DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to claims filed on 4/30/2024 in relation to application 18/650,877.
The instant application claims benefit to provisional application #62/931,876 with a priority date of 11/7/2019.
The case is CIP of 17/093,494 dated 11/9/2020.
The Pre-Grant publication # 20240282211 is published on 8/22/2024
Claims 1-17 are pending.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 17 recite an abstract idea of a teacher facilitating, monitoring and grading a student and providing this information to a parent that falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas subject to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance1. Specifically, the claims recite the steps shown below, annotated to recite the corresponding abstract mental process and/or instance of managing interactions between people:
a method for facilitating and monitoring the educational development of a child while maintaining accountability of a teacher in a Montessori environment wherein a teacher in a Montessori school catalogs and evaluates a student’s performance comprising:
tangible output with measurable dimensions completeness digital camera capturing at least one image of the tangible output; the at least one image of the tangible output being associated with the user account of the child, and saved in association with the account of the child; a computer employing artificial intelligence measuring the circumference of the tangible output based on the at least one image of the tangible output to compare the at least one image of the tangible output against at least one ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity; the computer assigning a completeness score, provided as a percentage of completion, to the tangible output based on Montessori Levels of Progress in accordance with a specific category as a direct result of comparing the measurements of completion of the at least one image of the tangible output against the measurements of completion of the at least one ideal image; wherein the at least one ideal image exhibits measurements of completion of 100%;wherein the at least one image of the tangible output is scored a 4-Proficient (P) as a Montessori Levels of Progress score if the at least one image of the tangible output exhibits at least 90% completion; the teacher confirming the score assigned by the computer; the teacher correcting the score if necessary; and the computer saving the score to the user account of the student, providing a history of the child's progress and accomplishments, and creating a progress report.
The instant claims as recited, in a broadest reasonable interpretation, capture the abstract ideas of (1) managing a teaching interaction of a teacher assessing and cataloging the abilities of a student, and (2) the mental process a teacher takes to assess and catalog the abilities of a student. That is, other than reciting a method using a “computer”, “on an internet-connected platform”, using an “image database”, and a “digital camera”, “use of digital artificial intelligence”, “Montessori level of program” ,nothing in the claims as drafted precludes the steps above from reasonably and reliably being performed in the mind and/or as conventionally performed using pen and paper in a pre-computer age implementation using mathematical calculation. Speed of outcome could be factor but claim limitation here, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or a certain method of managing interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. It falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, respectively. Accordingly, the claims recite one or more abstract idea(s) (Step 2A: Prong 1:Yes).
The Judicial Exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the use of a computer, internet-connected platform, and image database to perform the claimed method steps. The internet-connected platform, computer, and image data base all recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., a generic computer system for storing and analyzing data over a network and capturing and storing images) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component under MPEP §2106.05(f)&(h). Moreover, these generic, additional elements thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(b)(c)&(e). Additionally, these additional elements fail to provide an improvement to the technical field of providing neurological assessments under MPEP §2106.05(a) as they merely recite the generic use of a computer as a tool to automate existing mental and human operated practices. Any technical features implemented in the provision of the system is devoid from the claim language. The additional limitation in the present claims are seen more as a drafting effort toward eligibility than any meaningful employed elements that confine the claims. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under (Step 2A: Prong 2 No.).
The claims also could not find to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) to which they are directed. The independent claims do no more than call on a method with basic functionality for using a computer as a platform to automate the existing human practice, devoid of any inventive concepts. The additional elements in the claims, when taken alone and in ordered combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than: requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry under MPEP §2106.05(d) or reciting mere insignificant pre- or post-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g).
For example, claim 1 merely recites "a computer" and an “internet-connected platform” which are recited as pertaining to a generic purpose computer acting over a network as per MPEP§2106.05(d)(II)(i-iv), particularly TLI Communications and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.. The claimed "image database" for storing images and generic storage and retrieval of stored data is conventional based upon the specification which relies upon the well-known nature of such databases for sufficient written description support and as per Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.. The claimed digital camera is deemed conventional as the specification relies upon the well-known nature of such devices for sufficient written description support. Furthermore, to the extent to which the application claims that the computer analyzes of images is deemed conventional, as the specification relies upon the well-known nature of such comparisons for sufficient written description support, if supported at all. This represents a generic computer performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry and do not amount to significantly more. Any limitation which was construed as insignificant post-solution activity under Step 2A: Prong Two as been reconsidered here and found not to amount to an inventive concept. As analyzed, the claims as drafted do not make improvements to another technology or technical field, improve the function of a computer itself, utilize a particular machine, transform a particular article to a different state, have specific limitations or unconventional steps that limit the scope of the claim to a particular useful application beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a computerized environment, or recite an inventive concept of any form therein. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (Step 2B Yes).
All dependent claims and amendments analyzed do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims. For further exemplification of the dependent claims 2-3, 6, 7, and 10 simply further exemplify aspects of the abstract student assessment and documentation method and mental processes performed therein as well as conventional internet messaging and communication deemed conventional above. Claims 4 and 9 deemed that the platform is a mobile device application which is admitted as conventional as per the specification which relies upon the well-known nature of mobile applications for sufficient written description support and is officially noted as conventional herein. Claims 5 and 8 deem that the images are videos which are admitted as conventional as per the specification relies upon the well-known nature of video capture and playback for sufficient written description support. Similarly the dependent claims 12-17 simply further exemplify aspects of the abstract student assessment and documentation method and mental processes performed therein as well as conventional internet messaging and communication deemed conventional multiple videos and flashing lights for visual cues. Other claim sets also recite similar features. These further limitations do not direct the claims to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the monopolization of the aforementioned judicial exception and are thus rejected.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US Pub. 2015/0120349 A1) in view of Shi (US 20160180734 A1) .
In re Claim 1, Weiss discloses: a method for facilitating and monitoring the educational development of a child while maintaining accountability of a teacher in a [teaching] environment (at least at ¶ [0007]-[0010] wherein Weiss discloses a task assignment and completion tracking monitoring system, wherein a teacher may assign a task to a student in [0022], via an internet-connected mobile application platform in [0025]-[0026]. Wherein Figure 8 and [0069]-[0072], the student completes the task, an image of their completed task is taken, the computer compares the inputted image to an ideal image to determine if the task was successfully completed (815), a teacher verifies the performance (817). Wherein if the tasks is completed the completion is stored and used to provide a history of student progress and accomplishments in Figures 9D and 10) comprising:
creating a user account for the child on an internet-connected platform, the platform disposed in communication with an image database (at least at Figure 1 and [0025]-[0026], wherein a child application is installed on a child device and the server holds a datastore (44) which stores received images in [0034] etc.);
the child performing an activity as an assignment (at least at Figure 6-8 wherein a child performs on of the activities in their task list);
the child completing the activity, providing a tangible output (at least at Figure 8, wherein the child completes the activity providing an output that can be captured via picture in [0034]);
a digital camera capturing at least one image of the output (at least at [0033] and Figure 8, wherein the child mobile device takes a picture of the task output for approval);
the at least one image being associated with the user account of the child, and saved in association with the account of the child (at least at (44) and Figure 8, wherein the image is associated in the data store with the child and used for grading the child’s performance);
a computer comparing the at least one image against an ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity (at least at Figure 8, (815) and ¶ [0070], wherein the server compares the captured image to an ideal image of the completed task);
the computer assigning a score to the tangible output based on Levels of Progress in accordance with a specific category as a direct result of comparing the at least one image against the ideal image (at least at Figure 8, (815) and ¶ [0070], wherein the server compares the captured image to an ideal image of the completed task to determine if the performance is sufficient to deem the task completed or not completed, thereby determining if a task is at least proficiently performed or is at a level below proficient);
the teacher confirming the score assigned; the teacher correcting the score if necessary (at least at (817) and [0070] wherein the teacher confirms or changes the scores accordingly); and
the computer saving the score to the account of the student, providing a history of the child's progress and accomplishments, generating a progress report [at least at Figure 9D and 10, wherein the completion of the tasks is stored for the child and a history of completed tasks is provided by the system; task completion report (48)].
Weiss combination further discloses tangible output with measurable dimensions of completeness; a digital camera capturing at least one image of the tangible output ( Para 0010 mobile device sensor for camera capturing use);the at least one image of the tangible output being associated with the user account of the child, and saved in association with the account of the child; a computer employing artificial intelligence measuring the circumference of the tangible output based on the at least one image of the tangible output to compare the at least one image of the tangible output against at least one ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity; the computer assigning a completeness score, provided as a percentage of completion, to the tangible output based on Montessori Levels of Progress in accordance with a specific category as a direct result of comparing the measurements of completion of the at least one image of the tangible output against the measurements of completion of the at least one ideal image; wherein the at least one ideal image exhibits measurements of completion of 100%;wherein the at least one image of the tangible output is scored a 4-Proficient (P) as a Montessori Levels of Progress score if the at least one image of the tangible output exhibits at least 90% completion; the teacher confirming the score assigned by the computer; the teacher correcting the score if necessary; and the computer saving the score to the user account of the student, providing a history of the child's progress and accomplishments, and creating a progress report (Fig.10 the percent of tasks completed each week is plotted).
Weiss is arguably silent on the teacher being a Montessori teacher and the level of progress thereby being related to a Montessori system, but Shi teaches: [ implementing a Montessori teaching environment that comprises of monitoring and facilitating the educational development of a child while maintaining accountability of a teacher; wherein children are evaluated based on Montessori levels of progress to at least at portfolio, regularly providing documents of student portfolios of work and implementing relevant concepts into the curriculum to evaluate student performance based on these work samples to determine whether proficiency is or is not present].
Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss for the system to be used in a Montessori teaching environment, as taught by Shi for the purpose of enabling automatic scoring of student’s work in a teaching environment where samples of students work are regularly taken for the benefit of reducing a burden on a teacher for assessing and documenting students work product and enabling teacher greater time to focus on student engagement and interaction.
In re Claim 4, the previous combination of Weiss and Loop as applied 1 discloses the claimed invention as shown above. Weiss further discloses: wherein the platform is a mobile device application (at least at Figure 1, wherein the student and teacher device both interact with the platform via a mobile device application).
In re Claim 6, the previous combination of Weiss and Loop as applied 1 discloses the claimed invention as shown above. Weiss further discloses: wherein the image indicating mastery is [] part of a [] evaluation rubric (at least at [0070], wherein the ideal image is a representation of a successful completion of the task). Weiss does not explicitly disclose that there are three other parts of the Montessori evaluation rubric. However, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the concept and advantages of evaluating a student performance on multiple criteria aside from merely the ideal image were old and well known to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time (before the effective filing date) of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time (before the effective filing date) of the invention to modify the teachings of Weiss by incorporating evaluating a student on other factors such as timeliness, independence, patience, etc., to obtain predictable results of providing a more robust and comprehensive evaluation of a student’s performance.
Claim 2, 3, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the previous combination of Weiss and Loop as applied to claim 1 in view of Davis (US Pub. 2019/0001188 A1) and in further view of Zsebedics (US Pub. 2014/0337077 A1).
In re Claim 2, the previous combination of Weiss and Loop as applied 1 discloses the claimed invention as shown above. Weiss is arguably silent on, but Davis teaches: [a parent/ guardian, instructor, child communication and teaching system, comprising] a parent of the child accessing the user account (at least at [0021], [0023], [0159]-[0162], wherein a parent can access the child account and upload and review uploaded videos of the child’s performances);
the computer providing access to the parent to review the progress of the child via the at least one photo of the child's activity (at least at [0161], wherein the parent can see the list of uploaded videos of the child’s activity and thereby review their progress as well as any comments from a coach in Figure 26-29); and
the computer positing assignments for the child to perform at home to aide in the mastery of the child in the assigned activity (at least at [0023], [0038], wherein based upon the instructors evaluation of the student’s abilities lessons and training schedules are assigned to improve upon determined weaknesses).
Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss to enable a parent to view the student’s account and associated videos, review their progress, and have an instructor provide assignments a child can perform at home to improve their performance on tasks, as taught by Davis, for the purpose of enabling a parent to stay up to date on child performance and provide guidance for improving student performance while away from the classroom, for the benefit of increasing a student’s motivational support and ability to take control of their own improvement.
Weiss is arguably silent on showing the parent the ideal image of how the task is performed, but Zsebedics teaches: [a task evaluation system, comprising] the computer showing the parent the ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity (at least at [0051], wherein a side by side view of the ideal and taken pictures is presented to the task evaluator). Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss for the ideal image to also be displayed to the parent, as taught by Zsebedics, for the purpose of informing the parent of a concrete example of how the task should have been performed for the benefit of enabling better understanding of student performance by the parent through added context.
In re Claim 3, the previous combination of Weiss and Loop as applied 1 discloses the claimed invention as shown above with image capturing by digital camera (Fig.1 element 34). Weiss is arguably silent on , but Davis teaches: [a parent, instructor, child communication and teaching system, comprising] the computer capturing at least one image of the child's work at home; uploading the at least one image of the child's work at home to a database associated with the user account of the child; the teacher viewing the at least one image; and the computer providing a field in which the teacher may communicate assistance to the parent and child via the platform (at least at [0021], [0023], [0159]-[0162], wherein a parent or child can access the child account and upload and review uploaded videos of the child’s performances at a home/remote location away from the teacher. Wherein the instructor can then evaluate the student’s performance and provide comments to the parent and child as in Figure 29. See also [0040], etc.).
Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss to enable a teacher to review tasks submitted from a remote/home location and providing grading information to the student and parent, as taught by Davis, for the purpose of enabling a teacher to grade student performance outside of the classroom and for the parent to stay up to date on child performance, for the benefit of enabling additional assessments of student performance and enabling open communication between students, parents, and teachers.
In re Claim 7, the previous combination of Weiss, Loop, Davis, and Zsebedics as applied 2 discloses the claimed invention as shown above. Weiss further discloses: wherein the image indicating mastery is [] part of a [] evaluation rubric (at least at [0070], wherein the ideal image is a representation of a successful completion of the task). Weiss does not explicitly disclose that there are three other parts of the Montessori evaluation rubric. However, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the concept and advantages of evaluating a student performance on multiple criteria aside from merely the ideal image were old and well known to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time (before the effective filing date) of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time (before the effective filing date) of the invention to modify the teachings of Weiss by incorporating evaluating a student on other factors such as timeliness, independence, patience, etc., to obtain predictable results of providing a more robust and comprehensive evaluation of a student’s performance.
In re Claim 8, the previous combination of Weiss, Loop, Davis, and Zsebedics as applied 3 discloses the claimed invention as shown above. Weiss is arguably silent on, but Zsebedics teaches: [a task evaluation system] wherein the at least one image is a video (at least at [0048], wherein the user may submit a video of completing the task which is evaluated and scored). Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss for the submitted image to be a view, as taught by Zsebedics, for the purpose of enabling a greater range of the tasks which need to be completed and more data regarding the task to be captured for the benefit of enabling more detailed evaluation of tasks and a more comprehensive performance evaluation.
In re Claim 9, the previous combination of Weiss, Loop, Davis, and Zsebedics as applied 3 discloses the claimed invention as shown above. Weiss further discloses: wherein the platform is a mobile device application (at least at Figure 1, wherein the student and teacher device both interact with the platform via a mobile device application).
In re Claim 10, the previous combination of Weiss, Loop, Davis, and Zsebedics as applied 3 discloses the claimed invention as shown above. Weiss further discloses: wherein the image indicating mastery is [] part of a [] evaluation rubric (at least at [0070], wherein the ideal image is a representation of a successful completion of the task). Weiss does not explicitly disclose that there are three other parts of the Montessori evaluation rubric. However, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the concept and advantages of evaluating a student performance on multiple criteria aside from merely the ideal image were old and well known to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time (before the effective filing date) of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time (before the effective filing date) of the invention to modify the teachings of Weiss by incorporating evaluating a student on other factors such as timeliness, independence, patience, etc., to obtain predictable results of providing a more robust and comprehensive evaluation of a student’s performance.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the previous combination of Weiss and Loop as applied to claim 1 in view of Zsebedics.
In re Claim 5, the previous combination of Weiss and Loop as applied 1 discloses the claimed invention as shown above. Weiss is arguably silent on, but Zsebedics teaches: [a task evaluation system] wherein the at least one image is a video for an ideal image (at least at [0048], wherein the user may submit a tangible output video of completing the task that is evaluated and scored). Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss for the submitted image to be a view, as taught by Zsebedics, for the purpose of enabling a greater range of the tasks which need to be completed and more data regarding the task to be captured for the benefit of enabling more detailed evaluation of tasks and a more comprehensive performance evaluation.
Claim 11-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the previous combination of Weiss and Shi as applied to claim 1 in view of Davis (US Pub. 2019/0001188 A1) and in further view of Zsebedics (US Pub. 2014/0337077 A1) in further view of Bodin (US 11003421 B2).
In re Claim 11-17, Weiss discloses: a method for facilitating and monitoring the educational development of a child while maintaining accountability of a teacher in a [teaching] environment (at least at ¶ [0007]-[0010] wherein Weiss discloses a task assignment and completion tracking monitoring system, wherein a teacher may assign a task to a student in [0022], via an internet-connected mobile application platform in [0025]-[0026]. Wherein Figure 8 and [0069]-[0072], the student completes the task, an image of their completed task is taken, the computer compares the inputted image to an ideal image to determine if the task was successfully completed (815), a teacher verifies the performance (817). Wherein if the tasks is completed the completion is stored and used to provide a history of student progress and accomplishments in Figures 9D and 10) comprising:
creating a user account for the child on an internet-connected platform, the platform disposed in communication with an image database (at least at Figure 1 and [0025]-[0026], wherein a child application is installed on a child device and the server holds a datastore (44) which stores received images in [0034] etc.);
the child performing an activity as an assignment (at least at Figure 6-8 wherein a child performs on of the activities in their task list);
the child completing the activity, providing a tangible output (at least at Figure 8, wherein the child completes the activity providing an output that can be captured via picture in [0034]);
a digital camera capturing at least one image of the output (at least at [0033] and Figure 8, wherein the child mobile device takes a picture of the task output for approval);
the at least one image being associated with the user account of the child, and saved in association with the account of the child (at least at (44) and Figure 8, wherein the image is associated in the data store with the child and used for grading the child’s performance);
a computer comparing the at least one image against an ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity (at least at Figure 8, (815) and ¶ [0070], wherein the server compares the captured image to an ideal image of the completed task);
the computer assigning a score to the tangible output based on Levels of Progress in accordance with a specific category as a direct result of comparing the at least one image against the ideal image (at least at Figure 8, (815) and ¶ [0070], wherein the server compares the captured image to an ideal image of the completed task to determine if the performance is sufficient to deem the task completed or not completed, thereby determining if a task is at least proficiently performed or is at a level below proficient);
the teacher confirming the score assigned; the teacher correcting the score if necessary (at least at (817) and [0070] wherein the teacher confirms or changes the scores accordingly); and
the computer saving the score to the account of the student, providing a history of the child's progress and accomplishments, generating a progress report [at least at Figure 9D and 10, wherein the completion of the tasks is stored for the child and a history of completed tasks is provided by the system; task completion report (48)].
Weiss is arguably silent on the teacher being a Montessori teacher and the level of progress thereby being related to a Montessori system, but Shi teaches: [ implementing a Montessori teaching environment that comprises of monitoring and facilitating the educational development of a child while maintaining accountability of a teacher; wherein children are evaluated based on Montessori levels of progress to at least at portfolio, regularly providing documents of student portfolios of work and implementing relevant concepts into the curriculum to evaluate student performance based on these work samples to determine whether proficiency is or is not present].
Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss for the system to be used in a Montessori teaching environment, as taught by Shi for the purpose of enabling automatic scoring of student’s work in a teaching environment where samples of students work are regularly taken for the benefit of reducing a burden on a teacher for assessing and documenting students work product and enabling teacher greater time to focus on student engagement and interaction.
Weiss is arguably silent on, but Davis teaches: [a parent/ guardian, instructor, child communication and teaching system, comprising] a parent of the child accessing the user account (at least at [0021], [0023], [0159]-[0162], wherein a parent can access the child account and upload and review uploaded videos of the child’s performances);
the computer providing access to the parent to review the progress of the child via the at least one photo of the child's activity (at least at [0161], wherein the parent can see the list of uploaded videos of the child’s activity and thereby review their progress as well as any comments from a coach in Figure 26-29); and
the computer positing assignments for the child to perform at home to aide in the mastery of the child in the assigned activity (at least at [0023], [0038], wherein based upon the instructors evaluation of the student’s abilities lessons and training schedules are assigned to improve upon determined weaknesses).
Weiss combination further discloses tangible output with measurable dimensions of completeness; a digital camera capturing at least one image of the tangible output ( Para 0010 mobile device sensor for camera capturing use);the at least one image of the tangible output being associated with the user account of the child, and saved in association with the account of the child; a computer employing artificial intelligence measuring the circumference of the tangible output based on the at least one image of the tangible output to compare the at least one image of the tangible output against at least one ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity; the computer assigning a completeness score, provided as a percentage of completion, to the tangible output based on Montessori Levels of Progress in accordance with a specific category as a direct result of comparing the measurements of completion of the at least one image of the tangible output against the measurements of completion of the at least one ideal image; wherein the at least one ideal image exhibits measurements of completion of 100%;wherein the at least one image of the tangible output is scored a 4-Proficient (P) as a Montessori Levels of Progress score if the at least one image of the tangible output exhibits at least 90% completion; the teacher confirming the score assigned by the computer; the teacher correcting the score if necessary; and the computer saving the score to the user account of the student, providing a history of the child's progress and accomplishments, and creating a progress report (Fig.10 the percent of tasks completed each week is plotted).
Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss to enable a parent to view the student’s account and associated videos, review their progress, and have an instructor provide assignments a child can perform at home to improve their performance on tasks, as taught by Davis, for the purpose of enabling a parent to stay up to date on child performance and provide guidance for improving student performance while away from the classroom, for the benefit of increasing a student’s motivational support and ability to take control of their own improvement.
Weiss is arguably silent on showing the parent the ideal image of how the task is performed, but Zsebedics teaches: [a task evaluation system, comprising] the computer showing the parent the ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity (at least at [0051], wherein a side by side view of the ideal and taken pictures is presented to the task evaluator). Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss for the ideal image to also be displayed to the parent, as taught by Zsebedics, for the purpose of informing the parent of a concrete example of how the task should have been performed for the benefit of enabling better understanding of student performance by the parent through added context.
Weiss in combination with Shi, Davis and Zsebedics arguably silent on a computer employing machine learning (claim 11) artificial intelligence (claim 17) to compare the at least one image of the tangible output against at least one ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity . Boding, however teaches: computer employing artificial intelligence to compare the at least one image of the tangible output against at least one ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity [ col.4 lines 39-53 incorporates artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities, e.g. machine language processing, and rules engines, with the integration of other functionality to assist in the development, design and deployment, etc., of digital applications like image comparisons). Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss for the system to be used in computer employing artificial intelligence to compare the at least one image of the tangible output against at least one ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity, as taught by Boding for the purpose of quality check on automatic scoring of student’s work in a teaching environment.
Weiss combination is arguably silent on the platform employing machine learning to overlay flashing lights during a portion of the second video, the flashing lights indicating a missed step of the activity wherein the flashing lights serve as a visual cue to the parent/guardian to facilitate correction of the child during a subsequent attempt at the activity. Shi teaches lighting devices that are operatively linked to the computer system ( Para 0021, 0022, 0038). Thus, it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss for the system to be used in a platform employing machine learning to overlay flashing lights during a portion of the second video, the flashing lights indicating a missed step of the activity wherein the flashing lights serve as a visual cue to the parent/guardian to facilitate correction of the child during a subsequent attempt at the activity, as taught by Shi for the purpose of identifying the correcting steps properly.
Weiss in combination with Shi and Boding is silent is arguably silent about the first and second video displays with flashing lights indicating a missed step of the activity; and wherein the flashing lightsserve as a visual cue to the parent/guardian to facilitate correction of the child during a subsequent attempt at the activity. This other combination of correcting and completing of tangible outcome for mastery achieved during Montessori rubric evaluation or at home as required by claimed steps could easily achieved like placing known parts at various locations of an equipment. They are not acts claimed to be of a distinguishable patentable features. Hence it would have been obvious for an individual having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention as disclosed by Weiss modified in combination with Shi Davis, Zsebedics and Bodin so that the computer saving the score to the account of the student, providing a history of the child’s progress and accomplishments, and creating a progress report; the computer conveying a message to a parent/guardian of the child, the message notifying the parent/guardian of the progress report; a parent/guardian of the child accessing the user account; the computer providing access to the parent to review the progress of the child via the at least one image of the tangible output disposed within the progress report; the computer showing the parent the at least one ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity; the computer positing assignments for the child to perform at home to aide in the mastery of the child in the assigned activity; wherein the at least one image of the tangible output is a video; wherein the at least one ideal image is a video; the platform employing machine learning to detect indications of mastery in the at least one image of the tangible output though the comparison of the at least one image of the tangible output to the ideal image; the platform employing machine learning to highlight aspects of the at least one image of the tangible output which are inconsistent with the at least one image of mastery; the platform issuing a video, composed of the at least one image of the tangible output, to facilitate comparison of the at least one image of the tangible output to the at least one ideal image; wherein the at least one ideal image indicates mastery; the platform displaying videos to the parent/guardian of the child in the event that the child does not achieve mastery, a first video of the videos depicting a teacher executing the activity and producing a tangible output of mastery; the platform displaying a second video to the parent/guardian of the child in the event that the child does not achieve mastery, the second video depicting a recording of the child attempting the activity; the platform employing machine learning to overlay flashing lights during a portion of the second video, the flashing lights indicating a missed step of the activity; and wherein the flashing lightsserve as a visual cue to the parent/guardian to facilitate correction of the child during a subsequent attempt at the activity, This could be achieved in making the Montessori evaluation and home working to be an effective learning process.
Weiss combination further teaches the computer assigning a Montessori Levels of Progress (MLOP) score based on the percentage of completion; wherein a score of "4-Proficient (P) is assigned if the percentage of completion is greater than 90% (It all depends on design option assigning a Montessori Levels of Progress (MLOP) score based on the percentage of completion without any patentable distinguishable feature);
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on October 27, 2025 have been considered but found to be persuasive to the overcome objections and the 35USC§112 rejections.
Claim Objections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant in response, replaces paragraphs 0005 and 0039 that correct the typographical mistakes as noted and suggested by the Examiner. No new matter has been entered.
Objection withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Examiner had noted that claim 1, and dependents thereof, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Examiner posits that the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner has suggested narrowing the scope of the claim to remove the limitations pertaining to the algorithm used by the computer to automatically assign a score derived from the comparison of an image to an ideal image. In response, limitations pertaining to the algorithm of the present invention have been removed. No new matter has been entered. Accordingly, the 35USC112 (a) rejections are withdrawn.
Examiner has noted that claims 1, 6, 7, and dependents thereof, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. Examiner noted that claims 1 recites: "computer employing artificial intelligence to compare the at least one image of the tangible output against at least one ideal image which demonstrates mastery of the activity." Examiner12 of 14 notes there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. In response, references to artificial intelligence have been removed.
Similarly, claim 1 recites the limitation, "the account of the student" in a later clause without sufficient antecedent basis. Additionally, claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 13 recite the limitation "ideal image indicates mastery" and "the image indicating mastery," without sufficient antecedent basis. In response, these limitations have been removed, with references to mastery amended accordingly, and ensuring the "user account of the student" has proper antecedent basis. Applicant has amended the claims to remove “minimum level of engagement” and “evaluating user performance and interactions.” Hence 35USC112 (b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The claimed invention is been directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant has added limitations that recite an abstract idea of a teacher facilitating, monitoring, and grading a student and providing this information to a parent. Examiner has also noted that claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, stating that the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. An inherently time consuming method of an invention without the assistance of a computer for analysis of the student's work, captured via image, and compared against an ideal specimen of the work may not overcome the abstractness of the subject matter. This is especially true for tangible work, though an accurate, percentage-based completion quotient is difficult with the human mind alone, a computer, equipped with image recognition software, can only determine an accurate percentage of completion of a tangible product using mathematical calculations, especially in comparison to a picture of a completed, exemplary example. Use of generic camera, operation with multitude of students across multitude of projects are additional element but not significantly more for making the case patent eligible.
Though this may not be all routine activity in Montessori art, it remains a part of managing personal behavior common in educational art. These are concepts performed in human mind involving observation and judgement.
There is no practical and unconventional improvement in computer-related technology by performing above known computer performance application. Hence the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant assertion on page 14 regarding independent claim elements amendments also overcoming art rejections without much specific elements of discussion is respectfully traversed. The prior art Weiss combination has presented facilitation and monitoring of educational development of a child while maintaining accountability of a teacher in a Montessori environment via a computer as recited in the claim amendments.
The amendments not overcoming the art combination since the percent of tasks completed and Montessori and proficient level of progress score are determined factors known for a person with ordinary skills in art.
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 SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.Z/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715 February 7, 2026
/XUAN M THAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715