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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 07 August 2025, wherein:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10 are amended.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12 are original.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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. 120 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 disclosures of the prior-filed applications, Application No. US Provisional Application 63/274,795 and PCT Application PCT/IB2022/060568, fail 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.
In particular, the disclosure of the prior-filed application fails to provide sufficient written description for “the central server: iteratively calculates whether the student goals are met based on one or more of the plurality of student behaviors; plots one or more of the plurality of student behaviors in a graph or a chart; and organizes one or more of the plurality of student behaviors in a list” in claim 1, “a student user interface (student UI) for providing student training based on the student behaviors” in claim 3, “wherein the at least one of the teacher UI and the parent UI presenting the plurality of student behaviors comprises presenting a student behavior using an artificial intelligence child to represent the student” in claim 4, “wherein the at least one of the teacher UI and the parent UI presenting whether the student goals are met further comprises presenting a change in the student goals using an artificial intelligence child to represent the student” in claim 5, “wherein the at least one of the teacher UI and the parent UI presenting whether the student goals are met further comprises providing at least one of system-generated goals or system-generated supports for helping the student complete the student goals” in claim 6, “iteratively calculating whether the student goals are met by the central server based on the student behaviors; plotting one or more of the student behaviors in a graph or chart by the central server; listing one or more of the student behaviors in a list by the central server” in claim 7, “presenting student training based on the plurality of student behaviors on a student user interface (student UI)” in claim 9, “wherein the presenting the graph, chart or list of the student behaviors comprises presenting a student behavior using an artificial intelligence child to represent the student” in claim 10, “wherein the presenting whether the student goals are met further comprises presenting a change in the student goals using an artificial intelligence child to represent the student” in claim 11, and “wherein presenting whether the student goals are met further comprises providing at least one of system-generated goals or system-generated supports for helping the student complete the student goals” in claim 12 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the specification of the prior-filed applications are silent regarding the content of claims 4-6 and 10-12. Additionally, the specification of the prior-filed applications, at best, merely recite similar language as claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 without providing any substantive description for the claimed limitations identified above for the same reasons that the instant specification also fails as identified in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) below for the same claim limitations.
Thus, pending claims 1-12 do not gain benefit of priority to US Provisional Application 63/274,795 and PCT Application PCT/IB2022/060568. Therefore, pending claims 1-12 have an effective filing date of 01 May 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05 September 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because non-patent literature cite no. 2 is missing page numbers of publication in the citation. In particular, the citation recites “entire document” instead of page numbers for the cited article, which is only one part of the entire document. 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). Examiner has entered a correct citation of the article in the PTOS-892.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because while it is clear that newly added Fig. 2-82 are screenshots of slides (in essence, photographs), they are not of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. See 37 CFR 1.84(b). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It’s unclear why new claim 26 (formerly 25) has been amended to misspell “embodiments” by introducing an errant space.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are formatted outside of conventional practice. With particular respect to independent claims 1 and 7, the limitations are oddly separated such that it is unclear which limitations are functional and which are descriptive. Uniformity with conventional practice is recommended to increase clarity.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2, incorporating the limitations of independent claim 1, recites the broad recitation “wherein the student behaviors comprise: academic achievement; human interactions; eating student behavior; sleeping student behavior; and acting out student behavior”, and the claim also recites “further wherein one or more of the student behaviors comprise: a time; a location; an antecedent; a student behavior; and a consequence” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is further unclear whether the narrower statement of the range/limitation are student behaviors or sub-components of each of the student behaviors recited in independent claim 1 (e.g., academic achievement comprising a time, a location, an antecedent, a student behavior, and a consequence). If the narrower statement are sub-components of each of the student behaviors recited independent claim as provided in the above example, it is recommended to amend the claim to clearly reflect this.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, it is unclear what distinguishes “a student behavior” recited in each of claims 2 and 8 from any of the “student behaviors” recited in independent claims 1 and 7. The language is redundantly vague. Additionally, the term “student behavior” is more broad than each of the terms “academic achievement”, “human interactions”, “eating student behavior”, “sleeping student behavior”, and “acting out student behavior”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Claims 4-6 each recites the limitation " the at least one of the teacher UI and the parent UI" in line 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, independent claim 1 was amended to remove the “at least one of” language which removes the antecedent basis.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(a) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the central server: iteratively calculates whether the student goals are met based on one or more of the plurality of student behaviors” in claim 1 and “iteratively calculating whether the student goals are met by the central server based on the student behaviors” in claim 7 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the specification merely recites similar language as the claim without any further description. See, for example, at least para. 16 and 19 of the specification. Therefore, the disclosure at best merely recites that these limitations are performed in results-based language without providing the necessary description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms for performing the claimed functionality. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 1 and 7, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the central server: plots one or more of the plurality of student behaviors in a graph or a chart” in claim 1 and “plotting one or more of the student behaviors in a graph or chart by the central server” in claim 7 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the specification merely recites similar language as the claim without any further description. See, for example, at least para. 17 and 20 of the amended specification. For instance, para. 17 recites that the central server “analyzes the student behaviors 800 by plotting the student behaviors in a graph or chart” without any further description. Therefore, the disclosure at best merely recites that these limitations are performed in results-based language without providing the necessary description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms for performing the claimed functionality. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 1 and 7, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the central server: organizes one or more of the plurality of student behaviors in a list” in claim 1 and “listing one or more of the student behaviors in a list by the central server” in claim 7 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the specification merely recites similar language as the claim without any further description. See, for example, at least para. 17 and 20 of the amended specification. For instance, para. 17 recites that the central server “analyzes the student behaviors 800 by… organizing the recorded behaviors in a list, for example, a chronological list” without any further description. Therefore, the disclosure at best merely recites that these limitations are performed in results-based language without providing the necessary description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms for performing the claimed functionality. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a student user interface (student UI) for providing student training based on the student behaviors” in claim 3 and “presenting student training based on the plurality of student behaviors on a student user interface (student UI)” in claim 9 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the most disclosure is found in at least para. 19 of the amended specification which merely recites similar language as the claim without any further description. While the specification does mention that a teacher or parent may set or modify a training plan, the disclosure is silent regarding what any training actually is, how it is “based on the student behaviors” or “based on the plurality of student behaviors”, as well as silent regarding how it is provided or presented on a student UI. Therefore, the disclosure at best merely recites that these limitations are performed in results-based language without providing the necessary description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms for performing the claimed functionality.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the at least one of the teacher UI and the parent UI presenting the plurality of student behaviors comprises presenting a student behavior using an artificial intelligence child to represent the student” in claim 4 and “wherein the presenting the graph, chart or list of the student behaviors comprises presenting a student behavior using an artificial intelligence child to represent the student” in claim 10 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the only related language in the disclosure is found in para. 23 of the amended specification which recites “[i]n at least one embodiment, the monthly report is provided through an artificial intelligence (AI) child point of view. For example, the behavior may be that every morning a student walks in a busy coatroom area at 9 am and starts crying, which makes everyone leave the area and the student stops crying. In this example, the app would inform the parent and/or teacher user using AI and a picture of the student that the behavior involves the student crying at 9 am and that a plan of action needs to be taken. An example communication in one embodiment reads: ‘Hi mom/dad/teacher, as you can see, I have been having trouble when going into the coatroom, and it makes me really sad. I think I could use some help with handling this situation as it is too busy in that area, and it overwhelms me’.” Therefore, the disclosure at best merely recites that these limitations are performed in results-based language without providing the necessary description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms for performing the claimed functionality, especially for “using an artificial intelligence child”.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the at least one of the teacher UI and the parent UI presenting whether the student goals are met further comprises presenting a change in the student goals using an artificial intelligence child to represent the student” in claim 5 and “wherein the presenting whether the student goals are met further comprises presenting a change in the student goals using an artificial intelligence child to represent the student” in claim 11 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the only related language in the disclosure is found in para. 24 of the amended specification which recites “[i]n a further embodiment, based on a student’s struggles with behaviors and school and/or home goals, the app will provide suggestions through the AI child, stating that, based on the information inputted, a change in the goal needs to occur. For example, ‘Hi mom/dad/teacher, as you can see, I have been having trouble with matching my colors. I think I need some help understanding what is being asked of me’.” Thus, the disclosure is silent regarding any meaningful description of the claimed functionality, including determining and presenting any change in the student goals. Therefore, the disclosure at best merely recites that these limitations are performed in results-based language without providing the necessary description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms for performing the claimed functionality, especially for “using an artificial intelligence child”.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the at least one of the teacher UI and the parent UI presenting whether the student goals are met further comprises providing at least one of system-generated goals or system-generated supports for helping the student complete the student goals” in claim 6 and “wherein presenting whether the student goals are met further comprises providing at least one of system-generated goals or system-generated supports for helping the student complete the student goals” in claim 12 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the only related language in the disclosure is found in para. 25 of the amended specification which recites “[i]n another further embodiment, based on how successful or unsuccessful the student is with their goals, the app will suggest other system-generated goals or supports (such as visuals or timers) to help the student complete the student’s goals.” Thus, with respect to claim 6, the disclosure is silent regarding the system-generated goals or system-generated supports being provided with the at least one of the teacher UI and the parent UI. Therefore, the disclosure at best merely recites that these limitations are performed in results-based language without providing the necessary description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms for performing the claimed functionality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 101 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-12 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to a method and a system which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented system for recording and analyzing a plurality of student goals and a plurality of student behaviors, the system comprising:
a central server for storing and processing the student goals and the student behaviors;
a teacher user interface (teacher UI) securely communicating with the central server, for entering the student goals and the student behaviors by a teacher; and
a parent user interface (parent UI) securely communicating with the central server, for entering the student goals and the student behaviors by a parent;
wherein the student behaviors comprise: academic achievement; human interactions; eating student behavior; sleeping student behavior; and acting out student behavior;
wherein the central server includes the following:
processes the plurality of student behaviors;
iteratively calculates whether the student goals are met based on one or more of the plurality of student behaviors;
plots one or more of the plurality of student behaviors in a graph or a chart; and
organizes one or more of the plurality of student behaviors in a list;
and the teacher UI and the parent UI:
present whether the student goals are met; and
present the graph, chart or list of one or more of the plurality of student behaviors to the teacher and the parent.
Independent claim 7 recites:
A method for recording and analyzing a plurality of student goals and student behaviors, the method comprising:
entering the student goals using a teacher user interface (teacher UI) and a parent user interface (parent UI);
entering the student behaviors by a teacher using the teacher UI;
entering the student behaviors by a parent using the parent UI;
storing the student behaviors on a central server in secure communication with the teacher UI and the parent UI;
iteratively calculating whether the student goals are met by the central server based on the student behaviors;
plotting one or more of the student behaviors in a graph or chart by the central server;
listing one or more of the student behaviors in a list by the central server; and
presenting to the teacher and the parent whether the student goals are met and the graph, chart or list on the teacher UI and the parent UI.
All of the foregoing underlined elements identified above, both individually and as a whole, amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is explicitly managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See, for example, at least the preamble of the independent claims which recite “recording and analyzing a plurality of student goals and a plurality of student behaviors”. The steps also amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a computer-implemented system (claim 1), a central server (claims 1 and 7), a teacher user interface (teacher UI) (claims 1 and 7), a parent user interface (parent UI) (claims 1 and 7), a student user interface (student UI) (claims 3 and 9), and an artificial intelligence child (claims 4, 5, 10, and 11). Although the independent claims recite computer components for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, and outputting data). This is evidenced by the lack of significant structure in the figures (i.e., Fig. 1 merely illustrates the elements with non-descript black boxes that merely include additional black boxes that recite functions) and the nature in which any structural items are described in the claims and the specification. See, for example, at least para. 16, 17, 19, 20, and 26-34 of the amended specification which identify that the disclosed elements are merely schematically illustrated based on their function and do not necessarily represent specific hardware or software or combinations thereof. This also evidences that the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed as well as that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Applicant’s arguments against the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) further evidence this, wherein Applicant admits all of the computer functions amount to “routine software functionality” known to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Remarks filed 07 August 2025 at pg. 10-11. Therefore, the claims merely define the abstract idea identified above, and are focused on the abstract idea rather than an improvement to the computer functionality or another technology. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although the majority of the claims recite computer components for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, storing, and transmitting data). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed 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 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. For instance, Fig. 1 merely illustrates the elements with non-descript black boxes, and at least para. 15, 16, 18, 19, and 25-33 of the specification identify that the claimed invention may be implemented with any type of hardware and/or software. This also evidences that the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. This further evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Thus, none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide any meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Thus, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuthbert (US 2013/0216989) in view of Fried et al. (US 2016/0189563, hereinafter referred to as Fried).
Regarding claim 1, Cuthbert in view of Fried teaches a computer-implemented system for recording and analyzing a plurality of student goals and a plurality of student behaviors, the system comprising:
a central server for storing and processing the student goals and the student behaviors (Cuthbert, para. 46, “Databases can be organized within a plurality of data management systems, for example, Microsoft Access™, Microsoft™ SQL Server, Oracle™, and IBM™ DB2.” Para. 47, “f) cloud databases, wherein the database and a data management system reside remotely”);
a teacher user interface (teacher UI) securely communicating with the central server, for entering the student goals and the student behaviors by a teacher (Cuthbert, para. 28, “A teacher can set goals for the teacher's students, and monitor the student's progress towards the student's goals, set alerts and provide coaching when the student requires it.”); and
a parent user interface (parent UI) securely communicating with the central server, for entering the student goals and the student behaviors by a parent (Cuthbert, para. 18, “the system can send messages to family, friends, caregivers, and healthcare providers notifying them that a user has authorized them to provide goals and objectives on behalf of a subject.” Para. 21, “Users of the system can be custodians of the subject, health care providers, family members, friends, and subjects.” Para. 44 identifies that “self-reported subject input” may be provided by a parent, “The behavior detected by the sensors can be compared to self-reported subject input to identify a previously uncharacterized aspect of the behavior. For example, a parent monitoring an autistic child can identify a previously uncharacterized, unknown, or unpublished aspect of autism.” Para. 111, “The system of the invention collects data from a plurality of different data sources and users. Data sources can be:… f) a plurality of other users 101d”; para. 112, “Authorized users can be, for example, health care providers, custodians, caretakers, and family members.”);
wherein the student behaviors comprise: academic achievement (Cuthbert, para. 81, “progress on educational or career goals”); human interactions (Cuthbert, para. 81, “chronicles of a subject's human interactions”); eating behavior (Cuthbert, para. 89, “maintaining healthy eating habits”; para. 124-129 discuss Example 4 Eating Habits); sleeping behavior (Cuthbert, para. 89, “getting a minimum amount of sleep at night”; para. 135-139 discuss Example 6 Sleeping Patterns); and acting out behavior (Cuthbert, para. 143, “ex: acting out by screaming, throwing, engaging in verbal violence, etc.”);
wherein the central server includes the following:
processes the plurality of student behaviors (Cuthbert, para. 89, “A plurality of distinct types of behaviors can be monitored, changed, and scored by the system of the invention.”);
iteratively calculates whether the student goals are met based on one or more of the plurality of student behaviors (Cuthbert, para. 89, “A plurality of distinct types of behaviors can be monitored, changed, and scored by the system of the invention.”);
plots one or more of the plurality of student behaviors in a graph or a chart (Cuthbert, para. 47, “a) graph databases, wherein the database uses graph structures with nodes, edges, and properties to represent and store information”); and
organizes one or more of the plurality of student behaviors in a list (Cuthbert, examples include para. 59, “populate the calendar platform with occurrences of foul language use by the child, listing time of occurrence and frequency of occurrence”; para. 64, “A subject can be provided with a list of recommendations along with a list of objectives. In some embodiments, the occurrence of a behavior of a subject can be used to adjust personalized objectives.” Para. 137, “Upon detecting the behavior, the system archives the behavior by the subject. The system adds its own sleep log to the calendar platform listing the start time, and end time of uninterrupted sleep.”);
and the teacher UI and the parent UI:
present whether the student goals are met (Cuthbert, para. 28, “A teacher can set goals for the teacher's students, and monitor the student's progress towards the student's goals, set alerts and provide coaching when the student requires it. The system of the invention can also set objectives, and monitor goals for groups of subjects, for example, sports teams, an educational cohort, family members, research cohorts, people engaged in a particular treatment, at-risk populations, social, religious, and cultural groups, employee groups, and/or groups of patients.”).
Cuthbert does not explicitly teach the teacher UI and the parent UI present the graph, chart or list of one or more of the plurality of student behaviors to the teacher and the parent.
In an analogous art, Fried teaches wherein the central server plots one or more of the plurality of student behaviors in a graph or a chart (Fried, Fig. 6A, 6B); and
organizes one or more of the plurality of student behaviors in a list (Fried, para. 55, “The computer program provides the ability to control the lists of attendance, academic, positive behavior and negative behavior indicators using external configuration in order to react to any additional changing requirements. As shown the attendance indicators include restroom, services, discipline, errand, quick break, excused. The academic indicators include on the right track, incorrect, basic, advanced and others. The positive behavior indicators include kindness, decision, effort, encouraged, self control, answer and question. The negative behavior indicators include talking, distracted, other, conflict, disruptive, not seated, unprepared. Other indicators which may be contemplated are within the scope of the invention.”);
and the teacher UI and the parent UI presents the graph, chart or list of one or more of the plurality of student behaviors to the teacher and the parent (Fried, Fig. 6A-6D; para. 64, “FIG. 6 is an illustration of the complex output according to the invention. The invention provides real time, real focus and real results. The behavior patterns of a student are visible at a glance. Clear depiction of students behavior patterns provide the teacher to focus efforts on helping the students' achieve their full potential. In particular FIG. 6A is an interaction timeline which is a detailed report to every positive and negative behavior and the time it occurred. This gives the teacher a clear picture of each students' behavior patterns so that a definitive action plan to address the behavior as required can be formulated. FIG. 6B is a behavior bar chart that illustrates week by week totals of positive and negative behaviors. This helps the teacher identify incremental progress and other behavior trends. FIG. 6C is an attendance pie chart that gives the teacher a quick snapshot of the percentage of time that a student spends in and out of class, with a breakout of why the student was not in class. FIG. 6D is an attendance timeline with the same information as in the pie chart but in daily, minute by minute form. This enables the teacher to know what lessons students missed, which lessons require make-up and how to score tests accordingly.” Para. 104, “Applications that are targeted specifically towards parents… can ensure that everyone is equipped with the necessary information that is crucial to a child’s positive schooling experience.” Para. 105, “Our systems will empower teachers, administrators, staff, and parents by providing real-time information that can be used to gauge and adjust the interaction between participants in and out of a classroom.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teacher UI and the parent UI present the graph, chart or list of one or more of the plurality of student behaviors to the teacher and the parent of Fried in the behavior change platform of Cuthbert because “[c]lear depiction of students behavior patterns provide the teacher to focus efforts on helping the students' achieve their full potential.” See Fried at para .64. Thus, it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Cuthbert teaches a method for recording and analyzing a plurality of student goals and student behaviors, the method comprising:
entering the student goals using a teacher user interface (teacher UI) (Cuthbert, para. 28, “A teacher can set goals for the teacher's students, and monitor the student's progress towards the student's goals, set alerts and provide coaching when the student requires it.”) and a parent user interface (parent UI) (Cuthbert, para. 18, “the system can send messages to family, friends, caregivers, and healthcare providers notifying them that a user has authorized them to provide goals and objectives on behalf of a subject.”);
entering the student behaviors by a teacher using the teacher UI (Cuthbert, para. 28, “A teacher can set goals for the teacher's students, and monitor the student's progress towards the student's goals, set alerts and provide coaching when the student requires it.”);
entering the student behaviors by a parent using the parent UI (Cuthbert, para. 18, “the system can send messages to family, friends, caregivers, and healthcare providers notifying them that a user has authorized them to provide goals and objectives on behalf of a subject.” Para. 21, “Users of the system can be custodians of the subject, health care providers, family members, friends, and subjects.” Para. 44 identifies that “self-reported subject input” may be provided by a parent, “The behavior detected by the sensors can be compared to self-reported subject input to identify a previously uncharacterized aspect of the behavior. For example, a parent monitoring an autistic child can identify a previously uncharacterized, unknown, or unpublished aspect of autism.” Para. 111, “The system of the invention collects data from a plurality of different data sources and users. Data sources can be:… f) a plurality of other users 101d”; para. 112, “Authorized users can be, for example, health care providers, custodians, caretakers, and family members.”);
storing the student behaviors on a central server in secure communication with the teacher UI and the parent UI (Cuthbert, para. 89, “A plurality of distinct types of behaviors can be monitored, changed, and scored by the system of the invention.”);
iteratively calculating whether the student goals are met by the central server based on the student behaviors (Cuthbert