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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 12/22/2025. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-10 have been amended. Claims 11-15 have been newly added. Therefore, claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of the certified copy of the JP2024-029746 application, filed on 02/29/2024 for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
With respect to the title of the invention, Examiner acknowledges an amended title has been received. Examiner withdraws the specification objection.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to overcome the claim objection. Examiner withdraws the claim objection for claim 1 in the office action on 10/01/2025.
Applicant has amended claims to overcome the 112(b) rejections. Examiner withdraws the 112 rejections for claims in the office action on 10/01/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Newly amended Claim 1 and independent claim 10 recite: “control and change first graphical user interface (GUI) elements”. However, the specification fails to describe what “control and change” is. Nor is “control and change first graphical user interface (GUI)” a term of art. Therefore, since the specification does not give any explanation of what “control and change” is, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how the function is to be performed (MPEP 2161.01 I; MPEP 2163 II 3 (a) ii). Further, Claim 13 recites: “wherein the at least one hardware processor is configured to cause the first terminal apparatus to display the at least one second GUI simultaneously and in association with the selected first GUI element with which it is correlated.” Examiner notes “simultaneously” is not in Applicant’s specification, let alone “display the at least one second GUI simultaneously and in association with the selected first GUI element” limitation.
The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2163 | (A)). Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the parent claims and thus dependent claims are rejected on the same basis as indicated above for the respective parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-9 and 11-15 are directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e. a machine). Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1, analogous to independent claim 10 recites: used by an educational instructor or administrator, used by a plurality of leaners, provided with a plurality of mutually different learning functions including a first learning function and a second learning function that are used by the plurality of learners, wherein the plurality of learners is grouped as a first group belonging to a first category correlated with the first learning function and also grouped as a second group belonging to a second category correlated with the second learning function, perform an interaction process with the educational instructor or administrator by causing a display to display a screen for selecting the learning function to be analyzed and, in response to a selected learning function, control and change first that are displayed for selecting category articles such that, only first for selecting category articles that belong to the one of the first category or the second category correlated with the selected learning function are displayed, in response to the educational instructor or administrator selecting the first learning function as an analysis target display, only a first element corresponding to at least one first category article of the first category as a selectable unit of analysis, in response to the educational instructor or administrator selecting the second learning function as the analysis target, cause to display, among the first elements, only a first element corresponding to at least one second category article of the second category as a selectable unit of analysis, control and change, in accordance with a selection of one of the displayed elements, at least one element that is displayed for further specifying an analysis condition which is correlated with the selected first element and the learning function selected as the analysis target, derive a utilization state of a learning function by a learner of the plurality of learners, the learning function being the first learning function or the second learning function selected as the analysis target, based on a category article selected from the at least one first category article or the at least one second category article correlated with the learning function selected as the analysis target, and based further on an operation made via the displayed at least one second element, and cause to display the derived utilization state. The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under the abstract groupings of:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As the claims discuss an educational instructor or administrator and a plurality of learners, categories of learning functions as analysis target, derives a utilization state of a learning function by a learner of the plurality of learners, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 add additional limitations, for example: (claim 2) wherein the at least one first category article includes class, lesson and school, and wherein the at least one second category article includes the class and the lesson; (claim 3) wherein in response to the selected analysis target being the class, display a plurality of classes in a school to which the educational instructor or administrator belongs such that a class to be analyzed is selectable therefrom, derives the utilization state of the learning function by the learner who belongs to the class selected from the plurality of classes, the learning function being selected as the analysis target, and display the derived utilization state; (claim 4) wherein as to the class of the first category and the second category, one class is set for each of the plurality of learners, wherein as to the lesson of the first category and the second category, a plurality of lessons are set for each of the plurality of learners, and wherein as to the school of the first category, one school is set for each of the plurality of learners; (claim 5) wherein the first learning function includes label function and a notebook function; (claim 6) wherein the second learning function includes a dictionary function; (claim 7) wherein in response to the educational instructor or administrator selecting a number of accesses as the analysis target, display the number of accesses to the plurality of different learning functions in a school to which the educational instructor or administrator belongs; (claim 8) display the utilization state of the learning function by the learner, the learning function being selected as the analysis target, and academic performance information on the learner next to one another; (claim 13) the first to display the at least one second simultaneously and in association with the selected first element with which it is correlated; (claim 14) display a graph illustrating the number of accesses made at intervals of a predetermined period within a specific period of time; (claim 15) display the utilization state of the learning function by the learner simultaneously and in association with the academic performance information on the learner, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of methods of certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) information processing apparatus, hardware processor, first terminal apparatus, second terminal apparatuses, graphical user interface (GUI) elements (claim 9) information processing system (claim 10) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 11) radio button (claim 12) drop-down list. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, claims 1-15 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013/077114A, hereinafter “JP”, over Sniedzins (US 2014/0065596 A1), hereinafter “Sniedzins”.
Regarding Claim 1, JP teaches An information processing apparatus comprising: a hardware processor, wherein; the information processing apparatus is configured to be communicatively connected to (i) a first terminal apparatus configured to be used by an educational instructor or administrator and (ii) a plurality of second terminal apparatuses configured to be used by a plurality of learners, (JP, Abstract, To provide an education support processing technique that contributes to education information. An education support processing system including a learner's terminal used by a learner, a school server that can communicate with the learner's terminal, and a school network that connects the learner terminal; JP, page 22, Each of the above-described configurations, functions, and the like may be realized by software by interpreting and executing a program that realizes each function by the processor. Examiner notes instructors are taught throughout JP, See at least pages 1 and 2, teaching professors, teachers, instructors);
the plurality of second terminal apparatuses are each provided with a plurality of different learning functions including a first learning function and a second learning function that are used by the plurality of learners, (See at least JP, page 5, teaches Class-specific information is specifically class-specific information such as class name, timetable, recommended book list, and contact book. Based on the information for example, it becomes possible to specify the class, or to use information unique to the class.); the plurality of learners are grouped as a first group belonging to a first category correlated with the first learning function and also grouped as a second group belonging to a second category correlated with the second learning function, and (Examiner notes learners in groups is throughout JP, See at least JP, page 11, the name of the group to which the learner belongs, the learner-specific information of each learner belonging to the same group, the assignment information, and the like to the learner terminals);
the hardware processor is configured to: perform an interaction process with the educational instructor or administrator by causing a display of the first terminal apparatus to display a screen for selecting the learning function to be analyzed and, in response to a selected learning function, ... in response to the educational instructor or administrator selecting the first learning function as an analysis target through the first terminal apparatus, cause the first terminal to display, ... to at least one first category article of the first ...unit of analysis, (Selecting data on a display screen is taught throughout JP, see at least JP, page 10, teaches screen selection operation; See JP, page 14, monitor learner-specific information and class-specific information, and transmits the evaluation input; JP, page 16, each situation is analyzed to analyze the learning situation of the learner, for example, items that are good or not good for each subject and their degree, and the analysis result is transmitted); in response to the educational instructor or administrator selecting the second learning function as the analysis target through the first terminal apparatus, cause the first terminal apparatus to display, ... to at least one second category article of the second ... unit of analysis, (Selecting data on a display screen is taught throughout JP, see at least JP, page 10, teaches screen selection operation; See JP, page 14, monitor learner-specific information and class-specific information, and transmits the evaluation input; JP, page 16, each situation is analyzed to analyze the learning situation of the learner, for example, items that are good or not good for each subject and their degree, and the analysis result is transmitted);
control and change, in accordance with a selection of one of the ... that is displayed for further specifying an analysis condition which is correlated with the ... and the learning function selected as the analysis target, (Selecting data on a display screen is taught throughout JP, see at least JP, page 10, teaches screen selection operation; JP, page 14, monitor learner-specific information and class-specific information, and transmits the evaluation input; JP, page 16, each situation is analyzed to analyze the learning situation of the learner, for example, items that are good or not good for each subject and their degree, and the analysis result is transmitted);
derive a utilization state of a learning function by a learner of the plurality of learners, the learning function being the first learning function or the second learning function selected as the analysis target, based on a category article selected from the at least one first category article or the at least one second category article correlated with the learning function selected as the analysis target, and based further on an operation made via the ... , and cause the first terminal apparatus to display the derived utilization state (See at least JP, page 16, each situation is analyzed to analyze the learning situation of the learner, for example, items that are good or not good for each subject and their degree, and the analysis result is transmitted; JP, page 14, monitor learner-specific information and class-specific information, and transmits the evaluation input... The school server updates the learner specific information and the public achievement information, and transmits it to the learner's terminal 10 (S511) and displays the information). Yet, JP does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Sniedzins teaches control and change first graphical user interface (GUI) elements that are displayed for selecting category articles such that, among the first GUI elements, only first GUI elements for selecting category articles that belong to the one of the first category or the second category correlated with the selected learning function are displayed, ... among the first GUI elements, only a first GUI element corresponding ... among the first GUI elements, only a first GUI element corresponding ... category as a selectable ... selected first GUI element ... displayed first GUI elements, at least one second graphical user interface (GUI) element ... displayed at least one second GUI element (See at least Sniedzins, para 0014, teaches allow users to interact with a computer network-based education support system through means of a simplified, easy-to-use user interface; Sniedzins, para 0289, teaches drop down menu and “Click” on the amount of words you need to write in your essay in an Essay Wizard. Examiner notes a drop down menu is a GUI element. Sniedzins, para 0167, teaches “Select Categories” module). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP with control and change first graphical user interface (GUI) elements that are displayed for selecting category articles such that, among the first GUI elements, only first GUI elements for selecting category articles that belong to the one of the first category or the second category correlated with the selected learning function are displayed, ... among the first GUI elements, only a first GUI element corresponding ... among the first GUI elements, only a first GUI element corresponding ... ... category as a selectable ... selected first GUI element ... displayed first GUI elements, at least one second graphical user interface (GUI) element ... displayed at least one second GUI element as taught by Sniedzins with the motivation for providing to a community of users access to a plurality of on-line courses (Sniedzins, para 0021). The JP invention now incorporating the Sniedzins invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first category article includes class, lesson and school, and wherein the at least one second category article includes the class and the lesson (JP, teaches classes throughout, see at least page 5. Further, school is taught throughout JP, see at least JP, Abstract. Further, lesson is taught throughout JP, see at least page 2.)
Regarding Claim 3, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processor is configured to, in response to the selected analysis target being the class, cause the first terminal apparatus to display a plurality of classes in a school to which the educational instructor or administrator belongs such that a class to be analyzed is selectable therefrom, derives the utilization state of the learning function by the learner who belongs to the class selected from the plurality of classes, the learning function being selected as the analysis target, and causes the first terminal apparatus to display the derived utilization state (See at least JP, page 16, each situation is analyzed to analyze the learning situation of the learner, for example, items that are good or not good for each subject and their degree, and the analysis result is transmitted; JP, page 14, monitor learner-specific information and class-specific information, and transmits the evaluation input... The school server updates the learner specific information and the public achievement information, and transmits it to the learner's terminal 10 (S511) and displays the information.)
Regarding Claim 4, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein as to the class of the first category and the second category, one class is set for each of the plurality of learners, wherein as to the lesson of the first category and the second category, a plurality of lessons are set for each of the plurality of learners, and wherein as to the school of the first category, one school is set for each of the plurality of learners (See at least JP, Abstract, teaches a school server that can communicate with the learner's terminal; See at least JP, page 8 information for learners is information relating to the timetable of lessons that the learner using the learner's terminal 10 should receive.)
Regarding Claim 5, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first learning function includes an electronic label function and a notebook function (See at least JP, page 9, teaches notebook data; JP, page 5, teaches the note data is electronic information in which a product created by a learner is recorded or information for specifying the same (both may be included), for example, self-made document data, title, instructor name, and more).
Regarding Claim 6, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Yet, JP does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Sniedzins teaches wherein the second learning function includes an electronic dictionary function (See at least Sniedzins, para 0043, teaching the student may click on an electronic dictionary menu item to look up a word in the electronic dictionary). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP with wherein the second learning function includes an electronic dictionary function as taught by Sniedzins with the motivation for providing to a community of users access to a plurality of on-line courses (Sniedzins, para 0021).
Regarding Claim 7, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is configured to, in response to the educational instructor or administrator selecting a number of accesses as the analysis target through the first terminal apparatus, cause the first terminal apparatus to display the number of accesses to the plurality of different learning functions in a school to which the educational instructor or administrator belongs (See at least JP, page 8, the instructor terminal, and when the instructor performs a power-on operation of the instructor terminal in the staff room, for example, in the staff room (S210), the instructor terminal The timetable information request is transmitted to the school server by connecting to the network 22 (S211). ...The timetable information for the instructor is the class start time, end time, subject name, class name in charge, ID for identifying the textbook used in the class, which the instructor using the instructor terminal should carry out, It includes information indicating ... server address information (URL, folder name, etc.) used in the class. Further, JP, page 14, monitor learner-specific information and ... transmits and displays the information.)
Regarding Claim 8, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is configured to cause the first terminal apparatus to display the utilization state of the learning function by the learner, the learning function being selected as the analysis target, and academic performance information on the learner next to one another (JP, page 16, each situation is analyzed to analyze the learning situation of the learner, for example, items that are good or not good for each subject and their degree, and the analysis result is transmitted; JP, page 14, monitor learner-specific information and class-specific information; JP, page 16, the learner's performance information is registered. Similarly, the grade information is registered).
Regarding Claim 9, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches An information processing system comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1; the first terminal apparatus, which is configured to be communicatively connected to the information processing apparatus; and the plurality of second terminal apparatuses configured to be communicatively connected to the information processing apparatus (See at least JP, Abstract, teaches an education support processing system including a learner's terminal used by a learner, a school server that can communicate with the learner's terminal, and a school network that connects the learner terminal; Further, network is taught throughout JP, See at least JP, page 2, teaches a WAN (Wide Area Network) such as a WAN (Wide Area Network) using an Internet protocol or the like or a WiMAX (World Wide Internet Access) network).
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is an obvious variant to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 10 recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, See at least JP, page 18, teaches a medium such as a CD-ROM (a non-transitory medium).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP and Sniedzins, and over Gal et al. (US 2011/0065082 A1), hereinafter “Gal”.
Regarding Claim 11, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Yet, JP and Sniedzins do not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Gal teaches wherein the first GUI elements each comprise a radio button (See at least Gal, Abstract, teaches device, system, and method of educational content generation. Gal, para 0503, teaches elements can include Radio Buttons). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP and Sniedzins with wherein the first GUI elements each comprise a radio button as taught by Gal with the motivation for generating digital educational content (Gal, Abstract). The JP and Sniedzins invention now incorporating the Gal invention, has all the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins and Gal, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the second GUI element comprises a drop-down list (Sniedzins, para 0289, teaches a drop-down menu).
Regarding Claim 13, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins and Gal, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the at least one hardware processor is configured to cause the first terminal apparatus to display the at least one second GUI simultaneously and in association with the selected first GUI element with which it is correlated (Gal, para 0346, teaches selecting a screen layout; Gal, para 0411, teaches elements to be displayed at once, side by side on a screen).
Regarding Claim 14, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 7.
Yet, JP and Sniedzins do not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Gal teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to cause the first terminal apparatus to display a graph illustrating the number of accesses made at intervals of a predetermined period within a specific period of time (See at least Gal, Abstract, teaches device, system, and method of educational content generation; Gal, para 0527, teaches presentation of different information types including graphs; Gal, para 0304, knowledge map engine may use graphical models to build a model of the knowledge map of the student and may update over time as information about more activities by the student becomes available; Further, Gal, para 0260, teaches successfully completed first learning object within a pre-defined time period associated with the first learning object... completed the second learning object within a time period longer than the required time period.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP and Sniedzins with wherein the hardware processor is configured to cause the first terminal apparatus to display a graph illustrating the number of accesses made at intervals of a predetermined period within a specific period of time as taught by Gal with the motivation for generating digital educational content (Gal, Abstract). The JP and Sniedzins invention now incorporating the Gal invention, has all the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, JP, now incorporating Sniedzins, teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 8.
Yet, JP and Sniedzins do not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Gal teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to cause the first terminal apparatus to display the utilization state of the learning function by the learner simultaneously and in association with the academic performance information on the learner (See at least Gal, Abstract, teaches device, system, and method of educational content generation; Gal, para 0527, teaches presentation of different information types including graphs; Gal, para 0293, view of data from of the students' record of performance; Further, Gal teaches student reports, see at least para 0260, teaches system may determine and report that at least 80 percent of the students in the first group successfully completed at least 75 percent of their allocated learning activity, or that at least 50 percent of the students in the second group failed to correctly answer at least 30 percent of questions allocated to them. Other types of determinations and reports may be used.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP and Sniedzins with wherein the hardware processor is configured to cause the first terminal apparatus to display a graph illustrating the number of accesses made at intervals of a predetermined period within a specific period of time as taught by Gal with the motivation for generating digital educational content (Gal, Abstract). The JP and Sniedzins invention now incorporating the Gal invention, has all the limitations of claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.5.C. § 101 rejections: Examiner has updated the 101 rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to Applicants remarks that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claims are directed to at least the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity as explained in the above 101 analysis.
With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the computing elements (information processing apparatus, processor, terminal apparatuses, graphical user interface (GUI) (claim 9) information processing system (claim 10) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 11) radio button (claim 12) drop-down list) are additional elements to perform the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These components are described in the specification at a high level of generality. Examiner fails to see how the generic recitations of these most basic computer components and/or of a system so integrates the judicial exception as to “impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Thus, Examiner finds that the claims recite the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity and is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Applicants remarks (remarks page 11): “GUI elements achieve technological improvements in the field of art to which claim 1 pertains (e.g., networked educational terminal devices) and to computer technology in general”; (remarks page 12): “provides an improved GUI”; (remarks page 13): “the features recited in amended claim 1 achieve specific technological improvements”. Examiner respectfully does not find these remarks persuasive because Applicant does not explain how or why any claim limitations recite specific improvements, Applicant only makes the assertion. As such, Examiner finds Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patent eligible invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims reflect a practical application (e.g., how the claims reflect an improvement). With respect to Applicant’s remarks (page 13): “it is possible to prevent the user from selecting an inappropriate condition by mistake, and to avoid displaying unnecessary GUI elements that are unrelated to the selected learning function, thereby making more efficient use of the capabilities of the hardware processor and reducing processor burden and/or required processing capacity” and “(e.g., avoidance of erroneous user input, and a reduced processor burden/necessary processor capacity)”. Examiner respectfully does not find these remarks persuasive as for example “avoidance of erroneous user input” and “reduced processor burden” is not claimed nor in Applicant’s specification. Further, Examiner notes the computing elements are being used for what they are known for - computers make processing data faster and more efficient and is considered to be mere instructions to carry out the abstract idea and mere field of use and technical environment as outlined in MPEP 2106.05. With respect to the user interface, Examiner has reviewed Applicants specification and has not found a unique user interface, rather, the user interface is a broadly claimed, generic user interface which does not bring about some benefit to the use of a computing device, nor does it demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field. Therefore Applicants arguments are found unpersuasive. Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, the claims do not affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer(s). Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. Examiner has updated the rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments with the JP and Sniedzins references and with newly added Gal reference.
With respect to Applicants remarks that the prior art does not teach the limitations, Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to Applicants remarks on Yonemitsu (page 16): “In particular, it is respectfully submitted that Yonemitsu does not teach or suggesting performing GUI control in which display of unit-of-analysis options is switched ON/OFF depending on which learning function is selected.
Yonemitsu is also silent as to (i) a display screen for selecting different learning functions (e.g., label/notebook vs. dictionary), (ii) each learning function having its own valid list of category articles corresponding to units of analysis, and (iii) controlling display of GUI elements for category article selection in such a way as to suppress display of category articles which do not belong to the category correlated with the selected learning function.” Examiner respectfully does not find these remarks persuasive as Applicant argues limitations that are not claimed, for example: “unit-of-analysis options is switched ON/OFF” and “selection in such a way as to suppress display“.
With respect to Applicants remarks on Sniedzins (page 16): “performing dynamic control to allow/suppress certain GUI options”, Examiner again notes these limitations are not claimed.
Further, with respect to Applicants remarks (page 17) on a “two-tier selection/display configuration”, Examiner does not find these remarks persuasive as both references teach displays of educational content and different variations of displays are certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner has updated and maintains the 103 rejections for all claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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 filed 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626