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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 5, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on February 5, 2026 for the patent application 18/747,558 filed on June 19, 2024. Claims 1, 5, 7 and 11 are amended. Claims 2-4, 6 and 10 are canceled. Claims 1, 5, 7-9 and 11-13 are pending. The first office action of April 29, 2025 and the second office action of August 7, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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, 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claims 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), and claim 5 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “providing foreign language learning using animation,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“… stores learning data including learning sentences and learning words for a foreign language and animation data corresponding to the learning data;
…determines whether a current learning mode selected …is a sentence learning mode or a word learning mode;
…selects and loads the learning sentences or the learning words …in accordance with a learning setting corresponding to the current learning mode determined…,
wherein: when the current learning mode is the sentence learning mode, the learning setting includes at least one of:
a phrase division setting that defines a standard for dividing the learning sentences into a plurality of phrases having semantic units;
an expression order setting that determines a display order of the plurality of phrases divided by the phrase division setting;
an animation setting that assigns the animation data to each of the divided phrases;
and
an effect setting that determines an effect to be applied to the animation data assigned to each phrase according to the animation setting; and
when the current learning mode is the word learning mode, the learning setting includes at least one of:
a related word setting that defines a related word set including random learning words and other words having a preset degree of relationship;
the expression order setting that determines a display order of learning words included in the related word set;
the animation setting that assigns the animation data to each learning word in the related word set; and
the effect setting that determines an effect to be applied to the animation data assigned to each learning word according to the animation setting;
…selects and loads the animation data corresponding to the learning sentences or the learning words loaded …; and
…processes the learning sentences or the learning words and the animation data according to a preset expression setting and transmits the processed learning sentences or learning words and animation data…, and
wherein …to:
receive and display a pre-guidance process of the learning sentences or the learning words;
receive and display a learning process in which the learning sentences or the learning words are presented together with the corresponding animation data in the order determined by the expression order setting; and
receive and display a post-guidance process of the learning sentences or the learning words; and wherein the learning video providing unit is further configured to assign the effect including a visual emphasis effect to at least one of the animation data and the corresponding learning sentence or learning word when a correlation between adjacent phrases or learning words is detected, such that the animation data reflects the semantic or contextual relationship between the adjacent phrases or learning words and their corresponding animation data,
wherein …determines the correlation by analyzing whether a semantic or contextual relationship exists between an nth phrase or learning word and an n+1th phrase or learning word included in the learning sentence, and
wherein the visual emphasis effect is implemented by adjusting a visual attribute of the learning sentence or the learning word corresponding to the animation data, the visual emphasis effect including at least one of font size adjustment, bold styling, color change, or highlighting.”
Per claim 5:
“step (a) of determining…whether a current learning mode selected …is a sentence learning mode or a word learning mode;
step (b) of selecting and loading… learning sentences or learning words …in accordance with a learning setting corresponding to the current learning mode determined in the step (a),
wherein: when the current learning mode is the sentence learning mode, the learning setting includes at least one of:
a phrase division setting that defines a standard for dividing the learning sentences into a plurality of phrases having semantic units;
an expression order setting that determines a display order of the plurality of phrases divided by the phrase division setting;
an animation setting that assigns animation data to each of the divided phrases; and
an effect setting that determines an effect to be applied to the animation data assigned to each phrase according to the animation setting; and
when the current learning mode is the word learning mode, the learning setting includes at least one of:
a related word setting that defines a related word set including random learning words and other words having a preset degree of relationship;
the expression order setting that determines the display order of learning words included in the related word set;
the animation setting that assigns the animation data to each learning word in the related word set; and
the effect setting that determines the effect to be applied to the animation data assigned to each learning word according to the animation setting;
step (c) of selecting and loading…the animation data corresponding to the learning sentences or the learning words … in the step (b);
step (d) of processing…the learning sentences or the learning words loaded in the step (b) and the animation data loaded in the step (c) in accordance with a preset expression setting,
wherein the processing comprises:
a pre-guidance process of displaying the learning sentences or the learning words…;
a learning process of displaying the learning sentences or the learning words together with the corresponding animation data…in the order determined by the expression order setting; and
a post-guidance process of re-displaying the learning sentences or the learning words…; and
step (e) of assigning…the effect including a visual emphasis effect to at least one of the animation data and the corresponding learning sentence or learning word when a correlation between adjacent phrases or learning words is detected, so that the animation data reflects the semantic or contextual relationship between the adjacent phrases or learnings words and their corresponding animation data,
wherein… determines the correlation by analyzing whether a semantic or contextual relationship exists between an nth phrase or learning word and an n+1th phrase or learning word included in the learning sentence, and
wherein the visual emphasis effect is implemented by adjusting a visual attribute of the learning sentence or the learning word corresponding to the animation data, the visual emphasis effect including at least one of font size adjustment, bold styling, color change, or highlighting.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed element of “a learning mode determination unit,” “a learner terminal,” “a learning data extraction unit,” “a data storage unit,” “an animation extraction unit,” and “the learning video providing unit,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “providing foreign language learning using animation,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a learning mode determination unit,” “a learner terminal,” “a learning data extraction unit,” “a data storage unit,” “an animation extraction unit,” and “the learning video providing unit,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner 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 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a learning mode determination unit,” and “a data storage unit, as illustrated in FIG. 1 and as best described in paras. [0041]-[0043] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed provides the following:
“[0041] In addition, in this specification, terms such as “unit” and “device” may be intended to refer to the functional and structural combination of hardware and software driven by or for driving the hardware. For example, the hardware here may be a data processing device including a CPU or other processor. In addition, software driven by hardware may refer to a running process, object, executable file, thread of execution, program, etc.
[0042] In addition, the above terms may mean a logical unit of hardware resources for executing a predetermined code and the predetermined code, and it can be easily inferred by an average expert in the technical field of the present invention that the above terms do not necessarily mean a physically connected code or a single type of hardware.
[0043] In addition, the present invention may be provided in the form of a storage medium in which a computer-readable program is recorded so that a learner can run the program independently through a learner terminal, or may be in the form of providing each process to the learner terminal online through an operation server.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as parts of a generic computer and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a learning data extraction unit,” “an animation extraction unit,” and “the learning video providing unit,” are not sufficiently described in the written description of the specification as originally filed to provide any details as to what these elements actually consist of. Considering the fact that these elements are also illustrated in FIG. 1, the Examiner reasonably believe that these elements are also reasonably interpreted as parts of a generic computer and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a learner terminal,” is also not sufficiently described in the written description of the specification as originally filed to provide any details as to what this element actually consists of. Considering the fact that this element is also illustrated in FIG. 1 as either a smartphone or a tablet. Thus, the Examiner reasonably believe that this element is also reasonably interpreted as a generic computer and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment.
As such, these elements are reasonably interpreted as generic computers having generic computer components, all of which provide no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment. Therefore, the claimed limitations of “a learning mode determination unit,” “a learner terminal,” “a learning data extraction unit,” “a data storage unit,” “an animation extraction unit,” and “the learning video providing unit,” are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 7-9 and 11-13 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 7-9 and 11-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Therefore, claims 1, 5, 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on February 5, 2026 related to claims 1, 5, 7-9 and 11-13 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Drawing Objection
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant herewith submits the replacement sheets of drawings as suggested by the Examiner. In particular, FIG. 1 has been amended for clear illustration. Accordingly, withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the drawing objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 1, 5, 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. In reply to the rejection, claims 1, 5, 7 and 11 has been amended for clarification. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed limitations accomplish technical improvements in the functioning of a computer, or improvements to any other technologies, and thus, claim 1 is patent eligible under MPEP §2106.04(d)(1).
Although the aforementioned technical advantages are not expressly disclosed in the present application, MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) provides that "[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art." Applicant respectfully submits that an ordinary person skilled in the art would understand the technical improvements that are accomplished by the claimed features, as evidenced by the Declaration of KIM. Thus, the technical advantages according to the present application should be properly considered. The above discussion sufficiently demonstrates that the claimed features are directed to technical improvements in the functioning of a computer, or improvements to any other technology or technical field, and thus, claim 1 should be found patent eligible under MPEP $2106.04(d).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states, “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception” (emphasis added). In other words, in showing that the additional elements are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and do not link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, it is demonstrated that the claims do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. Here, it is reasonably considered to be the latter. The Applicant’s additional elements are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and do not link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, it is demonstrated that the claims do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As such, the argument is persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claim 5 is a method claim corresponding to claim 1, and thus, claim 5 should be patent eligible as well. Claims 7-9 and 11-13 depend from claim 5, and thus, they are also patent eligible. Thus, it is requested that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated here and above. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715