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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Remark 1: Applicant contends that the claims do not merely use a generic computer to organize teaching activity. Rather, the claims recite a specific closed-loop data-processing mechanism that determines how subsequent adaptive content is generated by the system. Specifically, the amended claims require operations that are not practically performable in the human mind. In particular, the claims require automatically collecting interaction data, maintaining historical learning data, processing the user profile with trained machine-learning models, predicting an optimal learning sequence, generating adaptive content using natural-language-processing models according to the predicted learning sequence and difficulty level, and propagating user feedback in real time to update the user profile, update the predicted sequence, and adjust the difficulty level for subsequent content generation. These limitations are not merely pedagogical concepts. They define how computer subsystems exchange and process data in a closed feedback loop to control subsequent system outputs. The focus of the claims is therefore on a particular machine-implemented adaptive content-generation process, not on the abstract idea of teaching or organizing human activity.
Response to Remark 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas was not relied upon in the rejection. Second, Applicant's argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the additional elements discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two.
Remark 2: Applicant contends that the claims impose meaningful limits on how the alleged abstract idea is implemented. The claims do not merely link education to a computer environment. Instead, they define a particular closed-loop computer implementation for adaptively controlling generated educational content based on real-time data and model-based prediction.
Response to Remark 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the additional elements individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Remark 3: Applicant contends that this ordered combination is not the same as simply storing educational materials, updating content, or presenting personalized instruction. It is a particular real-time feedback architecture for controlling AI-generated educational content. The claimed combination therefore provides an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
Response to Remark 3: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the abstract idea discussed in Step 2A, Prong One and thus do not provide an inventive concept.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-10 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 11-20 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1 and 11 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including teaching. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for providing individualized and interactive remote education, executed by a processing unit comprising at least one processor and memory storing executable instructions, the method comprising the steps of:
storing, in an educational material database, educational materials and links to remote databases and/or library resources;
updating, by a teacher subsystem connected to the educational material database, the educational materials using machine-learning-driven analytics configured to identify performance gaps across a plurality of users based on real-time engagement metrics;
maintaining, by a student subsystem, for each user, a user profile comprising automatically collected interaction data and historical learning data;
generating, by an assessment subsystem, an individualized learning program for each user by applying trained machine-learning models to predict an optimal learning sequence based on the user profile, wherein the optimal learning sequence is predicted based on at least the automatically collected interaction data, the historical learning data, learning progress of the user, and assessment outcomes of the user;
autonomously producing, by a generative artificial-intelligence (AI) module, adaptive content using natural-language-processing models according to the predicted optimal learning sequence and a current difficulty level of the individualized learning program; and
propagating user feedback to the assessment subsystem in real time to update the user profile, update the predicted learning sequence, and adjust the current difficulty level used by the generative AI module for subsequent adaptive content generation.
Claim 11:
A computer-implemented system for providing individualized and interactive remote education, comprising:
an educational material database configured to store educational materials and links to remote databases and/or library resources;
a teacher subsystem, operatively connected to the educational material database, configured to update the educational materials using machine-learning-driven analytics configured to identify performance gaps across a plurality of users based on real-time engagement metrics;
a student subsystem, operatively connected to the educational material database, configured to automatically maintain, for each user, a user profile comprising automatically collected interaction data and historical learning data;
an assessment subsystem, operatively connected to the teacher subsystem and the student subsystem, configured to generate an individualized learning program for each user by applying trained machine-learning models to predict an optimal learning sequence based on the user profile, wherein the optimal learning sequence is predicted based on at least the automatically collected interaction data, the historical learning data, learning progress of the user, and assessment outcomes of the user; and
a generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, operatively connected to the educational material database, the teacher subsystem, the student subsystem, and the assessment subsystem, configured to autonomously produce adaptive content using natural-language-processing models according to the predicted optimal learning sequence and a current difficulty level of the individualized learning program, and to propagate user feedback to the assessment subsystem in real time to update the user profile, update the predicted optimal learning sequence, and adjust the current difficulty level used by the generative AI module for subsequent adaptive content generation.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0014, 0034, 0047, 0048). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the user profile comprises academic profile, learning preferences, and historical engagement metrics of the user.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the user profile comprises learning styles, preferences, and objectives of the user, and the autonomously produced content is adjusted accordingly by the generative AI module.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the user profile comprises a dynamically updated record of a learning progress of the individualized learning program for the user to accomplish, with the learning progress being tracked and accessible.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the autonomously produced content is generated by Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the educational materials are dynamically uploaded and modified via machine learning-driven analytics, facilitating real-time engagement and personalized interventions with the user.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the generative AI module provides immediate access to a curated and diverse array of educational resources, and delivers AI-driven, real-time feedback based on interactions and performance metrics of the user.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the educational material database is deployable in both on-premise and cloud-based environments, offering enhanced content management and distribution flexibility.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the educational materials comprise textbooks, videos, and quizzes.
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein difficulty of the individualized learning program is adjusted dynamically based on the user feedback.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the user profile comprises academic profile, learning preferences, and historical engagement metrics of the user.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the user profile comprises learning styles, preferences, and objectives of the user, and the autonomously produced content is adjusted accordingly by the generative AI module.
Claim 14 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the user profile comprises a dynamically updated record of a learning progress of the individualized learning program generated by the assessment subsystem for the user to accomplish, with the learning progress being tracked by the assessment subsystem and accessible to the teacher subsystem.
Claim 15 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the autonomously produced content is generated by Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the teacher subsystem is equipped with machine learning-driven analytics that enables the dynamic upload and modification of the educational materials while facilitating real-time engagement and personalized interventions with the user.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the student subsystem provides immediate access to a curated and diverse array of educational resources via the educational material database, and delivers AI-driven, real-time feedback based on interactions and performance metrics of the user via the generative AI module.
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the educational material database is deployable in both on-premise and cloud-based environments, offering enhanced content management and distribution flexibility.
Claim 19 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the educational materials comprise textbooks, videos, and quizzes.
Claim 20 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes storing, updating, and personalizing educational materials based on user profiles and feedback, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein difficulty of the individualized learning program is adjusted dynamically based on the user feedback.
Claims Free of Art
The closest prior art of record is US 2025/0029511 A1 by Cronan (hereinafter “Cronan”). Cronan teaches:
storing, in an educational material database, educational materials and links to remote databases and/or library resources; (para 0034)
updating, by a teacher subsystem connected to the educational material database, the educational materials using machine-learning-driven analytics configured to identify performance gaps across a plurality of users based on real-time engagement metrics; (Fig.2; paras 0033-0050)
maintaining, by a student subsystem, for each user, a user profile comprising automatically collected interaction data and historical learning data; (Fig.2; paras 0033-0050)
generating, by an assessment subsystem, an individualized learning program for each user by applying trained machine-learning models to predict an optimal learning sequence based on user profiles, wherein the optimal learning sequence is predicted based on at least the automatically collected interaction data, the historical learning data, learning progress of the user, and assessment outcomes of the user (Fig.2; paras 0033-0050)
propagating user feedback to the assessment subsystem in real time to update the user profile, update the predicted optimal learning sequence, and adjust the current difficulty level used by the generative AI module for subsequent adaptive content generation (0017, 0029, 0031, 0044, 0046-0049, 0056-0057, 0070, 0087)
Therefore, the prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following:
autonomously producing, by a generative artificial-intelligence (AI) module, adaptive content using natural-language-processing models according to the predicted optimal learning sequence and a current difficulty level of the individualized learning program; and
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0167797 A1 to Boerner et al. discloses: System and method for user engagement are provided. The methods may include receiving at one or more computing devices information about a user obtained at a point of interaction; generating using the one or more computing devices, based at least in part on the information, an individualized curriculum of engagement for the user; and delivering using the one or more computing devices the individualized curriculum of engagement to the user. The system may include an input computing device receiving information about a user at a point of interaction and sending the information to one or more servers; the one or more servers generating, based at least in part on the information, an individualized curriculum of engagement for the user and sending the individualized curriculum of engagement to a user computing device; and the user computing device receiving the individualized curriculum of engagement from the one or more servers.
US 2024/0370958 A1 to McGhee et al. discloses: A computer-implemented method is designed to personalize educational content to a user's unique learning style utilizing personalized feedback using an algorithm that creates a learning pathway for each user. The algorithm utilizes information such as a user's preferred learning style, previous answers, and time spent on questions and lessons to adjust the user's learning pathway and to provide real-time feedback to the user.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights