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 objections
3. Claim 15 is objected to for the following informality: the phrase, “configured to identify the award according, at least in part, a determination that an instrument retention data exceeds the time threshold”, appears to be missing the term “to”; for example, --configured to identify the award according to, at least in part, a determination that an instrument retention data exceeds the time threshold--. Thus, appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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, 10 and 16 as the representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
Claim 1:
receive a student progress data record representing a current progress level of musical training of the musical student;
receive an instrument retention data representing an amount of time that the musical student takes music lessons with an instrument;
identify a predetermined time threshold associated with the student progress data, wherein the predetermined time threshold is selected from the student's total lesson time the length of time that the student has been taking lessons and the length of time that the student has been taking lessons with an instrument;
a notification representing whether the instrument retention data exceeds the predetermined time threshold associated with the student progress data;
an identification of an award level corresponding to the notification; and,
[deliver] a progress data to a parent, wherein the progress data represents one of a set of teacher notes, a child's progress towards a next award level in the set of award levels and a comparison of the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student.
Claim 10:
receive a student progress data record representing a current progress level of musical training of the musical student;
determine a progress level test according, at least in part, to the student progress data record;
determine a time threshold associated with the progress level test, wherein the time threshold represents a minimum required amount of time that the student has been taking musical training;
compare the student progress data to the time threshold to determine whether the time threshold has been met;
upon determining that the time threshold has been met, determine whether the student has passed the progress level test; and,
identify an award to be presented to the student according, at least in part, to a determination that the time threshold has been met and a determination that the progress level test has been passed.
Claim 16:
receive a student progress data record associated with the student, [the] record representing a time that the student has received musical training;
determine a time threshold according, at least in part, to the student progress data, wherein the time threshold is selected from the student's total lesson time, the length of time that the student has been taking lessons, and the length of time that the student has been taking lessons for an instrument;
determine whether the student retention data exceeds the time threshold;
upon determining that the student retention data exceeds the time threshold, determine an award level associated with the time threshold.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
In particular, the claims correspond to a mental process given the limitations above, which recite a concept that can be performed in the human mind and/or using a pen and paper (e.g., an observation, an evaluation, a judgment, etc.). For instance, considering claim 1 as a representative claim, a human—such as a teacher—can perform the core of the claimed steps mentally and/or using a pen and paper as follows:
the teacher acquires—about a student that learns musical instrument—data that indicates the student’s progress and instrument retention (i.e., data representing the current progress level of the student, and data representing an amount of time the student takes music lessons with an instrument);
the teacher then identifies at least one preset performance parameter—namely, a predetermined time threshold associated with the student progress data. Of course, the teacher may determine the above performance parameter from various performance attributes, including: the student's total lesson time, the length of time that the student has been taking lessons, and the length of time that the student has been taking lessons with an instrument
the teacher subsequently observes whether the instrument retention data exceeds the predetermined time threshold associated with the student; for example, by comparing the two data elements side by side, etc. (of course, the teacher may also notify the result of the comparison to the student if needed);
the teacher also identifies (e.g., from a chart that associates a corresponding award level to instrument retention data, etc.) a relevant award level;
the teacher then notifies (verbally and/or via a written report) a parent of the student about the progress data; and the progress data represents at least one desired information item (e.g., one of a set of teacher notes, a child's progress towards a next award level in the set of award levels and a comparison of the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student).
The observation above demonstrates that the current claims do correspond to a mental process.
Of course, given the fact that the student is participating in a learning activity; namely, musical training that requires the student to take music lessons with an instrument, the claims also correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two:
The claims recite additional element(s), wherein a computer-based system is utilized to facilitate one or more of the recited functions/steps regarding: collecting information (e.g., “receive a student progress data record representing a current progress level of musical training of the musical student; receive an instrument retention data representing an amount of time that the musical student takes music lessons with an instrument”); analyzing the collected information (e.g., “identify a predetermined time threshold associated with the student progress data. . . the length of time that the student has been taking lessons with an instrument”; “determine a progress level test according, at least in part, to the student progress data record . . . upon determining that the time threshold has been met, determine whether the student has passed the progress level test”); generating one or more results based on the analysis (e.g., “display a notification representing whether the instrument retention data exceeds the predetermined time threshold . . . transmit using a global computer network a progress data to a parent portal, wherein the progress data represents one of a set of teacher notes . . . comparison of the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student”; “identify an award to be presented to the student according, at least in part, to a determination that the time threshold has been met and a determination that the progress level test has been passed”), 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 system to facilitate the presentation of educational activities to a student(s), including generating one or more results based on evaluating—using one or more performance criteria—the performance of the student, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., US 2002/0004191; US 2002/0052860; US 2007/0298401, 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 2-9, 11-15 and 17-19). 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
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 1-9 and 19 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.
Claim 1 recites, “transmit using a global computer network a progress data to a parent portal, wherein the progress data represents one of a set of teacher notes, a child's progress towards a next award level in the set of award levels and a comparison of the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student” (emphasis added).
However, given the terms, “the musical student” or “the student” (per lines 7-17 of the claim), it is unclear whether the term, “a child’s progress”, as recited above, is referring to the same “student” or a different/additional user. Accordingly, claims 1-9 are ambiguous at least for the reason above.
It is further noted that the phrase, “selected from the student's total lesson time the length of time that the student has been taking lessons . . .” (see lines 11-14, emphasis added), appears to be missing a proper punctuation mark; namely, a comma. Thus, proper correction (e.g., --the student's total lesson time, the length of time that the student has been taking lessons--) is required.
Claim 19 recites, “transmit using a global computer network a progress data to a parent portal, wherein the progress data represents one of a set of teacher notes, a child's progress towards a next award level in the set of award levels and a comparison of the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student” (emphasis added).
However, given the context of the term “a student progress data”, as recited in line 8 of claim 16, which is the independent claim to which claim 19 is referring to, it is unclear whether the term “a child’s progress” is referring to the same “student” or a different/additional user. Thus, claim 19 is ambiguous at least for the reason above.
Applicant is further advised to evaluate each of the current claims and make appropriate corrections if additional discrepancies are discovered.
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 1, 2, 6-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Tice 2002/0004191 in view Dohring 2014/0099624.
Regarding claim 1, Tice teaches the following claimed limitations: a computerized method for motivation and retention of a musical student comprising: a computer having a computer readable medium; and, a set of computer readable instructions included on the computer configured ([0002]; [0040]: e.g., a computer-based system/method for providing music lessons to a user; and the system incorporates one or more computers that communicates with at least one online server. Thus, such computing devices already implement a computer-readable medium with executable instructions) to: receive a student progress data record representing a current progress level of musical training of the musical student; receive an instrument retention data representing an amount of time that the musical student takes music lessons with an instrument ([0063]; [0065]; [0068]: e.g., the student is presented with various lessons and activities—such as, music theory or introduction to musical techniques and concepts, one or more music practicing phases, etc., and furthermore, the system tracks of the student’s progress and achievements, including: time spent on a particular lesson or activity, percentage completed of each part of the course, etc. Note that the activity already includes practicing/playing a musical instrument; and thus, the tracking “time spent” on a particular “activity” indicates that system does receive an instrument retention data—i.e., amount of time that the musical student takes music lessons with an instrument); display a notification representing whether the instrument retention data exceeds a predetermined threshold associated with the student progress data; display an identification of an award level corresponding to the notification; and, transmit using a global computer network a progress data to a portal, wherein the progress data represents one of a set of teacher notes, a child's progress towards a next award level in the set of award levels and a comparison of the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student ([0058]; [0059]; [0062]; [0067]; [0069]: e.g., after the student has completed all the exercises in the activity, the system displays a final mark to the student; and thus, the final mark corresponds to the notification, which represents whether the instrument retention data exceeds a predetermined threshold associated with the student progress data. This is because the completion of the entire activity, which is the predetermined threshold associated with the student’s progress data, is required before the final mark is generated. Note also that the phrase, “whether the instrument retention data exceeds a predetermined threshold”, is merely a comparison to determine whether the retention data satisfies—or fails to satisfy—a preset condition/value The system also displays or plays a reward response to the student; and this corresponds to an identification of an award level corresponding to the notification. The system further sends the final mark above to an administrator/teacher device; and this indicates the process of transmitting, using a global computer network, a progress data to a portal. It is also worth noting that the meaning or content that the information—i.e., the progress data—is representing; such as, one of “a set of teacher notes . . . the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student”, does not have a patentable weight since the above is merely nonfunctional descriptive matter. Nevertheless, the progress data includes at least one or more teacher notes since the teacher not only assesses the student’s recorded music practice, but also organizes student performance results).
Tice does not expressly describe that (i) the predetermined threshold above is a predetermined time threshold, which is selected from the student's total lesson time[,] the length of time that the student has been taking lessons and the length of time that the student has been taking lessons with an instrument; and (ii) the portal above is a parent portal.
However, Dohring discloses a computer-based online educational system/method that allows a learner to complete one or more learning activities ([0019]; [0023]); wherein the system also allows a mentor to select a learning activity based on its duration ([0072]); and furthermore, besides tracking the student’s progress and one or more awards that the student has earned ([0100]), the system also provides the mentor with access to view the progress of the learner, including one or more of the rewards that the learner has earned ([0105]).
It is worth noting that “mentor”, as discussed above, already encompasses the parent of the learner (see [0025]).
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 Tice in view of Dohring; for example, by updating the system algorithm so that it further (i) stores at least one predetermined time duration as applied to each of the one or more lessons and/or activities, (ii) provides the student with one or more additional virtual and/or physical rewards, based on the evaluation of the time the student spent performing a given lesson/activity against the predetermined time threshold set for that lesson/activity, etc., and the system also (iii) provides an option to at least one additional user—such as the parent of the leaner—to access and view one or more records of the student (e.g., the time spent on one or more lessons/activities; the lesson/activity completion status; one or more rewards earned, etc.); and accordingly, besides adding one or more important metrics for evaluating the student’s compliance with a lesson/activity requirement(s), the system also allows at least one user to evaluate the status of the student, so that the student’s chance to succeed in his/her education is improved.
Regarding claim 2, Tice in view of Dohring teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Although Tice, as modified per Dohring, does not expressly describe that the award associated with the award level is a wristband, the above is merely signifying the type of award.
In this regard, Dohring already teaches that the learner may earn various types of rewards—such as: points, tickets, tokens, etc. ([0100]).
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 further modify the invention of Tice in view of Dohring; for example, by incorporating various types of awards that represent one or more success levels—such as: tickets, tokens, wristbands, hats, etc., so that the student would have further option to earn one or more types of rewards that he/she likes, etc.
Tice in view of Dohring teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Tice further teaches:
Regarding claim 6, generate a student retention report having a student retention rate associated with the musical student ([0058]; [0059]; [0062]: e.g., as the student completer one or more exercises of an activity, which involves playing a musical instrument, the system generates a mark that represents the student’s performance; and furthermore, besides displaying the mark to the student, the system also sends the mark to the administrator/teacher. Thus, the above indicates the process of generating a student retention report, which indicates a student retention rate associated with the musical student);
Regarding claim 7, determine a progress level test according, at least in part, to the student progress data record; and wherein the notification displayed further represents whether the student has passed the progress level test ([0058]; [0059]: e.g., as part of providing a corresponding answer to each of one or more questions, the student plays the musical instrument; and accordingly, once evaluating the students play, the system provides not only audiovisual feedback regarding the student’s accuracy, but also a final mark. Thus, the above indicates the process of determining a progress level test according to the student progress data record; and furthermore, a notification—e.g., the final mark—is displayed to the user, which indicates whether the student has passed the progress level test).
Regarding claim 8, Tice in view of Dohring teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
The limitation, “generate a student retention report for each award level in the set of award levels where in each award level is associated with a period of time that the musical student takes music lessons” (emphasis added), is an optional limitation since it is relying on an alternative or optional limitation that claim 1 is reciting (e.g., “the progress data represents one of a set of teacher notes, a child's progress towards a next award level in the set of award levels and a comparison of the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student”, emphasis added).
Accordingly, the prior art is not necessarily required to teach each of the three alternatives, but only one of the three alternatives—such as, teacher notes (i.e., the discussion presented per claim 1 already addresses claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, Tice in view of Dohring teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Here also the limitation, “wherein each award level in the set of award levels represents a three-month interval relative to a preceding award level” (emphasis added), is an optional limitation since it is relying on an alternative or optional limitation that claim 1 is reciting (again see, “the progress data represents one of a set of teacher notes, a child's progress towards a next award level in the set of award levels and a comparison of the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student”, emphasis added).
Thus, here also the prior art is not necessarily required to teach each of the three alternatives, but only one of the three alternatives—such as, teacher notes (i.e., the discussion presented per claim 1 already addresses claim 9).
Regarding claim 16, Tice teaches the following claimed limitations: a computerized method for motivation and retention of musical students comprising:
a computer readable medium; a student record stored on the computer readable medium representing a student ([0002]; [0040]; [0046]: e.g., a computer-based system/method for providing music lessons to a user; the system incorporates one or more computers that communicates with at least one online server, including a database that stores data related to the student); and, a set of non-transitory computer readable instructions in communications with the computer readable medium configured to: receive a student progress data record stored on the computer readable medium and associated with the student record representing a time that the student has received musical training ([0063]; [0065]; [0068]: e.g., the student is presented with various lessons and activities, which includes music practicing, etc., and the system also tracks the student’s progress and achievements, including: time spent on a particular lesson or activity, percentage completed of each part of the course, etc. The activity above already includes the practicing/playing of a musical instrument; and accordingly, the “time spent” on a particular “activity” indicates the student’s progress data record, which represents a time that the student has received musical training); determine a threshold according, at least in part, to the student progress data; determine whether the student retention data exceeds the threshold, upon determining that the student retention data exceeds the threshold, determine an award level associated with the threshold ([0058]; [0059]; 0062]; [0069]: e.g., after determining that the student has completed all the exercises in the activity, the system displays a final mark and also a reward to the user. Accordingly, the system initially determines a preset threshold—namely, the need to complete the entire activity, that must be considered for evaluating the student’s progress; and subsequently, the system uses the above threshold to determine whether the student has achieved the expected level of progress. Accordingly, the completion of the entire activity indicates that the student’s retention data satisfied the set threshold. Of course, once the student has completed the entire activity—i.e., satisfied the threshold—the system displays or plays a reward to the user; and thus, the above indicates the process of determining an award level associated with the threshold. Here also the phrase, “whether the student retention data exceeds the threshold”, is merely a comparison to determine whether the retention data satisfies—or fails to satisfy—a preset condition or value).
Tice does not expressly describe the threshold above as a time threshold, which is selected from the student's total lesson time, the length of time that the student has been taking lessons, and the length of time that the student has been taking lessons for an instrument.
However, Dohring discloses a computer-based online educational system/method that allows a learner to complete one or more learning activities ([0019]; [0023]); wherein the system also allows a mentor to select a learning activity based on its duration ([0072]); and furthermore, the system tracking the student’s progress and one or more awards that the student has earned ([0100]).
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 Tice in view of Dohring; for example, by updating the system algorithm so that it further (i) stores at least one predetermined time duration as applied to each of the one or more lessons and/or activities, (ii) provides the student with one or more additional virtual and/or physical rewards, based on the evaluation of the time the student spent performing a given lesson/activity against the predetermined time threshold set for that lesson/activity, etc.; and accordingly, the system adds one or more important metrics for evaluating the student’s compliance with a lesson/activity requirement(s), so that the student’s chance to be more successful in his/her education is improved.
Tice in view of Dohring teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 16. Tice further teaches:
Regarding claim 17, generate a retention report according, at least in part, to the student retention data ([0058]; [0059]; [0062]: e.g., based on the evaluation of the student’s performance, the system generates a final mark; and thereby, it dismays the final mark to the student, besides sending the mark to the administrator/teacher. Thus, the final mark above indicates the generation of a retention report according to the student retention data);
Regarding claim 18, determine a progress level test according, at least in part, to the student progress data record; and wherein the award level is determined according to, at least in part, a determination as to whether the student has passed the progress level test ([0058]; [0059]: e.g., as part of providing a corresponding answer to each of one or more questions, the student plays the musical instrument; and accordingly, once evaluating the students play, the system provides not only audiovisual feedback regarding the student’s accuracy, but also a final mark and a reward. Accordingly, the above indicates the process of determining a progress level test according to the student progress data record [presenting questions, to which the student is required to provide answers by playing the insurgent]; and furthermore, the reward displayed/played to the user, corresponds to the award level determined according to a determination as to whether the student has passed the progress level test).
Regarding claim 19, Tice in view of Dohring teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 16.
Tice further teaches, transmit using a global computer network a progress data to a portal, wherein the progress data represents one of a set of teacher notes, a child's progress towards a next award level in the set of award levels and a comparison of the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student ([0058]; [0059]; [0062]; [0067]; [0069]: e.g., after the student has completed all the exercises in the activity, the system displays a final mark to the student; and further sends the final mark above to an administrator device. Accordingly, the above indicates the process of transmitting, using a global computer network, a progress data to a portal. Note that the meaning or content that the information—i.e., the progress data—is representing; such as, one of “a set of teacher notes . . . the award level achieved by the student to the next award level not yet achieved by the student”, does not have a patentable weight since the above is merely nonfunctional descriptive matter. Nevertheless, the progress data includes at least one or more teacher notes since the teacher not only assesses the student’s recorded music practice, but also organizes student performance results).
Although Tice does not teach that the portal above is a parent portal, Dohring already teaches that the system not only allows the mentor track the student’s progress and one or more rewards that the student has earned ([0100]), but also provides the mentor with access to view the progress of the learner, including one or more of the rewards that the learner has earned ([0105]).
In this regard, the term “mentor”, as discussed above, already encompasses the parent of the learner (see [0025]).
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 further modify the invention of Tice in view of Dohring; for example, by providing an option to at least one additional user—such as the parent of the leaner—to access and view one or more records of the student (e.g., the time spent on one or more lessons/activities; the lesson/activity completion status; one or more rewards earned, etc.); and thereby, the system also allows at least one user to evaluate the status of the student so that the student’s chance to succeed in his/her education is further facilitated (e.g., the parent providing the student with a helpful guidance, etc.).
● Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Tice 2002/0004191 in view Dohring 2014/0099624 and in view of Geshwind 2002/0052860.
Regarding claim 3, Tice in view of Dohring teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Tice does not expressly teach that the award level is a first award level, and the set of server computer readable instructions include instructions configured to determine if a second award level has been met according, at least in part, to the student progress data record.
However, Geshwind teaches a computer-based online learning system the provides one or more rewards to students ([0036]; [0037]); wherein the system associates two or more reward levels, and each associated with a corresponding performance level; and accordingly, based on monitoring the student’s progress level, the system provides the student with a relevant reward that matches the student’s level of achievement ([0060]).
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 further modify the invention of Tice in view of Geshwind; for example, by incorporating two or more levels of rewards, each level of reward is associated with a corresponding level of performance; and accordingly, based on monitoring the progress level of the student at one or more time intervals, the system provides the student with a reward that matches the student’s level of progress (e.g., providing the student with a low-level reward when the student achieves a low level performance; providing the student with a high-level reward when the student achieves a high level of performance, etc.); so that the student would have further incentive to improve his/her skills.
Regarding claim 4, Tice in view of Dohring and in view of Geshwind teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 3.
The limitation, “the award level is a first award level associated with a first award and wherein the set of server computer readable instructions include instructions configured to indicate that a second award should be given to the musical student according, at least in part, to whether a second award level has been met”, is already addressed per the modification discussed with respect to claim 3. This is because the modified system already incorporates two or more levels of rewards, each associated with a corresponding performance level; and furthermore, based on monitoring the progress level of the student at one or more time intervals, the student is provided with a reward that matches the student’s level of progress—such as, a low-level reward (e.g., a first award) when the student achieves a low level of performance, or a high-level reward (e.g., a second award) when the student achieves a high level of performance level, etc. (note that the same motivation applies to claim 4 since it depends on claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, Tice in view of Dohring and in view of Geshwind teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 4.
The limitation, “the second award is a wristband”, is merely signifying the type of award.
However, Dohring already teaches that the learner may earn various types of rewards—such as: points, tickets, tokens, etc. ([0100]).
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 further modify the invention of Tice in view of Dohring; for example, by incorporating various types of awards that represent one or more success levels—such as: tickets, tokens, wristbands, hats, etc., so that the student would have further option to earn one or more types of rewards that he/she likes, etc.
● Considering each of claims 10-15 as a whole, the prior art does not teach of suggest the above claims as currently presented (regarding the state of the prior art, see the obviousness analysis discussed above per claims 1-9 and 16-19).
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 from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, 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