DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/10/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Examiner’s Comment
This Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 08/10/2026 with Amended Claims and Applicant's Remarks filed on 07/08/2026.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 11, and 21 according to Amendments filed on 07/08/2026. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-21, 23, 24, and 26-32 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “electrically provides one or more of the plurality of portions of educational content in an order to a user on the display, the one or more of the plurality of portions and the order in which the one or more of the plurality of portions are provided being based on the amount of time since the application was last used on the device by the user.” The other independent claims 1 and 21 each recite “electronically” instead of “electrically.” Examiner recommends amending claim 11 to recite “electronically provides one or more of the plurality of portions of educational content in an order to a user on the display, the one or more of the plurality of portions and the order in which the one or more of the plurality of portions are provided being based on the amount of time since the application was last used on the device by the user” in order to be consistent with independent claims 1 and 21. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites “electronically providing, with the secure education application, one or more of the plurality of portions of educational content in order on a computing device, the one or more of the plurality of portions and the order in which the one or more of the plurality of portions are provided being based on the amount of time since the application was last used on the computing device by the user.” The other independent claims 1 and 11 each recite “in an order” instead of “in order.” Examiner recommends amending claim 21 to recite “electronically providing, with the secure education application, one or more of the plurality of portions of educational content in an order on a computing device, the one or more of the plurality of portions and the order in which the one or more of the plurality of portions are provided being based on the amount of time since the application was last used on the computing device by the user” in order to be consistent with independent claims 1 and 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 4, 14, and 24 recite the limitation “wherein the biometric value comprises one or more of the group consisting of a fingerprint, a voice sample and a facial image.” The independent claims were amended to recite “one or more digital biometric values”, however, there is no antecedent basis for the singular “the biometric value.”
Claims 6, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 6, 16, and 26 recite the limitation “wherein the application refrains from updating the student profile of the user based on at least one of the interactions when either the application determines that the user is not associated with the one of the student profiles or the application determines that the one of the interactions is the submitted text document that the submitted text document is not likely written by the user.” “Interactions” is first introduced in claims 3, 13, and 23 but claims 6, 16, and 26 depend directly from claims 1, 11, and 21 where no “interactions” and therefore, there no antecedent basis for “interactions.”
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention:
Claim 21 recites the limitation “generating a student profile database on the non-transitory computer readable medium, the student profile database having one or more student profiles that include identification data that identifies a user associated with the student profile and evaluation data that valuates a proficiency of the user in at least one of the subjects.” There is no antecedent basis for “the non-transitory computer readable medium.”
Claim 21 recites the limitation “electronically tracking, with the secure education application, an amount of time since the application was last used on the device by a user.” There is no antecedent basis for “the device.” “A user” is also recited twice and it is not clear to the Examiner whether there are two different users or single user.
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, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-21, 23, 24, and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: In a test for patent subject matter eligibility, claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-21, 23, 24, and 26-32 are found to be in accordance with Step 1 (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility), as they are related to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 recite a system; and claims 21, 23, 24, and 26-32 recite a method. When assessed under Step 2A, Prong I, they are found to be directed towards an abstract idea. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Step 2A, Prong I: Under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as they all recite a judicial exception. Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea including “electronically determining whether the user is associated with the one of the student profiles; electronically determining whether a submitted text document is likely written by the user based on one or more writing characteristic values of the one of the student profiles associated with the user and corresponding values of the submitted text document; electronically tracking an amount of time since the application was last used on the device by a user; and electronically providing one or more of the plurality of portions of educational content in an order, the one or more of the plurality of portions and the order in which the one or more of the plurality of portions are provided being based on the amount of time since the application was last used on the computing device by the user.” These further limitations are not seen as any more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite additional limitations including “maintaining an education content database having a plurality of portions of educational content on one or more subjects on a memory of a server; generating a student profile database on the non-transitory computer readable medium, the student profile database having one or more student profiles that include identification data that identifies a user associated with the student profile and evaluation data that valuates a proficiency of the user in at least one of the subjects; with a secure education application; by performing at least one of digital fingerprint verification, digital voice recognition or digital facial recognition based on one or more digital biometric values of the user input by a computing device; and by/on a computing device.” Determining whether a user is associated with a student profile based on biometric values inputted by user, determining whether a submitted text document is likely written by the user based on writing characteristic values of the student profiles, and tracking an amount of time when a user last used an application in order to provide educational content in an order based on the amount of time when the user last used the application is considered to be an abstract idea, specifically, certain methods of organizing human activity; such as commercial interactions, advertising, marketing, and sales because the claims are directed to providing educational content based on user’s usage of an application. Determining whether a user is associated with a student profile based on biometric values inputted by user, determining whether a submitted text document is likely written by the user based on writing characteristic values of the student profiles, and tracking an amount of time when a user last used an application in order to provide educational content in an order based on the amount of time when the user last used the application is also considered to be an abstract idea, specifically, Mental Processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the claims are directed to determining whether a user is associated with a student profile based on received data (i.e. biometric values provided by user input), determining whether a submitted text is likely written by the user based on values (i.e. writing characteristic values), and tracking an amount of time when the user last used the application and providing educational content according to an order based on the tracked amount of time. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong II: Step 2A, Prong II is to determine whether any claim recites any additional element that integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite additional limitations including “maintaining an education content database having a plurality of portions of educational content on one or more subjects on a memory of a server; generating a student profile database on the non-transitory computer readable medium, the student profile database having one or more student profiles that include identification data that identifies a user associated with the student profile and evaluation data that valuates a proficiency of the user in at least one of the subjects; with a secure education application; by performing at least one of digital fingerprint verification, digital voice recognition or digital facial recognition based on one or more digital biometric values of the user input by a computing device; and by/on a computing device.” The additional limitations reciting – “with a secure education application; by/on a computing device” are recited in a manner that merely uses the computer (i.e. application and computing device) as the tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements in claims 1, 11, and 21 are not found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because alone, and in combination, these additional elements are seen as adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional limitations do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. computing device, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts decided that although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and this fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (See Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC,). Under Step 2A, Prong II, this claim remains directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite additional limitations including “maintaining an education content database having a plurality of portions of educational content on one or more subjects on a memory of a server; generating a student profile database on the non-transitory computer readable medium, the student profile database having one or more student profiles that include identification data that identifies a user associated with the student profile and evaluation data that valuates a proficiency of the user in at least one of the subjects; with a secure education application; by performing at least one of digital fingerprint verification, digital voice recognition or digital facial recognition based on one or more digital biometric values of the user input by a computing device; and by/on a computing device.” The additional limitations reciting – “with a secure education application; by/on a computing device” do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because of the analysis provided in Step 2A, Prong II. Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 also recite – “maintaining an education content database having a plurality of portions of educational content on one or more subjects on a memory of a server; generating a student profile database on the non-transitory computer readable medium, the student profile database having one or more student profiles that include identification data that identifies a user associated with the student profile and evaluation data that valuates a proficiency of the user in at least one of the subjects; and by performing at least one of digital fingerprint verification, digital voice recognition or digital facial recognition based on one or more digital biometric values of the user input by a computing device.”:
However, merely reciting maintaining/generating a database (i.e. education content or student profile) on a memory/medium of a server do not result in the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. For example, the courts have noted that “electronic recordkeeping” (See: Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)) and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” (See: 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) are computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements listed amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component.
Merely performing user authentication via biometric verification such as fingerprint, voice, and/or face does not result in the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. For example, U.S. Patent 9,183,367 to Bao states that biometric authentication using fingerprint, face, and sound recognition has been widely used (See Bao: Cols. 1-2 Lines 16-6). Therefore, are merely appending a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in the art at the time of invention (i.e. performing biometric verification such as fingerprint, voice, and/or face) to the abstract idea (i.e. determining whether a user is associated with a student profile).
In addition, the applicant’s specifications describe “any computing device” (See page 13 of Applicant’s originally filed specification) or “any conventional computer memory known in the art” (See page 22 of Applicant’s originally filed specification), for implementing the computing device/memory, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. There is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. Under Step 2B in a test for patent subject matter eligibility, these claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 6-10, 13-20, 23, 24, and 26-32 further recite the system of claims 1 and 11 and the method of claim 21. Dependent claims 3, 4, 6-10, 13-20, 23, 24, and 26-32 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea:
Under Step 2A, Prong I, these additional claims only further narrow the abstract idea set forth in claims 1, 11, and 21. For example, claims 3, 4, 6-10, 13-20, 23, 24, and 26-32 further describe the limitations for determining whether a user is associated with a student profile based on biometric values inputted by user, determining whether a submitted text document is likely written by the user based on writing characteristic values of the student profiles, and tracking an amount of time when a user last used an application in order to provide educational content in an order based on the amount of time when the user last used the application – which is only further narrowing the scope of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Under Step 2A, Prong II, for dependent claims 3, 4, 6-10, 13, 14, 16-20, 23, 24, and 26-32, there are no additional elements introduced. Thus, they do not present integration into a practical application, or amount to significantly more.
Under Step 2B, dependent claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional claims do not provide any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under Step 2B, these claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-21, 23, 24, and 26-32 are allowable over the art.
The Examiner failed to find prior art to teach “electronically provides one or more of the plurality of portions of educational content in an order on the computing device, the one or more of the plurality of portions and the order in which the one or more of the plurality of portions are provided being based on the amount of time since the application was last used on the device by the user.”
The Examiner conducted an updated search and found the following references to be pertinent to the amended claims:
U.S. Publication 2011/0086686 to Avent teaches dynamically facilitating user interaction with a program are provided. A user is may be provided with refresher elements ( or a tutorial) based on the period of time since the user's last session (or level of skill). A video game stores a stop time and the user’s attainment level in a user profile when a play session ends. When the user returns, it computes how long they were away, it then selects refresher elements (controls, plot, objectives, tutorials) from a lookup table based on that absence. Avent teaches tracking an amount of time since the application was last used but does NOT explicitly disclose providing the content in an order based on amount of time since the application was last used because Avent does NOT explicitly teach any sort of ordering of the content.
U.S. Publication 2009/0061407 to Keim for disclosing determining user knowledge of information, calculating and employing "lag", i.e., adaptive recall, time for delaying review and testing of the information depending on a user's progress, and/or selecting additional information to be reviewed and tested during the lag time. A user model tracks performance history and customizes which items are presented and in what order. Keim teaches tracking an elapsed time since the item was last tested and ordering content/items based on the elapsed time but does NOT teach tracking an amount of time since the application was last used and ordering the content based on the time since the application was last used.
The following references are cited to further show the pertinent prior art found by the examiner:
U.S. Publication 2016/0275804 to Koppel teaches deploying personalized educational content to student devices. In example implementations, a computing system may communicate with student devices corresponding to students in a classroom setting. The computing system may cause the student devices to obtain educational content from content providers. As a student progresses through a lesson plan by interacting with a student device, the computing system may intelligently deploy educational content that is personalized to the student's academic abilities and needs. Such that each lesson plan has a sequence order. The system sends lesson portions to the device and adjusts later portions based on progress, pace, and scores. However, Koppel does NOT teach tracking of the time since the application was last used and only teaches ordering the content by student’s progress/performance NOT the time since the application was last used.
Stewart, John Cary. (“An Evaluation of the Application of Stylometry and the Keystroke Biometric to Identify Verification of Online Test-Takers”. Pace University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2013.) to Stewart discloses a study of whether keystroke dynamics and stylometry can verify the identity of students taking online exams. The research generated a profile for the author and each test text was then attributed to the author profile with the greatest similarity. However, Stewart does NOT teach tracking of the time since the application was last used NOR ordering of any content especially based on the time since the application was last used.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 11 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 07/08/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 21, 23, 24, and 26-32 have been considered and are persuasive. The Applicant states “By the above amendments, Claim 21 has been amended such that "a secure education application" is only recited once in the claim.” The Examiner agrees and therefore, the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 21, 23, 24, and 26-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn. The Examiner notes that upon additional review there are further 112(b) issues and minor formality issues that need to be addressed (See pages 2-5 above).
Applicant’s arguments see pages 12-14 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 07/08/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-21, 23, 24, and 26-32 have been considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant asserts “Specifically, by the above amendments the claims have been amended to expressly recite the technological manner in which the secure education application performs user authentication. The claims now recite "the processor electronically determines whether the user is associated with the one of the student profiles by performing at least one of digital fingerprint verification, digital voice recognition or digital facial recognition based on one or more digital biometric values of the user input by the computing device." Thus, the claims are not cited at a high level, and instead explicitly describe the how which is rooted in computer technology in the form of performing digital verification/recognition based on digital biometric values input by the computer. The claims therefore do not merely recite a method of organizing human activity. Rather, they recite a specific technological solution to the technical problem identified in the specification, namely authenticating users and verifying the authenticity of educational submissions in a computerized education platform. The claimed operations improve the reliability and security of computerized educational systems by preventing fraudulent attribution of educational work and preventing inaccurate modification of student profiles… Similarly in this case, even if the claims include a method of organizing human activity of teaching, the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific improvement over prior art systems by electronically determining whether the user is associated with the one of the student profiles by performing at least one of digital fingerprint verification, digital voice recognition or digital facial recognition based on one or more biometric values of the user input by a computing device thereby ensuring that a user and/or submitted data is from the actual student (not imposters) and thus can be properly attributed to the student and added to their profile. In particular, as described in paragraphs 0006-0007 of the Present Specification, the prior art instruction systems have suffered from problems resulting from fraud and other dishonest practices… Thus, the claimed verification/recognition element recites a specific improvement over prior art systems by ensuring that a user and/or submitted data is from the actual student (not imposters) and thus can be properly attributed to the student and added to their profile. Accordingly, under Step 2A prong 2, the claims as a whole integrate the certain method of organizing human activity into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Picking a known type of tool is not a "how" rooted in computer technology. It is the idea of a solution, claimed functionally (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). See Electric Power Grp. v. Alstom, 830 F.3d at 1356; Two-Way Media v. Comcast, 874 F.3d at 1337. In Universal Secure Registry v. Apple, 10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021), authentication claims using biometric information were held ineligible because they did not recite a specific technical means of authenticating. Also, the passage the applicant quotes (¶¶ 0006–0007) describes agents writing essays, forging transcripts, photographing tests and stealing test booklets. These are human dishonesty practices in admissions and testing. None concerns how computers, networks or biometric systems function. "Preventing fraudulent attribution of educational work" and "preventing inaccurate modification of student profiles" are improvements to the abstract idea itself: verifying students and keeping accurate records. Furthermore, merely performing user authentication via biometric verification such as fingerprint, voice, and/or face does not result in the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. For example, U.S. Patent 9,183,367 to Bao states that biometric authentication using fingerprint, face, and sound recognition has been widely used (See Bao: Cols. 1-2 Lines 16-6). Therefore, are merely appending a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in the art at the time of invention (i.e. performing biometric verification such as fingerprint, voice, and/or face) to the abstract idea (i.e. determining whether a user is associated with a student profile). Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-21, 23, 24, and 26-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained above with an updated analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Azam Ansari, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7047. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 4:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at (571) 270-3948.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephonic interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/AZAM A ANSARI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
September 30, 2026
