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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed 08/29/2024 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 37 CFR 1.78 for a continuing application, which claims priority to U.S. Application 17/170,083 dated 2/08/2021 (Patent No. 12,119,105).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2024 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been fully considered by the Examiner.
Note: 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.
The claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the statutory categories (i.e., method, non-transitory memory, or device) for user comprehension of content (subject matter eligibility analysis Step 1 = Yes). The independent claims recite “displaying, on the display, a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a first selectable tile that represents a first media content item and a second selectable tile that represents a second media content item; detecting a user input selecting the first selectable tile that represents the first media content item; and in response to detecting the user input selecting the first selectable tile that represents the first media content item, displaying a progress indicator that includes: a first portion with a first visual characteristic that corresponds to a current comprehension score indicating how well a person understands a topic covered by the first media content item; and a second portion with a second visual characteristic indicating a target comprehension score that the person is expected to have upon viewing content of the first media content item” (claim 1 being representative). The independent claims 1, 8 and 15 (and their dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20) are removed from reciting an abstract idea because the claims, as currently drafted, define the graphical user interface and its use (subject matter eligibility analysis step 2A1 = No). Thus, the claims qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan (US 2017/0178525 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Kwan teaches a method comprising:
at a device including a non-transitory memory, a display and a processor coupled with the non-transitory memory and the display ([0006], [0027], [0055] teach a student client device 102 includes one or more processors and one or more memories storing computer-readable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, display a plurality of user interface (UI) elements, e.g., on a display screen (see [0042]).):
displaying, on the display, a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a first selectable tile that represents a first media content item and a second selectable tile that represents a second media content item (Fig. 3 shows a GUI. [0044] teaches UI information elements 344-348 that may provide information on items in the current lesson… the UI elements 344-348 may include further information… for example, icons 345a-347a may include video play buttons and may indicate that the corresponding items are lecture segments (media content items). See also [0041], “lecture video item”. [0045] teaches UI elements 344-348 (selectable tiles) may include activable navigation elements that can be activated to navigate to the respective item views in the lesson. Applicant's disclosure at para. 0027-0028 refers to the recited "tiles" as "representations 26".);
detecting a user input selecting the first selectable tile that represents the first media content item (e.g., 345); and […] detecting the user input selecting the first selectable tile that represents the first media content item (Fig. 6, [0045] teach the UI elements 344-348 (selectable tiles) may include activable navigation elements that can be activated (selected) to navigate to the respective item views in the lesson… in a single click operation on an icon (necessarily detected).),
displaying a progress indicator that includes: a first portion with a first visual characteristic (filled in / contrast color) that corresponds to a current comprehension score indicating how well a person understands a topic covered by the first media content item (My Score 11/14); and a second portion with a second visual characteristic (unfilled / background color or the total line being filled in) indicating a target comprehension score that the person is expected to have upon viewing content of the first media content item (My Score 11/14) (Fig. 3, [0044]-[0045] teach UI element 348 may be a quiz item and may include activable navigation elements that can be activated to navigate to the respective item view in the lesson. Fig. 5, [0050] teach the quiz item view may include a progress bar 530.)
Kwan does not explicitly teach the cause-and-effect relationship of in response to detecting… displaying a progress indicator.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the noted features (e.g., displaying a progress bar) of Kwan with teachings thereof, since the combination is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rational A). It can be seen that each element claimed is present in Kwan. Providing user interface elements (as taught by Kwan) does not change or affect the normal display-related functionality of the client device of Kwan. Displaying video-related information on a client device would be performed the same way (i.e., selecting the first selectable tile that represents the first media content item) even with the addition of quiz information to the item view. Since the functionalities of the elements in Kwan do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Re. Claim 2, Kwan teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying an expanded view of the first selectable tile in response to detecting the user input selecting the first selectable tile and displaying the progress indicator within the expanded view of the first selectable tile (see claim 1 prior art rejection. Figs. 6, [0045] teach the UI element 345 (the first selectable tile) may include an activable navigation element that can be activated to navigate to the respective item view (expanded view) in the lesson… in a single click operation on an icon by the student (necessarily detected). Fig. 5, [0050] further teach an item view including the progress bar. Further, Fig. 3, [0042] teach co-display of information in the current item view.)
Re. Claim 3, Kwan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the content includes a combination of video content, textual content (see Fig. 5), audio content and graphics ([0031], [0041]-[0042], [0044] teach a lecture video item 310 for an audio-visual lecture segment as shown in Fig. 3 (video content, audio content, and graphics). [0050] teaches quiz information as shown in Fig. 5 (textual content and graphics).)
Re. Claim 4, Kwan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the progress indicator has a geometric shape (the progress bar 530); wherein the first portion with the first visual characteristic corresponds to the geometric shape having a filled portion (filled in / contrast color); and wherein the second portion with the second visual characteristic corresponds to the geometric shape having an unfilled portion (unfilled / background color) (see claim 1 prior art rejection. Fig. 5, [0050] teach an item view, e.g., the quiz item view, may include a progress bar.)
Re. Claim 5, Kwan teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying a numerical value (11/14) that indicates a difference between the current comprehension score (11) and the target comprehension score (14) (Fig. 5, [0050] teach display of information about the student’s progress including a student score for a completed quiz, e.g., the number of correct answers to the 14 questions.)
Re. Claim 6, Kwan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the user input selecting the first selectable tile comprises detecting a contact of a location corresponding to the first selectable tile (Fig. 3, [0045] teach UI element 347 has corresponding UI elements 347a and 347b (corresponding to the first selectable tile)… a student may click on icon 347a in current item view 300 (necessarily detected) to navigate to item 347 (e.g. item Lecture segment "Mechanical Balance").)
Re. Claim 8, the subject matter of claim 8 is essentially defined in terms of a manufacture, which is technically corresponding to method claim 1. Since claim 8 is analogous to claim 1, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 1.
Re. Claim 9, the subject matter of claim 9 is essentially defined in terms of a manufacture, which is technically corresponding to method claim 2. Since claim 9 is analogous to claim 2, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 2.
Re. Claim 10, Kwan teaches the non-transitory memory of claim 8, wherein the content includes a video and the one or more programs further cause the device to display the video and a play button for playing the video (see claim 1 prior art rejection. Fig. 3, [0041] teach an example web page or item view 300 of an online education course in which UI elements of navigation system 350 are incorporated. Item view 300 may include, for example, a lecture video item 310, which the student can listen to or watch by activating a play button 320. The Examiner notes that “playing the video” is an intended result of “displaying…”, which is not required for the claim to be met.)
Re. Claim 11, Kwan teaches the non-transitory memory of claim 8, wherein the progress indicator has a rectangular shape (the progress bar 530); wherein the first portion with the first visual characteristic corresponds to the rectangular shape having a filled portion (filled in / contrast color); and wherein the second portion with the second visual characteristic corresponds to the rectangular shape having an unfilled portion (unfilled / background color) (see claims 1 and 4 prior art rejections. Fig. 5, [0050] teach an item view, e.g., the quiz item view, may include a progress bar.)
Re. Claim 12, Kwan teaches the non-transitory memory of claim 8, wherein the one or more programs further cause the device to display a text string that is selected based on the current comprehension score (“My Score 11/14”, necessarily selected for display) (Fig. 5, [0050] teach an item view may include the item “Quiz: What is learning” (e.g., item 510)… item 510 may include a progress bar showing student’s progress (e.g., the number of correct answers to the 14 questions) in the completed quiz.)
Re. Claim 13, Kwan teaches the non-transitory memory of claim 8, wherein the one or more programs further cause the device to obtain the first media content item and the second media content item from a content recommendation engine (see claim 1 prior art rejection. Fig. 1 and [0003], [0027] teach the client device may receive the online education course content from an online education platform 104 (content recommendation engine). See also [0028], “server instances 112”.)
Re. Claim 14, Kwan teaches the non-transitory memory of claim 8, wherein the first portion with the first visual characteristic has a first color (a contrasting color) and the second portion with the second visual characteristic has a second color (a background color) (see claim 1 prior art rejection. The Examiner notes that the visual characteristics, e.g., colors, are non-functional descriptive information.)
Further, this limitation is a matter of design choice. Design choice applies when old elements in the prior art perform the same function as the now claimed structures. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art”). Displaying different information in different colors is considered an obvious design choice when faced with the problem of creating a visual distinction between different items of data. Moreover, such highlighting is purely based on the preferences of the user and is not a technical feature. As stated above, the limitation claims colors that constitute non-functional descriptive information.
Re. Claim 15, the subject matter of claim 15 is essentially defined in terms of a machine, which is technically corresponding to method claim 1. Since claim 15 is analogous to claim 1, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 1.
Re. Claim 16, the subject matter of claim 16 is essentially defined in terms of a machine, which is technically corresponding to manufacture claim 10. Since claim 16 is analogous to claim 10, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 10.
Re. Claim 17, Kwan teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the progress indicator includes a progress bar (progress bar 530); wherein the first portion with the first visual characteristic corresponds to the rectangular shape having a filled portion (filled in / contrast color); and wherein the second portion with the second visual characteristic corresponds to the rectangular shape having an unfilled portion (unfilled / background color) (see claims 1, 4 and 11 prior art rejections. Fig. 5, [0050] teach an item view, e.g., the quiz item view, may include a progress bar.)
Re. Claim 18, the subject matter of claim 18 is essentially defined in terms of a machine, which is technically corresponding to manufacture claim 12. Since claim 18 is analogous to claim 12, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 12.
Re. Claim 20, the subject matter of claim 20 is essentially defined in terms of a machine, which is technically corresponding to manufacture claim 14. Since claim 20 is analogous to claim 14, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan in view of Reddick et al. (US 2020/0342777 A1; “Reddick” herein).
Re. Claim 7, Kwan teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the GUI when the current comprehension score is less than […] (Fig. 5, [0050] teach displaying information including an activable navigation element 550 that the student can activate to navigate to the quiz item again (displaying the GUI) and retake the quiz. The Examiner interprets the retake element 550 as activated, since the current number of correct answers is 11 and the total possible is 14.)
Kwan may not teach a threshold.
Reddick teaches
a threshold ([0039] teach implementing a rating system… A learner may 'win' a match by receiving a threshold grade (e.g., a passing grade) on the assessment, while the assessment may be considered to 'win' the match when the learner does not receive at least a threshold grade (e.g., fails the assessment). See also [0067].)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the online education course navigation system of Kwan to navigate to and display the quiz item again based on the student’s quiz score by implementing a rating system as taught by Reddick (see para. 0039 and 0067), with the motivation of improving online learning systems (see Reddick at Abstract and para. 0002-0005).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan in view of Singh (US 2018/0108268 A1).
Re. Claim 19, Kwan teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the one or more programs further cause the device to receive the first media content item and the second media content item from a content recommendation engine […] (see claim 1 prior art rejection. Fig. 1 and [0003], [0027] teach the client device may receive the online education course content from an online education platform 104 (content recommendation engine). See also [0028], “server instances 112”.)
Kwan does not teach in response to the current comprehension score being below a threshold.
Singh teaches
receive the first media content item and the second media content item from a content recommendation engine in response to the current comprehension score being below a threshold (Figs. 40, [0067], [0254] teach a student failed to achieve the passing grade on the assessment (the current comprehension score being below a threshold). Fig. 23, [0043], [0129], [0188], [0190] teach creating and providing review courses based on the performance data obtained through assessments. See also Fig. 43, [0202]-[0203],[0257]. [0161] teaches the support is provided by the system 100 using the analytics engine.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the online education course navigation system of Kwan to create and provide adapted content to the student through recommendations and review courses based on the student’s assessment outcome(s) (e.g., an assessment score) and to use this information as part of systems and methods for providing tailored education materials as taught by Singh (see para. 0129, 0146), with the motivation of improving computer-implemented learning (see Singh at para. 0002-0005 and 0146).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ngiam et al. (US 2014/0315178 A1) for teaching group formation and notification in an on-line course system. See Figs. 2-4, 7 and para. 0026.
Samuelson et al. (US 2018/0174476 A1) for teaching user generated content within an online education platform. See Fig. 3A, “review related material”; Fig. 3C performance data 112; para. 0017 (“the learners can also be prompted to practice the questions… if they are struggling in the course”); and para. 0019 (“store the grade for the attempt… tie a question to a skill or module”).
Rasi (US 2019/0079964 A1) for teaching dynamic state tracking with query serving in an online content platform. See Fig. 5 and para. 0070-0071.
Chen et al. (US 2019/0220547 A1) for teaching content discovery using a skills graph. See Figs. 3B, 5.
Cummings et al. (US 2021/0225198 A1) for teaching method and system for adaptive language learning. See Fig. 8-15 and para. 0074 (“create a new quiz based on the words that [were] missed on the initial attempt in the quiz… by clicking the… button 1605”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica M Webb whose telephone number is (469)295-9173. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-1:00pm CST.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683