Detailed Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the recited “the other phonemes” lacks antecedent basis. The remaining claims are rejected for incorporating this error from their respective parent claims through dependency.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
for each of a plurality of students, prompting a user to select a subset of phonemes
for each member of the subset, prompting the user to select at least one corresponding grapheme
identifying a set of words that contain only the subset of phonemes and the selected at least one corresponding graphemes and not the other of the phonemes, such that for different subsets of phonemes among the students the sets of words are different among the students and customized for each of the students and
using at least some of the set of words, generate output indicative of a phrase or sentence that contains the at least some of the set of words
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 covers performance of limitations in the mind. A human—using their mind, pen, and paper—is capable of asking a user to select a subset of phonemes and corresponding graphemes, producing a set of words that contain only the phonemes and corresponding graphemes, each set unique to a given student, and generating a phrase or sentence containing at least some of the words.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Representative claims 1 and 8 recite the additional elements of “one or more processors,” a “computer-readable medium” and “generat(ing) output for display to a user.” Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because:
One or more processors — are described in the published specification with a high degree of generality:
[0056] The algorithms, methods, or processes described herein can be implemented by or delivered to a computer, controller, or processing device. These devices may include any dedicated or programmable electronic control unit.
Computer-readable medium — is described in the published specification with a high degree of generality:
[0056] The algorithms, methods, or processes can be stored as executable instructions in various forms, including but not limited to information permanently stored on non-writable storage media (e.g., read-only memory devices), or information alterably stored on writable storage media (e.g., compact discs, random access memory devices, or other magnetic and optical media).
Thus, it would again be reasonable to interpret it as a generic computing device.
Generat(ing) output for display to a user: This recitation can be considered as abstract because it does not, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, eliminate the act of a human operator writing out prompts to a user with pencil and paper. Reciting the output as being electronically transmitted to a physical screen or monitor (or other physical devices) could overcome this finding, so long as the changes are made consistent with the scope of the original disclosure.
Claims 2 and 10 recite the additional feature of storing phonemes and graphemes in a pre-indexed database. This feature is also found to be abstract because it does not eliminate the possibility of a human looking up the phonemes and graphemes in a pre-compiled resource.
Claims 3-8 and 10-16 further limit the types of phonemes and graphemes that are utilized by the system, as well as presenting a user with an indication of performance. These features are also found to be human-performable and thus abstract ideas, for the reasons given supra.
The additional elements which were interpreted under step 2A prong 2 are re-evaluated in step 2B, and evidence is known that they are nothing more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing.
Generat(ing) output for display to a user: Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
Filter(ing) a pre-indexed database: A database as a means to store and fetch data is well-understood, routine and conventional. (MPEP 2106.05(d): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverzweig (US 2021/0183361 A1) in view of Floven et al (US 2002/0046200 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Silverzweig discloses an individualized decodable text system (Abstract) comprising one or more processors (Fig. 17) programmed to, for each of a plurality of students, generate output, for display to a user, prompting the user to select a subset of phonemes (1100), for each member of the subset, generate output, for display to the user, prompting the user to select at least one corresponding grapheme (1106), generate output, for display to the student, identifying a set of words that contain only the subset of phonemes and the selected at least one corresponding graphemes and not the other of the phonemes (1110), and using at least some of the set of words, generate output, for display to the student, indicative of a phrase or sentence that contains the at least some of the set of words (Fig.. 11). Floven suggests—where Silverzweig does not disclose—such that for different subsets of phonemes among the students the sets of words are different among the students and customized for each of the students (¶ [0051]: system can also be arranged to add words, sentences or pronunciations from previous tests in which the user has failed, in order to increase the possibilities for the user to exercise individual difficulties). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Silverzweig and Floven in order to adapt to the learning level of the student.
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising essentially the same limitations of claim 1 above. It is accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra.
Claims 6, 7, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverzweig in view of Floven and Saha (US 2022/0383895 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Saha suggests— where Silverzweig does not disclose—generating output, for display to the user, indicating a score associated with a pronunciation by the student for each of the words of the set (¶ [0068]: report generated by the computing device may additionally … include a grapheme selection correctness score based on an extent to which the spoken phonemes are phonetically valid pronunciations of the graphemes in the ordered set). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Silverzweig and Saha in order to provide the user with feedback, thus increasing the effectiveness of the tool.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Saha suggests— where Silverzweig does not disclose— wherein the score indicates a correctness of the pronunciation of one of the phonemes of the word (¶ [0068]: report generated by the computing device may additionally … include a grapheme selection correctness score based on an extent to which the spoken phonemes are phonetically valid pronunciations of the graphemes in the ordered set). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Silverzweig and Saha in order to provide the user with feedback, thus increasing the effectiveness of the tool.
Conclusion
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-13 and 16-18 are not herein subject to a rejection under 35 USC §§ 102 or 103, but remain rejected under §§ 101 and 112 as ineligible subject matter and for indefiniteness.
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
De Lay et al (US 20050153263 A1) discloses a reading cognitive skill development system.
Massimino (US 20060265220 A1) discloses a grapheme to phoneme alignment system.
Dohring (US 9058751 B2) discloses a phoneme practice engine.
Bradshaw (US 20210201888 A1) discloses computer-implemented phoneme grapheme matching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights