiving user feedback regarding performance of the task; and updating the profile of the user based upon the user feedback (FIG. 2A and [0042-0043]: As supported in [0042], “The profile may include any information that helps indicate a cooking skill and experience of the user. By way of example, the profile may include records indicating how many times the user has used the cooking guidance system 100 to cook similar or the same dishes. In some implementations, the profile includes data inputted manually by the user e.g., information that the user previously provided based on a self-evaluation of his or her skill at cooking.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mall by incorporating the teachings of Lee so as to include receiving user feedback regarding performance of the task; and updating the profile of the user based upon the user feedback. Doing so would allow the user’s account of their own performance so that the user can essentially modify their profile to more accurately reflect the user’s own skill level regarding a task. In this way, it would be less likely for the profile to improperly estimate the user as more experienced than they actually are as the user may indicate there was difficulty performing a certain task even though the user may have performed the task numerous times.
Regarding claim 6, Mall in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 5.
Mall does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving user feedback comprises a user identifying a number of times the task has been performed by the user.
Lee further teaches wherein the receiving user feedback comprises a user identifying a number of times the task has been performed by the user (FIG. 2A and [0042-0043]: As supported in [0042], “The profile may include any information that helps indicate a cooking skill and experience of the user. By way of example, the profile may include records indicating how many times the user has used the cooking guidance system 100 to cook similar or the same dishes. In some implementations, the profile includes data inputted manually by the user e.g., information that the user previously provided based on a self-evaluation of his or her skill at cooking.” Thus, data inputted manually by the user may be the amount of times the user has performed a certain task).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mall by incorporating the teachings of Lee so as to include wherein the receiving user feedback comprises a user identifying a number of times the task has been performed by the user. Doing so would allow the user to, in addition to the user’s account of their own performance, modify their profile to more accurately reflect instances of the user performing a task. In this way, it would be less likely for the profile to inaccurately register the amount of times a task is “performed” as the user may prefer counting a performance as actual completion of a task, excluding failed attempts, and manually input such a number. This would further make it less likely for the profile to improperly estimate the user as more experienced than they actually are by preventing overestimation of the number of times the task has been performed.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites a system corresponding to the method of claim 5 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the 101 rejection of claim 1, Applicant asserts that the claim integrates any abstract idea into a practical application as “[t]he task guidance system does not merely display information. Instead, it identifies a task from monitored information associated with the user environment, determines a user-specific skill level with respect to that task from stored profile data, modifies an initial instruction set associated with the task by selectively removing or adding step-level content, and causes an output device to present the resulting modified instruction set during performance of the task” (p. 12 of Remarks). Applicant further asserts that the claim recites significantly more than any alleged judicial exception as they “define a particular architecture and operational workflow for adaptive task instruction delivery tied to monitored user-environment information, stored user-task profile data, and step-specific modification of instructional content” (p. 13 of Remarks).
Regarding the 102 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues, “Nothing in Mall discloses an ‘instruction set’ associated with a task, much less an initial instruction set that is transformed into a modified instruction set. Nor does Mall disclose changing instructional content at the step level within an ordered sequence of steps… In Mall, the relevant ‘features’ are application capabilities made available through an interface; they are not instructional content for performing a task comprising an ordered sequence of steps, and Mall does not disclose transforming such content from an initial version to a modified version” (p. 15 of Remarks). “Mall does not disclose selectively removing or adding instructional detail for individual steps of a task” (pp. 15-16 of Remarks).
Regarding the 103 rejection of claims 5, 6, and 15, Applicant asserts that “the Office has merely supplied a conclusory statement claiming that the interpretation of the reference would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art” (p. 16 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding point (a), Applicant’s amendments do not sufficiently overcome the 101 rejections. Applicant is advised to review the updated 101 analysis for the amended claims. In general, the courts have found a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, as a claim directing to a mental process, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, while Applicant adds a “causing at least one output device to present, during performance of the task, the modified instruction set for the steps of the task”, the Examiner’s position is that this step is merely displaying results of the mental processes. Similar to this claimed presentation of the modified instruction set via the at least one output device, the courts have found selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display to be insignificant extra-solution activity, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, the additional element of “causing at least one output device to present, during performance of the task, the modified instruction set for the steps of the task” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does it amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Examiner advises Applicant that describing, in sufficient detail, how the modified instruction set is displayed may be one potential strategy to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding point (b), the Examiner’s position is that Applicant’s claimed “instruction set” is not detailed in such a way that would preclude Mall’s teachings. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, an “instruction” may be some information prompting the user to take a particular action. An “instruction set” may thus be a collection of such information. Therefore, Mall’s features, such as features 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, and/or 210E, read on the “instruction set” since these features, or tools, are provided on the user interface (prompting action from the user) and enacted by the user using application 104. The Examiner notes how the claim lacks any detail about what the “instruction set” constitutes aside from “step detail content”, which, itself, defines no format or structure not seen in Mall. That is, while the “instruction set” includes a collection of multiple features out of features 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, and/or 210E, a “step detail content” as taught by Mall may be a single feature or a subset of the collection of features. For example, as seen in Mall’s FIG. 2, an initial instruction set, including features 210A, 210B, 210D, and 210D, is modified to have an increased level of detail to include features 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, 210E, and 210F based upon the skill level of the user being improved from experience-level 116A to experience-level 116B. As seen in the transition from user interface 208A to user interface 208B, note how step-level instruction content is selectively added such as the addition of features 210E and 210F. In addition, Mall teaches the “ordered sequence of steps” because the user interacts with the features in a sequence. As described in [0050], a user interface includes “a feature 210A that allows the user 108 to enter data into the application 104, a feature 210B that allows the user 108 to edit data, and features 210C and 210D that allows the user 108 to copy and paste the data, respectively.” Thus a ordered sequence of steps may first be entry of data via feature 210A, then editing of data via feature 210B, then copying data via feature 210C, and then pasting data via feature 210D. Note this is but one exemplary ordered sequence of steps.
Regarding point (c), Applicant’s assertion is false. Applicant does not address the content of the rationale but instead provides a generic conclusory statement. The Examiner provided proper rationale for the 103 rejection of claims 5, 6, and 15 as seen on pages 25-27 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/09/2026. Provision of proper rational for these claims persists in the instant Office Action.
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, and 103, as appropriate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including:
US 2013/0191177 A1: modification of series of steps based on user’s proficiency and measured performance
US 2019/0154455 A1: adjusting detail of instructions based on user’s emotion
US 2020/0135041 A1: training and responding to real-time performance of user
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KIEU D VU can be reached at (571)272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights