DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the actual user". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the actual dyslexic user". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or a method of organizing human activity.
In regard to Claim 1, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been as identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method, comprising:
accessing […] a first matrix and a second matrix, wherein the first matrix stores a first content, wherein the second matrix stores a second content, wherein the first content is a set of predicted inputs to a set of predicted outputs for a set of predicted dyslexic users, wherein the set of predicted inputs includes a set of predicted incorrect responses and a set of predicted correct responses, wherein the set of incorrect responses is classified into a set of categories and the set of predicted incorrect responses within each category of the set of categories is sub-classified and represented in a set of graphs, wherein each node of each graph in the set of graphs is a predicted incorrect response in the set of predicted incorrect responses, wherein the second content is a set of actual inputs to a set of actual outputs for an actual dyslexic user;
performing […] a first comparison between the set of predicted inputs and the set of actual inputs;
forming […] a first set of data based on the first comparison;
selecting […] a first data [repository] from a set of data [repositories] based on the first set of data, wherein the set of [repositories] is accessible […], wherein the set of data [repositories] indicates a set of test types for the set of predicted dyslexic users;
generating […] a third content based on the first data [repository] being selected, wherein the third content is textual, wherein the third content is a first actual test according to a first test type of the set of test types;
inserting […] the third content into the first data [repository];
[providing] a game containing the first data [repository] with the third content to […] the actual user such that the third content is an actual output […] within the game;
receiving […] during the game, from the [actual user], an actual input responsive to the actual output within the game;
storing […] the actual input in the set of actual inputs;
performing […] a second comparison between the set of predicted inputs and the set of actual inputs now including the actual input;
forming […] a second set of data based on the second comparison;
generating […] a fourth content based on the second set of data and the first data [repository] still being determined to remain selected such that the fourth content is inserted into the first data [repository] to be served in the game to the [actual user], wherein the fourth content is textual, wherein the fourth content is a second actual test according to a second test type of the set of test types;
selecting […] a second data [repository] from the set of data [repositories] based on the second set of data and the first data [repository] being determined not to remain selected such that a fifth content is generated based on the second data [repository] being selected and the fifth content is inserted into the second data [repository] to be served in the game to the [actual user]; and
outputting […] a message […] that a dyslexia diagnosis for the actual dyslexic user is complete based on the fourth content being determined not to be generated and the second data structure being determined not to be selected.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or a method of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a server, data structures, and/or a browser running on a client, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a server, data structures, and/or a browser running on a client, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; e.g., p83 regarding employing a browser; and/or, e.g., p42 regarding a data structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights