DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The Amendment filed 8/12/26 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 11-13 are pending in the application and are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1 = YES: The claimed invention is to a product or process, and thus fall under one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 1 = YES: The claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion)(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). This includes:
[Claim 1] A method…for visualizing problem solving results,…the method comprising the steps of:
…displaying…information on a user's predicted correct answer rate for each of a plurality of problems in an area assigned to each of the plurality of problems (mental process: displaying the results of a mental evaluation, e.g., using pen and paper; certain method of human activity, interaction between people, e.g., social activity or teaching);
…determining a degree to which the user's actual correctness/incorrectness result for a first problem among the plurality of problems is close to the user's predicted correct answer rate for the first problem by calculating a difference between the user's predicted correct answer rate for the first problem and a predetermined value assigned depending on whether the user's answer to the first problem is correct or incorrect (mental process: evaluation); and
…dynamically determining display status of the area assigned to the first problem by changing at least one of a color, a shape, a picture…and a still image of the area assigned to the first problem so that the area assigned to the first problem is displayed…, compared to the areas assigned to other problems among the plurality of problems, with more emphasis in response to the determined degree being less than a predetermined level, and with less emphasis in response to the determined degree being not less than the predetermined level (mental process: displaying the results of a mental evaluation, e.g., using pen and paper; certain method of human activity, interaction between people, e.g., social activity or teaching).
[Claim 2] The method of Claim 1, wherein the predetermined value is 0 in response to the user's answer to the first problem being correct, and is 1 in response to the user's answer to the first problem being incorrect (This limitation further defines previously identified abstract idea without any additional elements, and thus falls under the same judicial exception grouping).
[Claim 4] The method of Claim 1, wherein in the determining step, in response to the user's answer to a second problem being not submitted, display status of the area assigned to the second problem is shown with less emphasis compared to display status of the areas assigned to other problems (This limitation further defines previously identified abstract idea without any additional elements, and thus falls under the same judicial exception grouping).
[Claim 4] The method of Claim 1, further comprising the step of, in response to the user's answer to a second problem among the plurality of problems being not submitted, changing at least one of a color, a shape, a picture…and a still image of the area assigned to the second problem so that the area assigned to the second problem is displayed with less emphasis compared to the areas assigned to other problems among the plurality of problems (mental process: displaying the results of a mental evaluation, e.g., using pen and paper; certain method of human activity, interaction between people, e.g., social activity or teaching).
[Claim 5] The method of Claim 1, wherein the information on the user's predicted correct answer rate for the first problem is generated with reference to an actual correctness/incorrectness result of at least one other user for the first problem (This limitation further defines previously identified abstract idea without any additional elements, and thus falls under the same judicial exception grouping).
[Claim 6] The method of Claim 1, wherein the information on the user's predicted correct answer rate for the first problem is updated with reference to the user's actual correctness/incorrectness result for the first problem (This limitation further defines previously identified abstract idea without any additional elements, and thus falls under the same judicial exception grouping).
[Claim 8] A system for visualizing problem solving results, the system comprising…:
display…information on a user's predicted correct answer rate for each of a plurality of problems in an area assigned to each of the plurality of problems (mental process: displaying the results of a mental evaluation, e.g., using pen and paper; certain method of human activity, interaction between people, e.g., social activity or teaching);
determine a degree to which the user's actual correctness/incorrectness result for a first problem among the plurality of problems is close to the user's predicted correct answer rate for the first problem by calculating a difference between the user's predicted correct answer rate for the first problem and a predetermined value assigned depending on whether the user's answer to the first problem is correct or incorrect (mental process: evaluation); and
dynamically determine display status of the area assigned to the first problem by changing at least one of a color, a shape, a picture…and a still image of the area assigned to the first problem so that the area assigned to the first problem is displayed…, compared to the areas assigned to other problems among the plurality of problems, with more emphasis in response to the determined degree being less than a predetermined level, and with less emphasis in response to the determined degree being not less than the predetermined level (mental process: displaying the results of a mental evaluation, e.g., using pen and paper; certain method of human activity, interaction between people, e.g., social activity or teaching).
[Claim 9] The system of Claim 8, wherein the predetermined value is 0 in response to the user's answer to the first problem being correct, and is 1 in response to the user's answer to the first problem being incorrect (This limitation further defines previously identified abstract idea without any additional elements, and thus falls under the same judicial exception grouping).
[Claim 11] The system of Claim 8, wherein…in response to the user's answer to a second problem among the plurality of problems being not submitted, change at least one of a color, a shape, a picture, a video, an animation, and a still image display status of the area assigned to the second problem so that the area assigned to the second problem is displayed is shown with less emphasis compared to display status of the areas assigned to other problems among the plurality of problems (mental process: displaying the results of a mental evaluation, e.g., using pen and paper; certain method of human activity, interaction between people, e.g., social activity or teaching).
[Claim 12] The system of Claim 8, wherein the information on the user's predicted correct answer rate for the first problem is generated with reference to an actual correctness/incorrectness result of at least one other user for the first problem (This limitation further defines previously identified abstract idea without any additional elements, and thus falls under the same judicial exception grouping).
[Claim 13] The system of Claim 8, wherein the information on the user's predicted correct answer rate for the first problem is updated with reference to the user's actual correctness/incorrectness result for the first problem (This limitation further defines previously identified abstract idea without any additional elements, and thus falls under the same judicial exception grouping).
As shown above, the steps identified above are akin to mental processes and/or organizing human activity, and thus fall within an enumerated category of abstract ideas. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) to help them complete the recited steps above, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 2 = NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to defining a computer environment to implement the abstract idea above (i.e., framing the system and being performed in a system comprising a display and one or more processors wherein the display and one or more processors are recited as performing various steps, wherein the display is recited as changing video or animation in the alternative; A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program for executing the method of Claim 1, these additional elements do not represent an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field based on the high level of generality for which it is claimed, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, nor do they implement the judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, nor do they effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different stater or thing, nor does it apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(I). Rather, these limitations are recited, at the outset of the claim and/or in a result-based manner, to perform the corresponding judicial exception with no particular details how the result they are defined as performing is achieved (i.e., generic term configured to perform the exception), and thus amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (e.g., generically controlling, via an apparatus, an operation of a computing device to merely perform the abstract idea, which the courts have identified as limitations that did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Additionally, based on the high level of generality for which these limitations are defined in the claims, they amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which the courts have identified as limitations that did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Likewise, the specification is silent as to any technical improvements of any kind. Moreover, the use of a display in the claims to display the claimed information amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., by name alone, to perform the claimed step, e.g., displaying information, without further technical detail defining any particular machine or technical detail how that result is achieved. Therefore, these additional elements do not provide a technical solution to a technological problem. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the physical components identified above does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: YES).
STEP 2B = NO: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as provided under Prong 2, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and for the purpose of insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., the display that displays information. Moreover, the specification of the instant application further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine and conventional functionality, which refers to elements of the computer system in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)(e.g., see pg. 7-8: the device 300 according to one embodiment of the invention is digital equipment capable of connecting to and then communicating with the information provision system 200, and any type of digital equipment having a memory means and a microprocessor for computing capabilities, such as a smart phone, a tablet, a smart watch, a smart band, smart glasses, a desktop computer, a notebook computer, a workstation, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a web pad, and a mobile phone, may be adopted as the device 300 according to the invention; pg. 40: The program instructions stored on the computer-readable recording medium … may also be known and available to those skilled in the computer software field). Thus, the additional elements defining the field of use as a computer-implemented environment amount to merely automating a manual process using well-known, routine, and conventional computer components, which the courts have held to be insufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Therefore, the claims are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-13 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
35 USC § 101 – Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues that because claim 1 and 8 recite a system comprising one or more processors and a display to perform the claimed steps, that that the steps are not performed by a human through a mental process. However, simply reciting a processor and display to perform a claimed step does not negate the mental nature of the claims (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. Although the instant claims do recite one or more processors and a display to perform certain steps, they are recited at a high level of generality and merely used as a tool to perform what is otherwise practically capable of being performed by mental evaluation and interactions between individuals, using pen and paper to display information. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues the claims recite additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the recited claims solve the problems stated in the specification. Applicant supports this argument by restating claims 1 and 8 and stating that the foregoing elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to solve the problems stated in the specification. However, for the reasons provided in the rejection, the recited additional elements are recited at a high level. Neither the specification, nor the claims reflect sufficient technical detail that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a technical improvement in the claims. Applicant has also not identified a technical improvement disclosed in the specification. Thus, Applicant’s argument is conclusory and therefore not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues the claims recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the alleged judicial exception. Again, Applicant recites the limitations of claim 1 and 8 and states that these elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception with no explanation. Applicant has not identified any technical improvement in either the specification or the claims. Thus, Applicant’s argument is conclusory and therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
