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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 were previously pending. Claim 1 was amended and claims 2-11 were canceled in the reply filed November 3, 2025. Claim 1 is currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under § 101 & 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because they only amount to a general allegation of patentability.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/499,330, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, it does not support, inter alia, exporting said user’s answer to said connected user database and said artificial intelligence platform. The priority date for all claims is that of the instant application, April 29, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 3, 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the name and patent number of U.S. Pat. Citation 1 do not match. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claim 1, considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
a. receiving a user input, said user input indicating a user’s preferred learning style, wherein said learning style is a predefined learning style;
b. importing information for a question or a lesson;
c. importing information for said user;
d. generating a new question based on said user’s preferred learning style;
e. displaying said new question to said user;
f. receiving a user’s answer to said new question;
g. exporting said user’s answer;
h. importing information;
i. generating feedback on said user’s answer to said new question based on said imported information; and
j. exporting said feedback;
wherein: exports information from an initial assessment about a user's current understanding of a subject; utilizing a rule-based system to categorize said user's learning style based on predefined rules and said predefined learning styles; and generate said new question and said feedback.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for determining the preferred learning style of a person by analyzing interactive questions and answers (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Additionally, aside from the general technological environment (addressed below), it covers purely mental processes (e.g., a person observing and evaluating another person's answers to questions, and arriving at a judgment on learning style and feedback on the answer).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2023)—matching users based on responses to questions, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as matching learning styles based on responses to questions). These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, one or more peripherals, connected educational database, connected user database, artificial intelligence platform, generative pre-trained transformer—all recited at a high level of generality).
Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added). See also Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18) ("patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101").
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, one or more peripherals, connected educational database, connected user database, artificial intelligence platform, generative pre-trained transformer—see published Specification ¶¶ 0006, 29, 33-34 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elkon, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0337838 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250729) in view of Sarkar, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0173803 (Reference B of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250729) and Varma, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0200430 (Reference C of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250729).
As per claim 1, Elkon teaches a computer-implemented method tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, the computer-implemented method comprising the steps of:
a. receiving, by one or more peripherals, a user input, said user input indicating a user’s preferred learning style, wherein said learning style is a predefined learning style (¶¶ 0111-112);
b. importing information for a question or a lesson from a connected educational database (¶ 0121);
c. importing information for said user from a connected user database (¶¶ 0113, 115, 129);
d. generating a new question through a platform based on said user’s preferred learning style, said information from said connected user database, and said connected educational database (¶ 0133-135; Fig. 13);
e. displaying said new question to said user (¶¶ 0133-134; Fig. 13);
f. receiving, by one or more peripherals, a user’s answer to said new question (¶¶ 0115, 135);
g. exporting said user’s answer to said connected user database and said platform (¶¶ 0119, 124, 136);
h. importing information from said connected user database to said platform (¶¶ 0113, 115, 129);
i. generating feedback on said user’s answer to said new question from said platform based on said imported information from said connected user database (¶¶ 0115, 127, 136); and
j. exporting said feedback from said platform to said user database (¶¶ 0115, 119, 124, 136).
wherein: said connected user database exports information from an initial assessment about a user's current understanding of a subject (¶¶ 0111, 119);
said platform further comprises utilizing a rule-based system to categorize said user's learning style based on predefined rules and said predefined learning styles (¶¶ 0112-113).
Elkon does not explicitly teach the platform is an artificial intelligence platform; which is taught by Sarkar (¶ 0081). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Sarkar—namely, to leverage the abilities of modern computing tools in order to better create a learning plan for a person. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of educational analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
The references do not explicitly teach said artificial intelligence platform comprises utilizing a generative pre-trained transformer to generate said new question and said feedback; which is taught by Varma (¶¶ 0016, 105, 119). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Varma—namely, to leverage the abilities of modern computing tools in order to conduct a better educational analysis. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of educational analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Examiner acknowledges that the claim uses the transitional phrase "consisting of," while the applied references obviously describe systems with more components than are required by the claim. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to exclude these elements if their functions are not desired or required. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Conclusion
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628