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.
3. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to the communications received on 06/26/2026. Claims 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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:
provide primary content and assistive content, the primary content is always presented to any learner, the assistive content presented only in response to a user invoking the assistive content;
detect behavior of the learner selecting the 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, during interaction with the primary content, 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. In particular, while providing a primary content that is always presented to the learner, and an assistive content that presented only when the user is requesting it, the behavior of the 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 (e.g., “providing an interactive learning environment including primary content and assistive content, the primary content being always presented to any learner, the assistive content being presented only in response to a user invoking the assistive content”, per claim 1; “present first content, of a first learning requirement, to the learner at a first skill level within a user interface on a client device”, per claim 11); 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;” determin[] . . . 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, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (e.g., see the discussion under Prong Two above regarding such consideration of the claim as a whole), none of the claims 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).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 06/26/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, regarding Prong One of Step 2A, Applicant is asserting that “claim 1 recites no judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong One of the Mayo/Alice analysis. The independent claims are directed to computer-implemented mechanisms for dynamically adapting a learning path during user interaction with a learning environment, not to an abstract mental process or a fundamental human activity . . . The claims require real-time detection of specific user interface interactions with assistive content that is ‘presented only in response to a user invoking the assistive content’ (claim 1) and that may be ‘hidden within the user interface until interactively invoked by the learner’ (claims 3 and 13). These limitations expressly tie the claimed behavior detection to computer-mediated interactions such as ‘selection of a link,’ ‘mouse pointer hovering,’ or ‘verbal or AI requested interaction’ (claims 9 and 19). Such concepts are not practically performed in the human mind because they depend on continuous monitoring of digital input events occurring within a graphical user interface” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant does not appear to properly apply the test or the inquiry under Prong One of Step 2A. In particular, while relying on the computer elements (e.g., the computer-implemented mechanisms, which include: specific user interface interactions, selection of a link, mouse pointer hovering, etc.), Applicant is attempting to challenge the Office’s findings presented under Prong One. In contrast, Prong One does not require one to consider any of the computer elements. This is because the computer elements are not part of the abstract idea; rather, they are part of the additional elements. Instead, while excluding the computer elements, Prong One requires one to identify only the limitations that recite the abstract idea; see PEP 2106.07(a), emphasis added).
For Step 2A Prong One, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception. For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the rejection should identify the abstract idea as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is an abstract idea.
The excerpt above confirms that Applicant’s approach, i.e., Applicant’s reliance on the computer elements to challenge the Office’s findings under Prong One, is not consistent with the inquiry established under Prong One. In particular, regardless of the various benefits that the computer system may provide to the learner (e.g., real-time detection and/or response; dynamically adapting the learning path to the learner based on the learner’s interaction in the learning environment, etc.), the computer system is indeed excluded from consideration under Prong One of Step 2A. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues, “Although the claims are used in an educational context, the Supreme Court and the Office's guidance make clear that a claim is not abstract merely because it is applied in a field involving human activity. The claims must recite the abstract idea. The August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum directly addresses the distinction between claims that ‘recite’ a judicial exception and claims that merely ‘involve’ one: ‘Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis).’. Here, the focus of the claims here is not on organizing educational activity at a conceptual level (e.g., reciting an abstract idea), but on how a computer system detects specific interface interactions and dynamically controls content flow within an interactive learning environment, and therefore at best merely involves managing personal behavior” (emphasis added).
However, as quite clear from the analysis under Prong One of Step 2A, the Office’s finding is based not simply because the claims “involve” an abstract idea, but because the claims do “recite” an abstract idea. For instance, considering current claim 1 as an example, the claim recites, “providing an interactive learning environment including primary content and assistive content, the primary content being always presented to any learner, the assistive content being presented only in response to a user invoking the assistive content”. It is evident from above that the limitation does not even recite any technological feature, much less a technological feature specific to “how a computer system detects specific interface interactions and dynamically controls content flow”. Instead, it is reciting certain methods of organizing human activities. In particular, it is reciting the organization of an educational/learning material to a learner, wherein the learning material comprises two components—namely, (i) a primary content, which is always presented to the learner, and (ii) an assistive content (i.e., a supplemental material), which is presented to the learner when the learner requests it.
Thus, even the above limitation itself is sufficient to confirm the fact that the claim does “recite” an abstract idea—namely, certain methods of organizing human activity. Of course, besides the limitations that recite abstract idea, the claim further comprises limitations that recite additional elements. For instance, the claim recites a client device that generates an interactive user interface. However, the claim has nothing to do with implementing any new or advanced feature to the client device. Instead, the claim is utilizing the above client device—merely as a tool—to facilitate the recited abstract idea. In particular, the client device is utilized as a tool to: (a) organize/provide educational material, which includes a primary content and an assistive content, (b) capture the learner’s behavior regarding selecting the assistive content during interaction with the presented educational material, (c) evaluate the learner’s performance at one or more points during the interaction, (d) determine, during the learner’s interaction with the primary content, a path directive that signifies the next step in the learning path based on three factors—namely: the learner’s behavior, the learner’ s proficiency, and the learner’s history, (e) determine the next content and skill level based on the path directive determined above; (f) present the next content and next skill level to the learner, etc.
The finding above confirms that no new and/or advanced feature (if any) is incorporated to the client device, regardless of whether one is considering the structural and/or functional features of the device. Instead, while maintaining its existing structural and functional features intact, the device is used—merely as a tool—to facilitate the presentation of educational materials to the learner according to the six steps outlined above.
Thus, the above further confirms that the focus of the current claims is indeed organizing educational activity; namely, certain methods of organizing human activity, which is the reality that neither the current claims nor the original disclosure can evade. Consequently, Applicant’s attempt to challenge the Office’s findings presented under Prong One, while misapplying the Office’s memorandum (the August 4, 2025 memorandum), is not persuasive.
Of course, besides the group certain methods of organizing human activity, it is worth noting that the claims also recite mental processes. This is again because the claims do recite limitations that can be performed in the human mind and/or using a pen and paper. For instance, besides organizing educational materials to be presented to a leaner (e.g., preparing a primary content, an assistive content, etc.), a teacher can also determine—based on observing the learner or evaluating the learner’s response—one or more conditions; such as: (i) detecting whether the learner is requesting and/or using an assistive content, (ii) evaluating the proficiency of the leaner at one or more stages of the learner’s interaction, (iii) determining a customized lesson plan pertinent to the leaner based on various attributes—including behavior, proficiency and history—of the learner, etc.
Thus, the observation above further confirms that the current claims also recite mental processes. So far, Applicant fails to challenge—much less negate—the Office’s findings presented under Prong One of Step 2A.
Secondly, regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, Applicant asserts, “the claims are nonetheless patent-eligible because they integrate any such idea into a practical
application through a specific computer-implemented learning environment that dynamically adapts content in real time based on tracked user-interface behavior . . . the specification makes clear that the claimed invention addresses a technological limitation of prior computer-based learning systems, namely their inability to adapt lesson content while the learner is interacting with the system . . . conventional teaching software ‘only reacts to test results and is unable to adapt on-the-fly as the learner is interacting.’ . . . [0002]) . . . this limitation is ‘amplified in computer-based learning environments because the computer-based learning environment has limited ability to interact with the learner and modify its content based thereon.’ . . . [0003]) . . . adaptive content engine does not merely evaluate learning outcomes, but tracks specific user-interface behavior and uses that behavior to control content flow . . . assistive content ‘may remain hidden until selected or otherwise invoked by learner 160,’ and that such assistive content ‘may be invoked when learner 160 uses an input device to select a link ... or when learner 160 hovers a mouse pointer over a particular area’ . . . [0039]). The adaptive content engine ‘monitors interaction of learner 160 with content 126 and determines assistive content use 110 by learner 160,’ including detecting ‘interaction and input indicative of learner 160 selecting a link ... or ... hovering the mouse’ . . . [0039] . . . explains how this tracked behavior is transformed into a path directive that controls subsequent system operation . . . [0040]). This demonstrates that the claimed invention applies any abstract evaluation of proficiency in a concrete way that controls what content the computer system presents next and at what skill level . . . the specification emphasizes that this adaptation occurs without interrupting the learner and without requiring testing . . . ‘autonomously adapts a learning path ... without requiring learner 160 to take a test, or requiring the learner to pause their learning,’ and ‘presents a next lesson at an appropriate skill level’ as the learner progresses . . . [0042]-[0043]). This real-time, non-interruptive adaptation is expressly contrasted with prior systems that require post-lesson evaluation)” (emphasis added).
However, except for the attempt made to summarize some of the paragraphs from the specification, while once again misapplying the August 2025 memo, Applicant still fails to demonstrate a feature (if any)—or a combination of features (if any)—that provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. Instead, Applicant appears to be mistaking the existing computer functions, which the claimed—and disclosed—system/method is performing, for the alleged technological improvement. For instance, unlike Applicant’s theory, the process of providing interactive content materials to a user, including dynamically adapting one or more subsequent content materials based on the analysis of the user’s interaction, is already part of the existing computer/network technology. This is true regardless of whether the user’s interaction, which the computer system is collecting and analyzing, relates to invoking the so-called “assistive content” or simply answering a question. This is because the system is generating one or more content item(s) based on the collection and analysis of the user’s input. For instance, when the student incorrectly answers the current question (or incorrectly answers a threshold number of questions), the computer may be programmed to repeat the same question or select the next low-level question to the student, so that the student builds the necessary skills. Accordingly, since the system is providing the student with the same—or a low-level—question in response to the user’s failure to correctly answer the current question during interaction, this implementation constitutes the process of “adapt[ing] lesson content while the learner is interacting with the system”. Of course, depending on one’s interpretation, the content above can be assigned various labels—such as: remedial content, supplemental content, assistive content, etc. Nevertheless, regardless of the designation that one may apply to such function, the existing computer/network technology already controls the flow of content based on the analysis of input gathered from various sources, including input from the user. In this case, the system’s decision to: (i) select the low-level question if the student incorrectly answers the question, or (ii) select the next high-level question if the student correctly answers the question, etc., also indicates the process of determining “a path directive for the leaner”. In particular, if the leaner fails to correctly answer the question, the system chooses a learning path/plan that requires the learner to engage with low-level learning materials; whereas, if the learner correctly answers the question, the system chooses a learning path that requires the learner to engage with high-level educational materials, etc.
It is also worth noting that the adaptation process is not limited merely to the above scenario since, depending on the desired objective, the teacher my set a desired criteria to trigger such adaptation of the lesson content. Note also that the Office is not necessarily required—as part of the Prong Two inquiry—to present a reference that demonstrates such existing function (i.e., the process of adapting lesson content to a learner while the learner is interacting with the system). Nevertheless, one or more of the references cited as part of the Step 2B analysis already confirm the fact above. For instance, Grayson (US 2006/0127871), a publication available to the public for almost two decades prior to Applicant’s claimed—and disclosed—system/method, already taches such existing computer-based system; and this system dynamically adapts the lesson content to the learner based of the analysis of the learner’s performance data gathered during interaction (e.g., see [0053], [0057], [0058], etc.).
Accordingly, unlike Applicant’s theory, the existing technology does not encounter Applicant’s alleged technological limitation(s); namely, the alleged “inability to adapt lesson content while the learner is interacting with the system” (emphasis added), or the alleged “[inability] to adapt on-the-fly as the learner is interacting” (emphasis added). Of course, the finding above further confirms that Applicant’s currently claimed—and originally disclosed—system/method does not implement any new or advanced technological feature. Instead, while relying on the same existing computer/network technology, it is attempting to facilitate the presentation of interactive content—such as, the so-called “assistive content”—to the leaner. Thus, Applicant’s assertion regarding the alleged technological improvement is once again not persuasive.
In addition, regardless of whether the so-called “assistive content” is invoked when the user is hovering the mouse pointer in an area, or actively clicking a link, such process still represents existing computer functions. For instance, when a user is reading or interacting with content displayed on an electronic page, the user may point and/or hover his/her mouse pointer to a particular text (e.g., a word or a link); and responsive to the user’s behavior or action, the system generates a small size pop-up window that provides supplemental information regarding that text (e.g., the definition of the word, or a brief summary regarding the link, etc.). This means the supplemental information above (e.g., the definition or the explanation) is hidden until the user invokes it. However, despite the fact that Applicant’s disclosed system/method is relying on this existing computer function (e.g., see FIG 6, label “130”), Applicant appears to declare the above as a technological improvement just because the pop-up window, which provides the additional explanation, is labeled—or recognized—as “assistive content”. However, simply assigning a new label to an existing computer function does not signify a technological improvement.
Note also that none of the previous—or current—claims necessarily requires the behavior of the user, which the system is detecting, to be a mouse pointer hovering over a particular area of the content. Even when considering each of claims 9 and 19, such requirement is merely optional. Of course, here also a reference is not necessarily required to confirm the existing computer function discussed above. Nevertheless, if a reference is required, one may review: (i) Bonanni (US 2009/0187547) that teaches the process of generating a pop-up window in response to the user hovering over a word ([0022]), and/or (ii) Haveliwala (US 2010/0191726), which also teaches such process of generating a pop-up window in response to the user hovering over a particular area (e.g., [0027], [0028]).
Note also that it is immaterial whether the disclosed (or even the current claimed) system/method is adapting the content to the user “without requiring learner . . . to take a test, or requiring the learner to pause their learning” (emphasis added). This is because the above has absolutely nothing to do with a technological feature, much less an advanced (if any) technological feature. Instead, it is merely signifying a teaching strategy that may arguably be beneficial—or nonbeneficial—to the leaner. Although it does not appear to be logical—much less beneficial—to provide the learner with the next level of learning without testing the user’s skill level, this is still irrelevant to signify a particular theological feature, much less one (if any) that provides a technological improvement. This is because the system is merely performing existing computer functions; such as, presenting the user with one or more relevant content items based on evaluating the user’s interactions (e.g., based on one or more links that the user is selecting, etc.). This confirms that the underlying technology, which facilitates the claimed—and disclosed—learning strategy, is still the existing computer/network technology. Thus, none of the various types of learning strategies or paths that Applicant identified from the specification, including the decision of the “path directive” to: (a) “skip content”, (b) "provide content to fill identified topical gaps," (c) "provide a remedial path" or (d) collect content from online or local sources, etc., is relevant to a technological improvement, regardless of whether the above strategies are being considered individually or in any desired ordered combination. Thus, Applicant’s alleged technological improvement, namely the alleged “specific adaptive content engine, concrete user-interface interaction tracking, and dynamic content-routing mechanisms that improve the functioning of computer-based learning environments”, is not persuasive.
In addition, when applying the inquiry under Step 2B to the current claims, it is evident that each of the claims—when considered as a whole—is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. This is because each of the current claims is relying on the conventional computer/network technology. In fact, even the original disclosure as a whole is relying merely on the conventional computer/network technology, “Learning environment 100 may be implemented on various service architectures including: Internet cloud (SAAS), client/server, standalone laptop, virtual hardware, and so on, without departing from the scope hereof. Adaptive content engine 108 may include machine-readable instructions, stored in memory 106 that are executable by processor 104 to implement functionality described herein” (e.g., see [0036], emphasis added). Of course, the computer components themselves are also conventional ones (see [0037]).
It is worth noting that Step 2B, quite similar to Prong Two of Step 2A, also evaluates—as part of its inquiry—whether the claim(s) is implementing a technological improvement; see MPEP 2106.05(a), emphasis added),
While improvements were evaluated in Alice Corp. as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A). See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, an examiner should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis.
Accordingly, given the lack of technological improvement per the currently claimed—and originally disclosed—system/method, along with its conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements, neither the claimed system/method nor the disclosed system/method implements an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Thus, at least for the reasons above, the Office concludes that none of the current calms complies with section §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1-10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b), or second paragraph (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Regarding claim 1-10, claim 1 recites, “the assistive content being presented only in response to a user invoking the assistive content; detecting behavior of the learner selecting, via interaction with a client device, the assistive content . . . determining, during user interaction with the primary content, a path directive” (emphasis added).
Thus, given the two terms above—i.e., “learner” and “user”, it is unclear whether two individuals are simultaneously interacting—using the same client device—with the learning environment. Note that appropriate amendment is required to remedy the above ambiguity; such as, replacing the term “a user” with --the learner--, etc.
Claim 1 further recites, “the primary content being always presented to any learner” (emphasis added).
Howser, the term, “any leaner”, renders claims 1-10 indefinite since this term is unbonded.
(b) claim 3 recites, “the first content comprising both primary content displayed within the user interface and assistive content not displayed within the user interface until interactively invoked by the learner” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether claim 3 is referring to the same primary content and assistive content, which are already recited per claim 1, or a different primary content and assistive content that the first content assumed to contain. Accordingly, claim 3 is further ambiguous at least for the reason above.
(c) Regarding claims 9 and 10, claim 9 recites, “AI request” (emphasis added); and the term “AI” appears to be an abbreviation. However, given the field of the claimed method, it is not necessarily clear what the above abbreviation represents. Accordingly, such abbreviation should be defined in the claim.
Note that claim 10 is dependent on claim 9; and therefore, claim 10 is also subjected to the same deficiency.
(d) Regarding claims 19 and 20, claim 19 still recites, “the machine-readable instructions that detect behavior” (emphasis added); and accordingly, it is unclear whether the above is asserting that the instructions, which are lines of codes, are performing the behavior detection task.
Note that, similar to the point made in the previous office action, it is the processor that performs the detection task. This is because the instructions are merely lines of codes stored as a computer file. In contrast, the processor actively performs the detection task while executing the instructions.
Note that claim 20 is dependent on claim 19; and therefore, it is subjected to the same deficiency noted above.
(e) Regarding claims 19 and 20, claim 19 also recites, “other digital means of selecting assistive content” (emphasis added).
However, similar to the point made in the previous office action, term “other”, as used per the expression “other digital means”, is unbounded; and therefore, it renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what “other digital means” it is encompassing.
Here also claim 20 is subjected to the same deficiency given its dependency on claim 19.
Applicant is further advised to evaluate each of the current claims and make appropriate corrections is additional discrepancies are discovered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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: providing an interactive learning environment including primary content and assistive content, the primary content being always presented to any learner, the assistive content being presented only in response to a user invoking the assistive content; detecting behavior of the learner selecting, via interaction with a client device, the 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] to [0059]: 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. The above indicates that the learning environment already comprises a primary content and an assistive content; and the assistive content, such as the explanation or clarification that the system is providing to the user, is presented only in response to the user invoking it—such as clicking a letter displayed on the interface. Thus, the student’s interaction above corresponds to the behavior of the learner regarding selecting, via interaction with a client device, the 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, during interaction with the primary content, 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] to [0059]: 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 a 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 a 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 a 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 a 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) verbal or AI requested interaction (per claim 9)”, or “(c) other digital means of selecting assistive content” (per claim 19) ([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
7. 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.
Response to Arguments.
8. Applicant’s arguments directed to the prior art have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 06/26/2026); however, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, Applicant appears to misconstrue the teaching of Grayson as applied to the claims. For instance, Applicant asserts, “Grayson characterizes its teaching approach as assessment-directed individualized instruction, not as an environment that always presents ‘primary content’ and optionally presents ‘assistive content’ only upon user invocation. Grayson's disclosure is fundamentally assessment-directed, not a two-tier content model in which primary content is always presented and assistive content is conditionally presented only upon user invocation” (emphasis added).
However, it is immaterial whether Grayson characterizes its teaching approach as “assessment-directed individualized instruction”. This is because such characterization has nothing to do with limiting the types of content that Grayson is providing, much less excluding the presentation of a primary content and an assistive content. Consequently, Applicant’s theory does not appear to be relevant to challenge—much less negate—the Office’s findings. Moreover, unlike Applicant’s assertion, Grayson is indeed an environment that always presents a primary content (e.g., a lesson material) and also an assistive content (e.g., a clarification or feedback), which the student interactively invokes during his/her interaction with the lesson (see [0057] to [0059]). In particular, the feedback/clarification is not initially presented to the student. Instead, it is interactively invoked by the student (e.g., when the student attempts to answer the question—such as, clicking a letter). This fact itself is sufficient to confirm the two types of content that Grayson is implementing: (i) the lesson material—the first/primary content—that is already presented to the student, and (ii) the clarification—the assistive content—that is hidden (or not displayed) unless it is interactively invoked by the student during his/her interaction with the displayed lesson material. Thus, Applicant’s attempt to dismiss Grayson’s system as “not a two-tier content model” is not persuasive. In particular, PHOSITA readily recognizes Grayson’s two-tier content model; namely, (i) the first tier that relates to the lesson material directly presented to the learner ([0050]), and (ii) the second tier, which relates to the clarification/feedback that is hidden (not displayed) until it is interactively invoked by the student during interaction—such as, the student attempting to answer the question presented as part of the lesson material ([0057] to [0059]).
Thus, regardless of whether Grayson’s system is fundamentally—or in part—an “assessment-directed” model, such assumption once again does not necessarily negate the two types of content items that Grayson is teaching.
Note also that Applicant’s assertion directed to Grayson; namely, Grayson’s alleged failure to “optionally present[]” an assistive content, or Grayson’s failure to teach “a two-tier content model in which primary content is always presented and assistive content is conditionally presented only upon user invocation” (emphasis added), lacks proper rationale. For instance, as evident from Grayson’s teaching, the assistive content, such as the clarification or feedback, is presented to the student when the student clicks a letter—such as answering a question incorrectly ([0057] to [0059]). Accordingly, basic common sense dictates that the clarification/feedback is presented only when a condition is satisfied—e.g., when the student actively selects a particular letter. However, Applicant still fails to address or challenge the fact above.
In addition, unlike Applicant’s theory, Grayson is not necessarily required to expressly state that “(i) some content is always presented to every learner as ‘primary content,’ while (ii) a different class of ‘assistive content’ is presented in response to the learner invoking it”. Instead, PHOSITA readily recognizes, from the teaching of the reference, Grayson does incorporate the two type of content: namely, (i) the primary content—such as, a short story, an interactive game, etc., that the system is presenting to the student (e.g., [0050]), and (ii) the assistive content—such as the clarification (or feedback) that the system provides to the student only when the student interactively invokes it (e.g., [0057] to [0059]). Thus, Applicant’s conclusory assertion above is not valid.
Applicant also appears to misconstrue Grayson’s teaching as applied to the claimed features. Applicant asserts, “Grayson's additional instruction (e.g., re-teaches, guided practices, in situ re-teaches) is triggered by system evaluation of performance, not by user invocation” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant fails to demonstrate how Grayson is assumed to present the clarification/feedback without the student invoking it. In contrast, Grayson already teaches that the clarification/feedback is presented to the student responsive to the student’s action ([0057], emphasis added),
“. . . In situ re-teaches may, for example, be used to clarify why a response was incorrect or to review one or more skills, why an answer or another answer is correct, or the like. For example, if the student is asked to ‘Click on the letter P’ and the student answers incorrectly, a bubble may appear on the screen with the letter ‘P’ in it and the instruction is ‘This is the letter P’”
Thus, it is evident from the excerpt above that the student has to actively invoke the assistive content—such as, selecting the letter “P”—regardless of whether the system is also evaluating the student’s performance. Of course, it is also important to note that the claims do not recite any feature that excludes the evaluation of user’s performance. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are still not persuasive.
Furthermore, Applicant appears to be attempting to mischaracterize the teaching of Grayson while cherry-picking some lines out of context. Applicant asserts, “Grayson states that ‘the routing being based at least in part on interactions’ (e.g., claim 1, [0009]. However, ‘interactions’ are not with assistive content as required by the claims of the present application . . . Therefore, interactions are not interactions with assistive content as claimed, but instead a historical interaction with the learning program itself (e.g., how many times, or when, a user interfaced with the presented content)” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant’s theory above is also irrelevant since the issue has nothing to do with what the term “interactions” encompasses since, depending on the context being considered, the term “interactions” can be applied to signify various scenarios. In contrast, the Office’s analysis is focusing on the features that Grayson is teaching regarding the current claims. For instance, as abundantly clear form the observations above, the Office is identifying the feedback/clarification, which the system is displaying in response to the user’s interaction/selection ([0057]), as the claimed “assistive content”. However, this is not even remotely relevant to the alleged “historical interaction with the learning program” and/or “how many times, or when, a user interfaced with the presented content”, etc., which Applicant s speculating above. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note that regarding claims 6 and 16, Applicant is relying on the argument presented above regarding claim 1. Thus, the discussion presented above applies to each of the current claims.
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that the current claims fail to overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this final 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 filled 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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://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
Prosecution Insights