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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 2, 4, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1, line 17, “the correct answer” should read “a correct answer”.
Claim 1, lines 17-18, “the rules, objectives and thresholds” should read “rules, objectives and thresholds”.
Claim 2, line 1, “The applications” should read “The application”.
Claim 4, line 17, “the correct answer” should read “a correct answer”.
Claim 4, lines 17-18, “the rules, objectives and thresholds” should read “rules, objectives and thresholds”.
Claim 7, line 12, “the correct answer” should read “a correct answer”.
Claim 7, lines 12-13, “the rules, objectives and thresholds” should read “rules, objectives and thresholds”.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes for claims 1-8.
Claims 1-3 are drawn to a learning application that tracks learner progress (i.e., a manufacture). Claims 4-6 are drawn to a learning apparatus that tracks learner progress (i.e., a manufacture). Claims 7-8 are drawn to a method that tracks learner progress (i.e., a process).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, for claims 1-8.
Claim 1 recites:
A learning application that tracks learner progress, for use by a parent/adult/caregiver and a student/learner, the application comprising:
(a) at least one first input unit used by the parent/adult/caregiver to input rules, objectives and thresholds for the student/learner, wherein the input may be by text entry and/or voice recognition converted to text;
(b) at least one display for displaying a question for the student/learner to answer, wherein the question is originated from a database;
(c) at least one second input unit used by the student/learner to answer the question;
(d) access to a computer processor to compare the student/learner's answer to an existing solution taken from a database of answers;
and (e) a network connection to a movie and/or a video game that is provided to the student/learner as an output if the student/learner gives the correct answer and meets the rules, objectives and thresholds set by the parent/adult/caregiver.
These steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can develop rules, objectives, and thresholds, create and ask questions, compare student answers and solution set answers, and provide feedback and rewards. Applicant of claimed invention discloses “Caregivers, parents and adult supervisors struggle to keep students/learners focused on learning and motivated” [0003].
Independent claims 4 and 7 describe nearly identical steps as claim 1 (and therefore recite limitations that fall within this subject matter of grouping abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 are directed towards mini-tasks (making recommendations, providing feedback, and ranking learners, etc.) for a learning application that tracks learner progress. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, and analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using computing devices (independent claims 1, 4, and 7 and dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similarly, the limitations of processors, networks, and videos (independent claims 1, 4, and 7 and dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 4, and 7 and dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-8 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable under US 20190019426 A1 (“Chambers”).
In regards to claim 1, Chambers discloses
A learning application that tracks learner progress, for use by ([0018], “The smart monitoring system can track the interactions with the … educational activity and can determine the user's performance”) a parent/adult/caregiver and a student/learner, the application comprising ([0016], “FIG. 3 provides … performance results associated with an analysis of the performance of … educational activities by a user as delivered to a … a parent”): (a) at least one first input unit used by the parent/adult/caregiver to input rules, objectives and thresholds for the student/learner ([0032], “rules ... included in the monitor settings ([0029], “monitor settings ... may be ... associated with one or more ... user profiles”) ... may define ... educational activities ... to be required when a threshold is met” Examiner notes that rules inherently include objectives.), wherein the input may be by text entry and/or voice recognition converted to text ([0026], “input may be received as natural language inputs and can be converted into appropriate input to the applications”);
(b) at least one display for displaying ([0026], “The output components can include a display”) a question for the student/learner to answer ([0018], “The at least one educational activity may be a series of educational questions and answers”), wherein the question is originated from a database ([0039], “The memory … may store various objects or data, including … database tables, database queries”);
(c) at least one second input unit used by ([0026], “input may be received as natural language inputs”) the student/learner to answer the question ([0018], “The at least one educational activity may be a series of educational questions and answers”);
(d) access to a computer processor to compare the student/learner's answer to an existing solution taken from a database of answers ([0036], “a single processor … may be used according to particular needs, desires, or particular implementations”);
and (e) a network connection to ([0025], “Each client device … may … operable to connect to … the system … via the network … using a wireline or wireless connection”) a movie and/or a video game that is provided to the student/learner as an output if the student/learner gives the correct answer and meets the rules, objectives and thresholds set by the parent/adult/caregiver ([0019], “intervals … may be … used to determine when a threshold is met …e.g., play … a game, watch a … number of videos”).
In regards to claim 2, Chambers discloses
wherein the application makes task-based context recommendations ([0053], “the results of the evaluation ... may be communicated to ... parents ... associated with the user profile ... the notification may include actionable options allowing the ... users to request further specific educational activities to be performed ... the notifications may identify ... particular subjects in which the user may need additional assistance, or recommend additional materials for follow up”).
In regards to claim 4, Chambers discloses
A learning apparatus that tracks learner progress, for use by ([0018], “The smart monitoring system can track the interactions with the … educational activity and can determine the user's performance”) a parent/adult/caregiver and a student/learner, the apparatus comprising ([0016], “FIG. 3 provides … performance results associated with an analysis of the performance of … educational activities by a user as delivered to a … a parent”): (a) at least one first input unit used by the parent/adult/caregiver to input rules, objectives and thresholds for the student/learner ([0032], “rules ... included in the monitor settings ([0029], “monitor settings ... may be ... associated with one or more ... user profiles”) ... may define ... educational activities ... to be required when a threshold is met” Examiner notes that rules inherently include objectives.), wherein the input may be by text entry and/or voice recognition converted to text ([0026], “input may be received as natural language inputs and can be converted into appropriate input to the applications”);
(b) at least one display for displaying ([0026], “The output components can include a display”) a question for the student/learner to answer ([0018], “The at least one educational activity may be a series of educational questions and answers”), wherein the question is originated from a database ([0039], “The memory … may store various objects or data, including … database tables, database queries”);
(c) at least one second input unit used by ([0026], “input may be received as natural language inputs”) the student/learner to answer the question ([0018], “The at least one educational activity may be a series of educational questions and answers”);
(d) a computer processor to compare the student/learner's answer to an existing solution taken from a database of answers ([0036], “a single processor … may be used according to particular needs, desires, or particular implementations”);
and (e) a network connection to ([0025], “Each client device … may … operable to connect to … the system … via the network … using a wireline or wireless connection”) a movie and/or a video game that is provided to the student/learner as an output if the student/learner gives the correct answer and meets the rules, objectives and thresholds set by the parent/adult/caregiver ([0019], “intervals … may be … used to determine when a threshold is met …e.g., play … a game, watch a … number of videos”).
In regards to claim 5, Chambers discloses
wherein the apparatus makes task-based context recommendations ([0053], “the results of the evaluation ... may be communicated to ... parents ... associated with the user profile ... the notification may include actionable options allowing the ... users to request further specific educational activities to be performed ... the notifications may identify ... particular subjects in which the user may need additional assistance, or recommend additional materials for follow up”).
In regards to claim 7, Chambers discloses
A method for a parent/adult/caregiver to use with a student/learner, the method comprising ([0016], “FIG. 3 provides … performance results associated with an analysis of the performance of … educational activities by a user as delivered to a … a parent”): (a) providing an input from the parent/adult/caregiver that sets rules, objectives and thresholds for the student/learner ([0032], “rules ... included in the monitor settings ([0029], “monitor settings ... may be ... associated with one or more ... user profiles”) ... may define ... educational activities ... to be required when a threshold is met” Examiner notes that rules inherently include objectives.), wherein the input may be by text entry and/or voice recognition converted to text ([0026], “input may be received as natural language inputs and can be converted into appropriate input to the applications”);
(b) generating a question for the student/learner to answer ([0018], “The at least one educational activity may be a series of educational questions and answers”), wherein the question is generated from a database ([0039], “The memory … may store various objects or data, including … database tables, database queries”);
(c) comparing the student/learner's answer to an existing solution, wherein the comparing is done by a computer processor ([0036], “a single processor … may be used according to particular needs, desires, or particular implementations”);
and (d) rewarding the student/learner with access to a movie and/or a video game by providing access to such to the student/learner as an output if the student learner provides the correct answer and meets the rules, objectives and thresholds set by the parent/adult/caregiver ([0019], “intervals … may be … used to determine when a threshold is met …e.g., play … a game, watch a … number of videos”).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Chambers in view of US 20160180731 A1 (“Allon”).
In regards to claim 3, Chambers discloses the following limitation with the exception of the underlined limitation.
wherein the application further provides a recurring comprehensive feedback loop ([0042], “a teacher may review the results of any educational activity to determine what topics to cover further during class and provide feedback regarding the defined curriculum …, while a parent may review all information about the user profile … and settings …, including by adjusting … thresholds”) and learner ranking.
Allon discloses
and learner ranking ([0026], “the learning server … is configured to generate a … student … rank”):
Chambers and Allon combined are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of methods for a smart monitoring system and an electronic learning system for enhancing student engagement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a learning application that tracks learner progress, for use by a parent/adult/caregiver and a student/learner, the application comprising: (a) at least one first input unit used by the parent/adult/caregiver to input rules, objectives and thresholds for the student/learner, wherein the input may be by text entry and/or voice recognition converted to text; (b) at least one display for displaying a question for the student/learner to answer, wherein the question is originated from a database; (c) at least one second input unit used by the student/learner to answer the question; (d) access to a computer processor to compare the student/learner's answer to an existing solution taken from a database of answers; and (e) a network connection to a movie and/or a video game that is provided to the student/learner as an output if the student/learner gives the correct answer and meets the rules, objectives and thresholds set by the parent/adult/caregiver, wherein the application further provides a recurring comprehensive feedback loop, as disclosed by Chambers, and learner ranking, as disclosed by Allon, to provide a learning server for electronic learning systems and methods that enhances student engagement. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a learning server to improve the effectiveness of electronic learning systems used to enhance student engagement.
In regards to claim 6, Chambers discloses the following limitation with the exception of the underlined limitation.
wherein the apparatus further provides a recurring comprehensive feedback loop ([0042], “a teacher may review the results of any educational activity to determine what topics to cover further during class and provide feedback regarding the defined curriculum …, while a parent may review all information about the user profile … and settings …, including by adjusting … thresholds”) and learner ranking.
Allon discloses
and learner ranking ([0026], “the learning server … is configured to generate a … student … rank”):
Chambers and Allon combined are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of methods for a smart monitoring system and an electronic learning system for enhancing student engagement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a learning apparatus that tracks learner progress, for use by a parent/adult/caregiver and a student/learner, the apparatus comprising: (a) at least one first input unit used by the parent/adult/caregiver to input rules, objectives and thresholds for the student/learner, wherein the input may be by text entry and/or voice recognition converted to text; (b) at least one display for displaying a question for the student/learner to answer, wherein the question is originated from a database; (c) at least one second input unit used by the student/learner to answer the question; (d) access to a computer processor to compare the student/learner's answer to an existing solution taken from a database of answers; and (e) a network connection to a movie and/or a video game that is provided to the student/learner as an output if the student/learner gives the correct answer and meets the rules, objectives and thresholds set by the parent/adult/caregiver, wherein the application further provides a recurring comprehensive feedback loop, as disclosed by Chambers, and learner ranking, as disclosed by Allon, to provide a learning server for electronic learning systems and methods that enhances student engagement. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a learning server to improve the effectiveness of electronic learning systems used to enhance student engagement.
In regards to claim 8, Chambers discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitation.
further comprising (e) providing task-based context recommendations ([0053], “the results of the evaluation ... may be communicated to ... parents ... associated with the user profile ... the notification may include actionable options allowing the ... users to request further specific educational activities to be performed ... the notifications may identify ... particular subjects in which the user may need additional assistance, or recommend additional materials for follow up”);
and (f) providing a recurring comprehensive feedback loop ([0042], “a teacher may review the results of any educational activity to determine what topics to cover further during class and provide feedback regarding the defined curriculum …, while a parent may review all information about the user profile … and settings …, including by adjusting … thresholds”) and learner ranking.
Allon discloses
and learner ranking ([0026], “the learning server … is configured to generate a … student … rank”)
Chambers and Allon combined are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of methods for a smart monitoring system and an electronic learning system for enhancing student engagement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a method for a parent/adult/caregiver to use with a student/learner, the method comprising: (a) providing an input from the parent/adult/caregiver that sets rules, objectives and thresholds for the student/learner, wherein the input may be by text entry and/or voice recognition converted to text;
(b) generating a question for the student/learner to answer, wherein the question is generated from a database; (c) comparing the student/learner's answer to an existing solution, wherein the comparing is done by a computer processor; and (d) rewarding the student/learner with access to a movie and/or a video game by providing access to such to the student/learner as an output if the student learner provides the correct answer and meets the rules, objectives and thresholds set by the parent/adult/caregiver, further comprising (e) providing task-based context recommendations; and (f) providing a recurring comprehensive feedback loop, as disclosed by Chambers, and learner ranking, as disclosed by Allon, to provide a learning server for electronic learning systems and methods that enhances student engagement. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a learning server to improve the effectiveness of electronic learning systems used to enhance student engagement.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is
(571) 272-4252 and whose email address is lantoine@uspto.gov. The examiner can be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30 am-5:30 pm CT. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached on (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Publication Information
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent
Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the
Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the
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.
/LISA H ANTOINE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715