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 .
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 1-7, 9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1 recite(s):
Acquiring learning content through a learning objective and a fact with the electronic computing
Analyzing the learning content to identify a learning objective and a fact with electronic computing device;
Producing a narration using the learning objective and the fact, the narration containing the learning objective and the fact using the electronic computing device
Delivering a first part of the narration to the person using an output device of the electronic computing device
Observing an attention of the person during delivery of the narration using at least one monitoring device
Comparing data generated by the at least one monitoring device with a time characteristic of the first part of the narration to produce a concentration profile of the person while the first part of the narration is delivered;
Calculating an efficiency of the learning content based on the observed attention and the concentration profile;
Using the calculated efficiency to automatically adjust a second part of the narrative using the electronic computing device, including automatically adjusting a chronology of the learning content, determining a structure of the narration, or selecting a form of the narration; and
Delivering the second part of the narrative to the person using the output device;
Wherein the at least one monitoring device measures a parameter selected from the group consisting of an image of the person, eye movement, a pointer trail, a mouse movement, a pulse rate and a body temperature.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “electronic computing device” [claim 1], “input device” [claim ] and “output device of electronic ” [claims 1], nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher observing students’ behaviors and adjusting its instruction/lecture level accordingly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas or covers the performing the teaching step in the mid of the user, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “electronic computing device” [claim ], “input device” [claim ] and “output device of electronic ” [claims ].
The “computer-implemented,” “processor,” “interaction monitoring device”, “prompt generator”, “based on machine learning” and “computer-readable storage medium” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see page 10 paragraph 2, page 11 paragraph 3, page 15 paragraph 2).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-7, 9, 10-12 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. Claims 2-3 appears to be directed to the application of the claimed method in conjunction with a machine learning. However, these limitations were presented in a high level of generality such that it amounts nothing more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 4-7, 11-12 are directed to the content of the narration or the learning objective. Claim 9 is directed to a camera, an generic computing component. These claims recite no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the current claim limitation requires that the method requires two simultaneous assessments as it is being delivered to a person. As such, the applicant argued that the system is directed to delivering content that cannot be performed solely in the mind or by use of pen and paper. However, a claim can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). In this particular case, the claim limitations appear to use the computer as a tool to perform a mental process. Since the limitation are presented a high-level of generality (for example, calculating an efficiency (score) or using the efficiency calculation to adjust the content) using a computer as the tool to perform the calculation, it is still directed to a mental process. The applicant also presented argument directed to the SRI v. Cisco system; however, it is unclear on how the teaching of SRI v. Cisco can be applied in this particular case. As the fact pattern presented in SRI v. Cisco is directed toward a specific method that analyze data from multiple sources to detect suspicious network activity. The current claim limitation are directed on the use of a computer system to automate certain mental steps. It is unclear what teaching from SRI v. Cisco that can be applied in the particular case. As such, the examiner finds the rejection on claims 1-7, 9, 11-12 are still warranted and shall be maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715