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 non-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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to signals per se. The claim recites “[a] product, the product comprising: a computer-readable storage device” in lines 1-2 of the claim. The specification merely provides examples for what a storage device may be, including examples that are directed to signals per se such as “optical, electromagnetic, [or] infrared… system, apparatus, or device” ([0071]). While the specification mentions, “In the context of this document, a storage device is not a signal and is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se”, (1) it is unclear if the “document” refers to only the specification or if it also includes the claims and (2) this statement applies to a “storage device” which is not exactly the claimed “computer-readable storage device”. With no explicit definition nor clear disavowal in the specification, the claimed “computer-readable storage device” encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission. Such a transitory signal does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03.
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. Therefore, claims 1-19 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claim 20 is not directed to a statutory category, as previously set forth, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category.
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, using a task guidance system, a task to be performed by a user”
“determining, using 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 skill level of the user for each of the plurality of tasks”
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].
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. C.]. In particular, the claim recites management of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
“providing, to the user and using the task guidance system, an instruction set for performing the task, wherein a level of detail within the instruction set provided is based upon the skill level of the user”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover a social activity of providing an instruction set based upon the skill level of the user [see, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018)].
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 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 the user during the performance of steps the task”
“updating the profile of the user based upon the monitoring”
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 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, using a task guidance system, a task to be performed by a user”
“determine, using 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 skill level of the user for each of the plurality of tasks”
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].
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. C.]. In particular, the claim recites management of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
“provide, to the user and using the task guidance system, an instruction set for performing the task, wherein a level of detail within the instruction set provided is based upon the skill level of the user”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover a social activity of providing an instruction set based upon the skill level of the user [see, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018)].
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”
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”
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, as previously set forth, the claim is not directed to a statutory category, as previously set forth, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category. For purposes of 101 analysis, a “computer-readable storage device” will be interpreted as a “non-transitory computer-readable storage device”.
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, using a task guidance system, a task to be performed by a user”
“determine, using 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 skill level of the user for each of the plurality of tasks”
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].
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. C.]. In particular, the claim recites management of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
“provide, to the user and using the task guidance system, an instruction set for performing the task, wherein a level of detail within the instruction set provided is based upon the skill level of the user”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover a social activity of providing an instruction set based upon the skill level of the user [see, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018)].
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 computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by the processor, causes the product to”
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 computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by the processor, causes the product to”
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, using 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 (FIG. 1 and [0025-0029], FIG. 2 and [0039-0044]: for example, using a task guidance system, a task identified to be performed by a user is providing user responses 204A-C);
determining, using 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 skill level of the user for each of the plurality of tasks (FIG. 1 and [0025-0029], FIG. 2 and [0039-0044]: 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); and
providing, to the user and using the task guidance system, an instruction set for performing the task, wherein a level of detail within the instruction set provided is based upon the skill level of the user (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 claim 2, Mall further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising method of claim 1, comprising:
monitoring the user during the performance of steps 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. ”); and
updating the profile of the user based upon the monitoring (FIG. 1 and [0027]: a change in the experience-level 116 of the user 108 is determined, this change indicative the profile being updated based on the monitoring; FIG. 2 and [0048]: “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.” Thus, based on the monitoring, the profile of the user is updated from being associated with experience-level 116A to experience-level 116B).
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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including:
US 2015/0095823 A1: determining a user’s ability based on an amount of time the user takes to complete a particular step and the number of times the user does not successfully complete one or more particular steps
US 11520947 B1: collection of user’s inputs via sensors and evaluating a user’s learning progress and productivity to continuously monitor users qualification profile and make decision on user interface complexity level
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