DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed January 07, 2026.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 have been amended.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed January 07, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Step 2A
Applicant notes that MPEP at 2106 and October 2019 Update explicitly states that not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas and that this grouping is limited to activity that falls within enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or management of behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examples provided include using advertising as currency, offer-based price optimization, structuring of a sales force, social activities, and teaching. Applicant argues that the pending claims recite steps for executing, by a computing device, an assessment engine, identifying by an analysis engine one or more specific recommendations to take based upon the execution of the assessment engine, and providing by the analysis engine those recommendations to an education institution. As specified in the pending Specification at [0002], there is a need for a technological solution to the problem of assessing certain types of variables and identifying recommended actions. As specified in the pending Specification at least at [0009], the claimed method provides technological tools to solve the technological problem of receiving data and needing an automated solution for identifying one or more risk factors of an applicant identified in the data and one or more actions that could be taken by the applicant to mitigate the impact of those identified risk factors on the applicant's likelihood of success in an educational program. The pending claims therefore are directed to a technical solution to a technological problem rooted in a need for a type of computer data analysis not available by conventional systems and a generation of outputs from the analyses similarly unavailable in conventional systems. Furthermore, specific limitations of the pending claims explicitly recite technology components executed to perform technological tasks separate from any human activity described in the October 2019 Update – for example, the claim as hereby amended explicitly recites execution of an analysis engine accesses data and generates specific outputs, which one of ordinary skill in the art will understand to require technological components unrelated to human activity. The claims are not directed to forming contracts or legal obligations or structuring a sales force or for any type of advertising or marketing behavior, nor do the claims recite a person following a rule in an interpersonal relationship with another person. As indicated in the MPEP, human activity includes activities such as a neurologist testing a patient for a nervous system malfunction or a method of playing (by a human) a dice game. Since the claims are directed to data analysis, execution of a computing device, an assessment engine, and an analysis engine, the claims relate to technical steps executed by a computing device and lack a recitation of an activity occurring between humans. The claims cannot therefore fall within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or management of behavior or relationships or interactions between people as set forth in the October 2019 Update to the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement in analyzing risk factor data is an improvement to the underlying abstract idea that does not qualify as an improvement to a technological process. See In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[T]he improvement in computational accuracy alleged here does not qualify as an improvement to a technological process; rather, it is merely an enhancement to the abstract mathematical calculation … itself.”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92 (1978) ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all")
Regarding the bold “between people,” the method of organizing human activity sub-grouping encompasses both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The mere presence of tangible physical components does not prohibit the finding of an abstract idea under Step 2A. This is similar to the claims in Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank which contained tangible physical components and yet still contained an abstract idea under Step 2A.
The problem specification [0002] and [0009], is a business problem not a technical problem. The identified improvements argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In the instant claims the educational institution is provided with more information to facilitate admissions, which improves the business process of educational admissions but does not improve computers or technology. In other words, the specification, in [0002] and [0009], explicitly sets forth that the claims recite a technological problem and technological solution but does so in a conclusory manner that does not improve technology. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Step 2A
Regarding the mental process argument, the October 2019 Update explicitly states that a claim with limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process; the October 2019 Update explicitly calls out observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion as examples of mental processes. Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims do not recite a judicial exception because the limitations recited in the pending claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind. As just one example, the claims as hereby amended recite the execution of technological components (such as the computing device, the assessment engine, and the analysis engine) and further recite interaction between those components such as, for example, the analysis engine analyzing output received from the assessment engine. A human user is not a computing device and a human cannot execute software applications using only the human mind; therefore, a human cannot practically perform the steps of executing the specific engines recited or use only the human mind to have those engines interact with each other.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Step 2A
However, for the sake of completeness, Applicant also submits that even if the Examiner maintains that the claims recite a judicial exception, under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A, the pending claims are integrated into a practical application of the exception and are patent eligible. As indicated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the October 2019 Updates, a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The Examiner alleges that there are no additional elements that impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Applicant argues that any abstraction of the limitations in the pending claim as hereby amended is integrated into a practical application due to the execution of the assessment engine, the analysis engine, and the computing device that execute the steps recited in the pending claims. The recitation of novel, non-obvious, artificial intelligence-based components executing to execute the recited steps provides a meaningful limit on any abstract idea that may be present in the pending claims.
As specified in MPEP 2106.05(a) and (b), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include limitations: (1) applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) - as the pending claims include by reciting the analysis engine executing the claimed functionality; and (2) improving the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Therefore, the pending claims recite a novel, non-obvious method that provides a meaningful limit on any abstract idea that may be present in the pending claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite “artificial intelligence” and are not meaningfully limited by an unclaimed component.
It is important to note that a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions).
The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were "‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection." Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2112, 2116, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92 (1978) ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all"); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). See also MPEP 2106.04(I). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better-established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.") See also MPEP 2106.05(I).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Step 2B
Notwithstanding the above remarks, assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that the present claims are directed to an abstract idea as the Office Action contends, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims amount to "significantly more" than an abstract idea. Additional limitations include, by way of example, a novel and non-obvious optimization engine including the analysis engine executing at least one machine learning model; the optimization engine executing unconventional functionality to generate data and modify user interfaces to include visualizations of the generated data provide significantly more than an abstract idea relating to behavior between humans. As will be understood by those of skill in the art, and as explained above, conventional computing devices do not provide the functionality made available by executing the methods recited in the pending claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite “at least one machine learning model” and are not meaningfully limited by an unclaimed component. Notwithstanding the unclaimed components, assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that machine learning was claimed, Examiner respectfully submits that the specification does not appear to disclose an improvement to machine learning. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18) ("[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.")
The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were "‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection." Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2112, 2116, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92 (1978) ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all"); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). See also MPEP 2106.04(I). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better-established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.") See also MPEP 2106.05(I).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “to an educational institution, to an educational institution” appears to be a typographical error that repeats the same phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-5 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of providing at risk students support for non-cognitive risks, which is a method of organizing human activity and mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teaching) by reciting evaluating risk factors that would prevent a student’s success in the classroom in order to determine actions to support those students. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting observing a student’s non-cognitive characteristics and evaluating whether providing non-cognitive support would improve their likelihood of success in the classroom. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “providing at risk students support for non-cognitive risks,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: assessing an applicant’s non-cognitive variables using questions, identifying an applicant’s risk factors, identifying a likelihood of success to meet an educational requirement, identifying actions to increase an applicant’s likelihood of success, and providing the action to an educational institution. The mere nominal recitation of a computing device does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 2-5, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: receiving input from an educational institution, modifying an assessment, analyzing a risk factor, identifying a likelihood of success based on the risk factor, scoring an assessment output, determining the applicant satisfies a threshold level of success for non-cognitive variables, and determining the applicant satisfies a threshold level of success for cognitive variables.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1 recite the additional elements: a computing device. These computing device limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of identifying students for extracurricular programs in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing teaching process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a computing device. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), and retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a computing device (Specification [0026]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a computing device. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims limit the field of use by reciting educational institutions. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danson et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2015/0100303 A1), hereinafter Danson, in view of Burrell et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2023/0325953 A1), hereinafter Burrell.
Claim 1.
Danson discloses a method for generating recommendations for actions to be executed to improve non-cognitive metrics impacting likelihood of requirement completion comprising:
executing, by a computing device, an assessment engine for assessing at least one non-cognitive variable of an applicant to an educational institution, to an educational institution, the assessment engine providing at least one question to the applicant and receiving at least one response from the applicant during an application process;
Danson discloses executing, by a computing device, an assessment engine for assessing at least one non-cognitive variable of an applicant (Danson [0020] instructor device, student device, educational service provider, and performance assistant; [0021] educational service provider server; [0029] performance assistant includes a database of communications posted by the student and/or instructor; [0030] scoring module is used to analyze and score the student and/or instructor communications; [0031] scoring a plurality of student metrics such as personality type, student engagement, positive life events, negative life events, openness, a need for resources; [0032] aggregate scores; [0033] score personality type; [0036] student engagement metric; [0042] life event student metric; [0043] openness metric; [0044] need for resources metric). However, Danson does not disclose an applicant to an educational institution, to an educational institution, the assessment engine providing at least one question to the applicant and receiving at least one response from the applicant during an application process, but Burrell does (Burrell [0014] The prospective student-facing UI may include an artificial intelligence interview bot (“AIIB”)—an automated process that may include a question tree and a natural language processing engine for evaluating and categorizing responses and navigating the question tree. The prospective student facing UI gathers subjective sentiment data from the student relating to their aspirational experiential goals for college (and beyond) and personal value; [0020], [0021], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0029], [0070], [0085] predict successful prospective students
The known technique questioning prospective students to assess whether they can succeed before admissions of Burrell, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Danson as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are attempting to predict student success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of questioning prospective students to assess whether they can succeed before admissions of REFERENCE B to [BASE DEVICE] of REFERENCE A would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Burrell to the teaching of Danson would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such questioning of prospective students to assess whether they can succeed before admissions features into systems that predict student success. Further, applying questioning prospective students to Danson, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient improvements to student outcomes because the only students admitted will already have indicators they are capable of succeeding.
Danson, as modified by Burrell, teaches:
identifying, by an analysis engine executed by the computing device, at least one risk factor for non-persistence by the applicant (Danson [0015] identify at risk students; [0050] identify which students are likely to drop out; [0056] certain scores can be viewed as a risk indicator);
identifying, by the analysis engine, a likelihood of success by the applicant in completing at least one requirement of the educational institution, responsive to analyzing an output received from the assessment engine (Danson [0047], [0069], [0071] performance prediction module uses different student metrics to predict the likelihood of a student outcome using a predictive model; [0048] performance prediction model may generate an aggregate performance score);
identifying, by the analysis engine, at least one action to recommend for execution, execution of the at least one action satisfying a threshold level of likelihood of improving the likelihood of success (Danson [0050] indicate which students can benefit from extra coaching based on the scores from their online postings; [0055] send a notification to a designated user of the system if a score is above or below a predefined value; [0069] personalized corrective actions may be determined for the students who are at-risk); and
providing, by the analysis engine, to the educational institution, the identified at least one action (Danson [0049] direct students to instructors that will have compatible personality types to enhance the educational success of each; [0050] allocate resources or coaching; [0055] send a notification to a designated user of the system if a score is above or below a predefined value).
Claim 2.
Danson in view of Burrell teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Danson discloses:
before executing the assessment engine, receiving, by the computing device, input from the education institution (Danson [0051] historical data obtained from educational institutions); and
modifying, by the computing device, the assessment engine responsive to the received input (Danson [0046] update scoring).
Claim 3.
Danson in view of Burrell teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Danson discloses:
analyzing, by the analysis engine, the at least one risk factor (Danson [0015] identify at risk students; [0050] identify which students are likely to drop out; [0056] certain scores can be viewed as a risk indicator); and
identifying, by the analysis engine, the likelihood of success based upon the analyzing of the at least one risk factor (Danson [0047], [0069], [0071] performance prediction module uses different student metrics to predict the likelihood of a student outcome using a predictive model; [0048] performance prediction model may generate an aggregate performance score).
Claim 4.
Danson in view of Burrell teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Danson discloses:
scoring, by the analysis engine, an output of the assessment engine (Danson [0030] scoring module is used to analyze and score the student and/or instructor communications; [0031] scoring a plurality of student metrics such as personality type, student engagement, positive life events, negative life events, openness, a need for resources; [0032] aggregate scores; [0033] score personality type; [0036] student engagement metric; [0042] life event student metric; [0043] openness metric; [0044] need for resources metric); and
determining, by the analysis engine, that the applicant satisfies a threshold level of success based upon exceeding a threshold score for the non-cognitive variable (Danson [0050] indicate which students can benefit from extra coaching based on the scores from their online postings; [0055] send a notification to a designated user of the system if a score is above or below a predefined value; [0069] personalized corrective actions may be determined for the students who are at-risk).
Claim 5.
Danson in view of Burrell teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Danson discloses:
scoring, by the analysis engine, an output of the assessment engine (Danson [0030] scoring module is used to analyze and score the student and/or instructor communications; [0031] scoring a plurality of student metrics such as personality type, student engagement, positive life events, negative life events, openness, a need for resources; [0032] aggregate scores; [0033] score personality type; [0036] student engagement metric; [0042] life event student metric; [0043] openness metric; [0044] need for resources metric); and
determining, by the analysis engine, that the applicant satisfies a threshold level of success based upon exceeding a threshold score for the at least one non-cognitive variable (Danson [0050] indicate which students can benefit from extra coaching based on the scores from their online postings; [0055] send a notification to a designated user of the system if a score is above or below a predefined value; [0069] personalized corrective actions may be determined for the students who are at-risk).
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 SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights