DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1 and 11 as representative claim, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
— Claim 1:
detect behavior of the learner selecting assistive content during interaction with first content of a first learning requirement of the course;
determine a proficiency of the learner at a decision point of the first learning requirement;
determine a path directive based on the behavior, the proficiency, and a learner history, the path directive defining a direction of a next step in the learning path for the learner;
determine a next content and a next skill level based on the path directive; and
present the next content at the next skill level to the learner.
— Claim 11:
present first content of a first learning requirement to the learner at a first skill level;
detect behavior of the learner selecting assistive content during interaction with the first content;
determine a proficiency of the learner at a decision point of the first learning requirement;
determine a path directive based on the behavior, the proficiency, and a learner history, the path directive defining a direction of a next step in the learning path for the learner;
determine a next content and a next skill level based on the path directive; and
present the next content at the next skill level to the learner.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior, wherein behavior of a learner is evaluated as the learner is interacting with a lesson material; and the learner’s proficiency is determined at a decision point; and thereby, based on a path determined according to the learner’s behavior, proficiency and learning history, the next lesson material is determined and presented to the learner.
In addition, given the limitations that recite the process of: detecting behavior of the learner selecting assistive content during interaction with the first content; determining a proficiency of the learner at a decision point of the first learning requirement; determine a path directive based on the behavior, the proficiency, and a learner history, etc., the claims also correspond to the group mental processes; such as, an evaluation, an observation and/or a judgment process.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two:
The claim(s) recite additional element(s), wherein a client device or a processor that communicates with a memory, etc., is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps with respect to: presenting content to a user (e.g., present first content, of a first learning requirement, to the learner at a first skill level within a user interface on a client device); evaluating the user’s behavior (e.g., detect behavior of the learner selecting assistive content during interaction with the first content within the user interface); determine one or more outcomes based on the analysis of collected data (e.g., determine a proficiency of the learner at a decision point of the first learning requirement; determine a path directive based on the behavior, the proficiency, and a learner history, the path directive defining a direction of a next step in the learning path for the learner; determine a next content and a next skill level based on the path directive); presenting pertinent content to the user (e.g., present the next content at the next skill level to the learner within the user interface), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the presentation interactive material to a user, including the process of presenting the user with one or more pertinent educational materials, based on the analysis of the user’s behavior and/or skill level regarding a topic, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2016/0063881; US 2006/0127871; US 2004/0133532, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-10 and 12-20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
● Claims 2, 5, 9, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Claim 2 recites the limitation, “the first skill level” (per line 2 of the claim); and similarly, claim 5 recites the limitation, “the first skill level” (per line 1 of the claim).
However, each of the claims 2 and 5 fails to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation above.
(b) each of claims 9 and 19 recites, “other digital means of selecting assistive content” (emphasis added).
Thus, each of claims 9 and 19 is indefinite since the term “other digital means” is unbounded.
(c) Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9; and claim 20 is dependent on claim 19. Thus, each of claims 10 and 20 is also subjected to the same deficiency noted per part (b) above.
(e) Each of claims 19 and 20 is further ambiguous since claim 19 appears to be mistaking the “machine-readable instructions” for the “processor”. It is important to note that it is the processor—but not the so-called “machine-readable instructions”—that performs the claimed (even the disclosed) functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claim 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grayson 2006/0127871.
Regarding claim 1, Grayson teaches the following claimed limitations: a method for adapting a learning path of a learner through a course ([0025]: e.g., a system/method for teaching a student one or more subjects; wherein one or more of the skills being delivered to the student are ordered dynamically based on the student’s interaction and assessment), comprising: detecting behavior of the learner selecting, via interaction with a client device, assistive content during interaction with first content, of a first learning requirement of the course, displayed in a user interface on the client device ([0048] to [0052]; [0057]: e.g., as the student is interacting with a lesson material regarding one or more skills/concepts, including guided practice and interactive assessment, the system records each of the one or more interactions that the student is making, including the student responding to a query by making a selection—such as, the student clicking a letter displayed on a screen; and responsive to the student’s selection, the system presents an in situ re-teach or exposure—such as, a clarification regarding the student’s incorrect response and/or a review regarding one or more skills, etc. Thus, the student’s interaction above corresponds to the behavior of the learner regarding selecting, via interaction with a client device, assistive content during interaction with first content; and wherein, the above in situ re-teach or exposure corresponds to the assistive content); determining a proficiency of the learner at a decision point of the first learning requirement; determining a path directive based on the behavior, the proficiency, and a learner history, the path directive defining a direction of a next step in the learning path for the learner ([0037]; [0039]; [0052] to [0054]: e.g., based at least on the result that the student has achieved on an assessment, the system determines the student’s knowledge level—i.e., the proficiency of the learner—regarding the concept taught; and subsequently, based on (a) the student’s knowledge level, including (b) the student’s interaction, and (c) the number of times a particular skill has been presented to the student—i.e., the learner history in the database, the system determines whether the student should be (i) retaught the same concept/skill, or (ii) allowed to proceed to the next/new concept/skill. The above indicates process of determining a proficiency of the learner at a decision point of the first learning requirement; and thereby, determining a path directive based on the behavior, the proficiency, and a learner history, the path directive defining a direction of a next step in the learning path for the learner); determining a next content and a next skill level based on the path directive; and presenting the next content at the next skill level to the learner ([0055]; [0056]: e.g., based on the skill level—or level of understanding—that the student has attained, the system dynamically routes the student to the next lesson; and wherein, the next lesson would be: (i) an advanced level if the student has exhibited an ability to quickly learn new skills, or (ii) an easy level if the student has difficulty learning, etc. Thus, the above indicates the process of determining a next content and a next skill level based on the path directive; and thereby, presenting the next content at the next skill level to the learner).
Regarding claim 11, Grayson teaches the following claimed limitations: a learning environment for adapting a learning path of a learner through a course ([0025]; e.g., a system/method for teaching a student one or more subjects; wherein one or more of the skills being delivered to the student are ordered dynamically based on the student’s interaction and assessment), comprising: a processor; a memory communicatively coupled with the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: present first content, of a first learning requirement, to the learner at a first skill level within a user interface on a client device ([0033]; [0048]: e.g., the system already comprises one or more computing device that implement a processor and a memory—such as, a client device in the form of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, etc.; and thereby, the system presents the student with at least one lesson material regarding one or more skills/concepts. Thus, the lesson material above inherently involves a skill level, the so-called first skill level); detect behavior of the learner selecting assistive content during interaction with the first content within the user interface ([0048] to [0052]; [0057]: e.g., as the student is interacting with one or more skills/concepts, including guided practice and interactive assessment, the system records/detects one or more interactions of the student’s interactions—such as, the student clicking a letter displayed on a screen; and in response, the system presents an in situ re-teach or exposure—such as, a clarification regarding the student’s incorrect response and/or a review regarding one or more skills, etc. Thus, the above indicates the process of detect behavior of the learner selecting assistive content during interaction with the first content within the user interface); determine a proficiency of the learner at a decision point of the first learning requirement; determine a path directive based on the behavior, the proficiency, and a learner history, the path directive defining a direction of a next step in the learning path for the learner ([0037]; [0039]; [0052] to [0054]: e.g., based at least on the result that the student has achieved on an assessment, the system determines the student’s knowledge level—i.e., the proficiency of the learner—regarding the concept taught; and subsequently, based on (a) the student’s knowledge level, including (b) the student’s interaction, and (c) the number of times a particular skill has been presented to the student—i.e., the learner history in the database, the system determines whether the student should be (i) retaught the same concept/skill, or (ii) allowed to proceed to the next/new concept/skill. The above indicates process of determining a proficiency of the learner at a decision point of the first learning requirement; and thereby, determining a path directive based on the behavior, the proficiency, and a learner history, the path directive defining a direction of a next step in the learning path for the learner); determine a next content and a next skill level based on the path directive; and present the next content at the next skill level to the learner within the user interface [0055]; [0056]: e.g., based on the skill level or the level of understanding that the student has attained, the system dynamically routes the student to the next lesson; and wherein, the next lesson would be: (i) an advanced level if the student has exhibited an ability to quickly learn new skills, or (ii) an easy level if the student has difficulty learning, etc. Thus, the above indicates the process of determining a next content and a next skill level based on the path directive; and thereby, presenting the next content at the next skill level to the learner.
Grayson teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per each of claims 1 and 11. Grayson further teaches:
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the next content being content of the first learning requirement and the next skill level being lower than the first skill level ([0056]: e.g., as already discussed per claim 1 and 11, the system presents to the next lesson to the student in accordance with a skill level relevant to the user—such as, presenting an easy level of the next lesson, as opposed to an advanced level of the next lesson, if the student has difficulty of learning. Accordingly, the above indicates that the next content is content of the first learning requirement; and the next skill level is lower than the first skill level);
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the first content comprising both primary content, which is displayed within the user interface, and assistive content not displayed (or is hidden) within the user interface until interactively invoked by the learner ([0057]; [0058]: e.g., the system already incorporates an interface for displaying both the lesson and the in situ re-teach/exposure, which corresponds to the assistive content; and wherein, the in situ re-teach/exposure is displayed when the student is making a selection on the interface. Thus, the first content already comprises both primary content displayed within the user interface and assistive content; and wherein the assistive content is not displayed within the user interface until interactively invoked by the learner);
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the next content being content of an immediately subsequent learning requirement of the course ([0039]; [0060]; [0073] lines 1-6: e.g., the system already implements a sequence of lesson/skills or subskills that the student is required to perform according to the student’s performance; and wherein, the student proceeds to the next lesson in the sequence one he/she has completed the current lesson successfully);
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the next skill level is higher than the first skill level when the proficiency indicates a skill level above the first skill level, the next skill level is lower than the first skill level when the proficiency indicates a skill level below the first skill level ([0055]; [0056]: e.g., as already pointed out per claims 1 and 11 above, the system dynamically routes to the student to the next lesson, based on the skill level that the student has attained, which indicates whether the level is below/above an acceptable or desired level/threshold. Thus, the system provides the student with a next lesson having: (i) an advanced level if the student has exhibited an ability to quickly learn new skills, or (ii) an easy level if the student has difficulty learning, etc. Thus, presenting such next lesson that has an advanced level indicates that the next skill level is higher than the first skill level when the proficiency indicates a skill level above the first skill level; whereas, presenting such next lesson that has an easy level indicates that the next skill level is lower than the first skill level when the proficiency indicates a skill level below the first skill level); and the next skill level is the first skill level when the proficiency indicates a skill level similar to the first skill level ([0053]: e.g., when the student’s knowledge level—i.e., the student’s proficiency—is below an acceptable level, the system proceeds with reteaching the student; and this encompasses re-displaying one or more of the same lessons. Thus, since one or more of the same initial lessons are being re-displayed, this indicates that the “next skill level”, which is the skill level of the lesson being redisplayed, is the “first skill level”, i.e., the skill level of the initial lesson before it is being redisplayed. Although the above redisplaying is performed when the student’s proficiency is below an acceptable level, the student’s proficiency is still considered to be “similar” to the first skill level, which is the level of the lesson/content being presented, since the term “similar” broadly encompasses both higher skill level and lower skill level. In particular, the term “similar” does not necessarily imply the “same”, “identical” or “equal”; and therefore, the teaching above is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim);
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the next content being for a topic external to the course when the learner exhibits low proficiency in the topic ([0055], lines 7-14: e.g., the system allows the student to proceed to a new skill even if the student fails to achieve a desired skill level. In this case, the new skill above corresponds to the topic external to the course. Nevertheless, designating a content as a topic external to a course, or a topic similar/internal to the course, etc., does not patentability distinguish the claim from the prior art since the content is merely nonfunctional descriptive matter);
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the learner history comprising stored proficiency of the learner over time ([0065]; [0066]; also [0105]: e.g., based on each lesson interaction that the student is performing, the system stores—in its knowledge base—data indicating the student’s performance, including the student’s cumulative knowledge obtained based on periodic assessments and evaluations; and the knowledge base is also updated to indicate the student’s understanding of each of the skills);
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the detecting behavior comprising detecting one or more of: (a) selection of a link within the content to display first assistive content, (b) a mouse pointer hovering over a particular area of the content to display second assistive content, and (c) other digital means of selecting assistive content ([0057]; [0058]: e.g., as already discussed above per claims 1 and 11, the system presents, responsive to the student clicking a letter displayed on a screen, an in situ re-teach or exposure—such as, a clarification regarding the student’s incorrect response and/or a review regarding one or more skills, etc. Thus, the letter displayed is effectively a link, which the student is selecting within the content, in order to display the assistive content. This is because the in situ re-teach/exposure is displayed in response to the user clicking/selecting the letter. Note also that the claim requires one of (a), (b) or (c), but not necessarily all the listed options);
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the first assistive content and the second assistive content each comprising one of hints, recaps, and definitions corresponding to the first content ([0057]; [0058]: e.g., as discussed per claims 9 and 19, in situ re-teach/exposure, which the system is presenting to the student, is content that provides a clarification regarding the student’s incorrect response, and/or a review regarding one or more skills, etc. Thus, the first assistive content already comprises at least one of hints, recaps, etc. Note that the second assistive content is merely an optional one since claims 9 and 19 do not necessarily require both the first content and the second content; rather, claims 9 and 19 require one or more of the first/second content).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Grayson 2006/0127871 in view of Seitz 2004/0133532.
Regarding each of claims 6 and 16, Grayson teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 11 respectively.
Grayson does not expressly teach, the next content being content of a subsequent, but not immediately subsequent, learning requirement of the course when the proficiency indicates topics of an immediately subsequent learning requirement of the course is already known by the learner.
However, Seitz a computer-aided education system that determines one or more appropriate sequences of lessons to a student based on data gathered regarding the student ([0031]); and furthermore, the system advances the student to a more advanced topic, without necessarily requiring the student to learn the subject matter of the current concepts, if the student has reached a sufficient level of proficiency ([0042], [0043]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Grayson in view of Seitz; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithm, so that the system further compares the student’s knowledge level against the complexity level of the lesson that the student is taking; and subsequently, if the system determines that the student has a more advanced knowledge regarding the current lesson that the student is taking, the system dynamically advances the student to the next more advanced topic, etc., so that the student would have a better chance to easily accomplish his/her studies in a reasonable amount of time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715