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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/25/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, are pending.
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, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method (claims 1, 3, 4, 7) and a system (claims 8, 10, 11, 14); therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of crowdsourcing for a project, such as when one is fundraising for a given cause (fundraising fees disclosed in paragraph 028 of the specification, or when one is crowdsourcing the development of an idea or other task. This is found to be claiming a certain method of organizing human activities as will be explained below.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claim 8, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving project information about a [the] non-monetary project from one or more streams comprising LMS and employer streams, wherein the project information comprises information relating to a plurality of course streams;
determining a plurality of crowd source targets based on the project information;
wherein the crowd source targets comprise other users that have taken at least one of the plurality of course streams via the LMS and employers related to the plurality of course streams;
ranking the plurality of crowd source targets based on the project information;
wherein the ranking is based on student feedback and associated marks for the course streams and employer feedback with respect to the plurality of course streams;
contacting the plurality of crowd source targets in relation to the non-monetary project based on the ranking; wherein the contacting comprises providing immediately selectable specific options for responding in relation to the plurality of course streams,
monitoring responses from the plurality of crowd source targets and aggregating responses;
providing a user with a ranking of the plurality of course streams based on the aggregated responses and based on the user's skills; and
monitoring the one or more streams and plurality of crowdsource targets for feedback relating to the non-monetary project, wherein the feedback is other than the response and can be used for future crowd sourcing projects
The above limitations are reciting a process of crowdsourcing for a project that is described as being “non-monetary”. Crowdsourcing is the act of using the services of a large number of people to do something, such as to provide information or provide services or provide opinions, or to provide for fundraising, etc.. As is recognized in the specification in paragraphs 002-004, crowdsourcing is known in many different situations (different intended uses) and is an efficient way to employ a large number of people to help with information gathering or raising funds, etc.. Crowdsourcing by definition a human activity that is employing “the crowd” to work on an issue or solve a problem or provide information, etc. ( just as examples). For this reason the claims are considered to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities. Crowdsourcing a project by contacting and obtaining responses and feedback from other users (human beings), whether it be for fundraising or to assist a user in providing data about educational requirements (where the education itself requires fees as the specification teaches in paragraph 028) defines a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. People can perform the recited steps where a person receives project information on paper. A person can then determine crowd source targets based on the project information such as by identifying other users that have taken a plurality of course streams. People can then rank the crowd source targets, including by mentally ranking them or with the use of pen and paper. A person can contact another user by calling them or talking to them in person, and can provide options for a user to respond to (select). People can providing a ranking as claimed using paper and can monitor streams manually for feedback. The claimed functions are capable of being performed by people manually with no technology at all.
For claim 1, the additional elements of the claim are the recitation to a learning management system (LMS). This claim element has been interpreted to be a computer or electronic system of some kind that is being used to receive the project information. The only step of the method that is using the management system is for the receipt of the project information. All of the other recited steps are so broadly recited that they can be performed by people per the claim scope that does not exclude such a situation.
For claim 8, the additional elements claimed is considered to be the recitation to the learning management system that includes a memory for storing instructions, a processor configured to execute the instructions, the recitation to an input module connected to the management system, and a crowdsource module (both provided by the processor).
For claims 1, 8, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a system that comprises a processor and memory (with modules) that is merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited learning management system, or with a learning management system that comprises a processor and memory and the use of modules to perform step(s) that are considered to define the abstract idea. The learning management system is broadly claimed and even when it is recited as having a memory and processor to perform the recited functions, that is still claiming nothing more than computer implementation for the abstract idea. The claimed modules equate to software routines or software programs that are executed by the processor and that are performing the step(s) that define the abstract idea. These elements do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer that is a link to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a learning management system that can comprise a processor and memory that is merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device (learning management system) with a processor and memory and the use of modules to perform steps that are considered to be defining the abstract idea. As stated for the 2nd prong, the claimed modules equate to software routines or programs that are executing the step(s) that is/are defining the abstract idea. These elements do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer that is a link to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h).
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1 and 8 do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 3, 4, 10, 11, the claimed aggregation of information and the analyzing of information to determine the targets are both elements that are further defining the same abstract idea of claims 1, 8. These broadly recited steps can be performed by people manually and are considered to be part of the abstract idea. The claims do recite the additional elements of the use of an AI tool to aggregate the information and/or analyze the information. The use of an AI tool (requires a computer to execute AI) is taken as a general link to the use of a computer that uses AI to perform step(s) that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a general link to the field of AI for execution of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f),(h). This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7, 14, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claims 1, 8. Providing pre-requisites for course learning, are all elements that serve to further define the abstract idea of claims 1, 8. These steps are broadly recited such that they can be performed by people. The claims do not recite any further additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B other than what has been addressed for claims 1, 8. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 6 of the reply the applicant summarizes USPTO guidance for claim eligibility and argues that the claims relate to a specific type of non-monetary project that uses crowd sourcing to assist a user in deciding on a course steam to take. The applicant alleges that this results in an improvement to a learning management system in a novel and non-obvious way. As for this argument, it is not persuasive. The argument is more or less generally alleging that the abstract idea improves technology, when the result of the claim is just a ranking that is provided to a user for their consideration. This is not improving the operation or functioning of a learning management system or any technology.
As for the argument that the claims are eligible in part due to novelty or non-obviousness of the claimed invention, this is not the test for claim eligibility. In buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court stated that:
"abstract ideas, no matter how groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, are outside what the statute means by "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", and reference is made to Myriad by the court for this position. Also stated in buySAFE is "In defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303. The Court in Mayo rejected the contention that the very narrow scope of the natural law at issue was a reason to find patent eligibility, explaining the point with reference to both natural laws and one kind of abstract idea, namely, mathematical concepts.
From SAP AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. INVESTPIC, LLC:
“We affirm. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”
On page 6, the applicant argues that the claims recite the use of employer information that is external to the LMS and that involves solving the technical problem of establishing information streams connecting with employers and categorizing employer information in a way that can assist with the ranking of the streams. The examiner notes that the claims do not recite what has been argued, so the argument is not commensurate with the actual claim scope. The claims do not recite employer information external to the LMS and do not claim anything technical about how the claimed streams are being established. Upon a review of the claims, it is noted that they do not even recite the establishment of streams as has been argued. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 7 of the reply that having a ranking that is specific to the user is an improvement to technology. This is not persuasive. The ranking itself and providing the ranking to the user is part of the abstract idea and does not result in any technology being improved. The applicant just alleges an improvement to technology with no supporting explanation of what the improvement is and how it is a result of providing a ranking to a user, that itself can be provided on paper. Just because the ranking might be useful to a human being who is viewing the ranking does not mean that the result is an improvement to technology. As argued, the providing of the ranking to give insight into the effectiveness of the non-monetary project is something that is a result of the abstract idea and that has nothing to do with improving technology. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 7 the applicant argues that the claims include specific solutions to both gathering information and using the information in a practical way to product a ranking, with citation of the claim lanague on pages 7-8. This is not persuasive. With respect to a specific solution to gather information that is in the claims, all that is claimed is receiving information via a stream. That is far from claiming a solution to gathering information. Is the examiner really expected to find it persuasive that the solution that defines an inventive concept that renders the claims eligible is gathering information by receiving information? That is not persuasive. As to the manner in which the ranking is produced, that aspect of the claimed invention is part of the abstract idea and does not render the claims eligible. All that is claimed is that the ranking based on information, which is how all ranking is accomplished. How is that an inventive concept that renders the claims eligible? That is not persuasive.
On page 8 the applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than organizing human activity. The applicant argues that the specifics of course streams (not claimed), gathering of information on the course steams from internal and outside sources (not claimed), an immediate response option (does not appear to be claimed), render the claims eligible. These argument are not based on the actual claim language and are not persuasive for that reason. The receipt of information, ranking, obtaining feedback, are also noted as being the elements that serve to define the abstract idea of the claims and is not rendering the claims as non-abstract.
The applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application on page 8 of the reply. The applicant argues that this is because the claims apply the argued concepts (that are mostly not commensurate with the actual claim scope) in a different way from convention crown sourcing. This is not persuasive because the “different way” is not a consideration for eligibility under 35 USC 101. The 101 inquiry is not based on prior art so the fact that a given limitation or claimed invention in total is not done in the same way does not equate to eligibility, with a math equation being prime example. The claims do not result in the LMS being improved or caused to function in a different way that improves technology. The claims are simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea using a computer, which does not render the claims eligible.
The arguments in view of the prior art and the amended claims is persuasive as far as arguing that the claimed invention in total is not disclosed or rendered obvious by the applied prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter with respect to prior art only:
The cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed invention in total and that includes the following combination of elements from claims 1 and 8:
wherein the crowd source targets comprise other users that have taken at least one of the plurality of course streams via the LMS and employers related to the plurality of course streams;
ranking the plurality of crowd source targets based on the project information, wherein the ranking is based on student feedback and associated marks for the course streams and employer feedback with respect to the plurality of course streams;
providing a user with a ranking of the plurality of course streams based on the aggregated responses and based on the user's skills;
Spinner et al. (20150134556) in view of Crawford et al. (20220044582) and in view of Good et al. (20130227384) is the closest prior art but does not teach or suggest the above limitations. Nothing suggests that the targets are other users that have taken at least one of the course streams and employers related to the streams, with ranking based on student feedback and associated marks for the course streams and employer feedback, and that is providing the ranking based on the aggregated responses and based on user skills. These elements in combination are not taught or suggested by the cited art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights