DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s RCE filed 3/9/2026, claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 11-18, and 20-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton et al. (US 11,666,817) in view of Aloisio et al. (US 11,887,505) and Nealon et al. (US 2014/0024009).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Morton discloses a system for education comprising the presentation of disparate training topics associated with corresponding learning objectives, selection of topics by a first user to assess an understanding of a second user of the learning objectives, and generating and render an interactive 3D learning experience for the second user. See col. 6: 1-11, col. 6: 27-46. Morton discloses AI characters. See col. 7: 56-57. Morton does not explicitly teach of multiple topics with separate learning objectives, but this is well-established with regard to training systems, as is disclosed by the training system of Aloisio in col. 1: 33-37 and col. 18: 22-34. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicants filing, to consider this with the Morton system, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Morton does not disclose scoring the user interactions, wherein the scores correspond to a proficiency of the understanding of the learning objectives, and wherein alternate interactions are provided when the user doesn’t satisfy the score threshold. However, such remediation is well-established with regard to education systems, as is disclosed by the system of Nealon in paragraphs 0104-0105. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Morton system, so as to provide various training scenarios.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Morton discloses wherein the content is adapted based upon user interaction (i.e. the second student user). See col. 12: 23-26.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 13-14, Morton discloses wherein the system determines if the student user has a satisfactory understanding of the material based upon the user interaction with the environment including scores for the learning objectives. See col. 7: 23-30.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 15-16, Morton discloses wherein the environment is adapted by the first user (i.e. teacher) in the event the student did not satisfactorily understand the material. See col. 17: 1-4.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Morton discloses tracking a plurality of users to determine efficacy. See col. 7: 22-27.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Morton discloses a wearable heartrate sensor for determining a characteristic of the student user, and modifying the presented content based thereon. See col. 12: 45-53.
Regarding claim 21, Aloisio teaches of multiple topics as desired in col. 1: 33-37, which would encompass the topics of claim 21. Multiple topics would be obvious as described above with regard to claim 1.
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton et al. (US 11,666,817) in view of Aloisio et al. (US 11,887,505) and Nealon et al. (US 2014/0024009) and also Abecassis et al. (US 11,684,821).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 19, Morton discloses sensors for data as described above with regard to claim 8, but does not disclose a wearable heartrate sensor. However, this is established with regard to training systems, as is disclosed by the training system of Abecassis in col. 7: 11-19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Morton system, in order to provide various scenarios.
Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks dated 3/9/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached on 571-570-7625. 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.
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715