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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
1, 3, 4, and 8-10 are amended. Claims 2, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue again that the claims do not are not directed to an abstract idea, this time arguing that the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind and cannot be performed via conventional methods of organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees with applicants argument. The claims correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidence by limitations detailing the evaluation or observation of learners and making a judgment/opinion based on the evaluation or observation; reviewing assessments for issues and when issues are found, returning the assessments for additional review; aggregating the assessments for each learner. The relevant inquiry under Step 2A Prong One is not whether a human can perform the claimed steps with the same speed, scale, or numerical precision as a computer, but whether the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or as a mathematical concept, but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). The computer implementation and terminology used does not remove the claim from the mental processes category. A human mind can very well perform the observation and evaluation of data, and implementing a decision (judgment or opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data. It is not required that the human mind be able to perform the claimed steps in the same manner, at the same scale, or with the same speed as a computer. Additionally, the invention and claim limitations are drawn towards course assessment by multiple assessors in a learning management system, and the claim limitations directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, interactions, relationships; following rules or instructions) as evidenced by limitations relating to assessing learners in a learning and/or educational environment: reviewing assessments for issues, returning assessments for additional review when issues are found, providing the assessment to each learner. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II) provides that the certain methods of organizing human activity sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claims 1 and 8 focus on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. In addition to the claim limitations identified that correspond to the judicial exception, applicant’s specification recites: [0002] Learning management systems (“LMS”) are becoming more popular for delivery of educational material in many different situations, whether in conventional areas like public/private educational institutions all the way through to corporations providing internal training to their employees. Some LMSs merely track student registration and progress while others deliver course content and materials directly to students. [0003] With the rapid increase of LMSs and the organizations that use them and provide educational content, there is also an increase in the number of learners/students that may be taking a particular course. In some cases, the number of learners may be in the tens of thousands. In such large classes, it can be difficult for an instructor to provide an assessment for each learner in an efficient, fair and effective manner. While instructors have traditionally used teaching assistants, multiple choice (computer graded) testing, and the like, these techniques can have problems in relation to consistency, true assessment of capability, and the like. [0004] In other situations, generally when a class is smaller, there may be multiple assessors assigned so that differing viewpoints or perspectives can be provided to an individual learner. In this situation, there can sometimes be a conflict between/among any feedback that each assessor is providing. As such, there is a need for an improved system and method for course assessment by multiple assessors in a learning management system. The specification along with the claim limitations make it clear that the alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) and not an improvement in computers or technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Examiner rejects applicant’s assertion that the claim limitations cannot be performed in the human mind when the entirety of the claims described the observation and evaluation of data (assessments). As previously indicated, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This is the case in the applicant’s invention. For instance, claim 8 recites generic computing components used to perform the analyzing and observation of the data or assessments. The learning system is comprised of generic computing components, which applicant identifies as servers, storage, and networked computers in their arguments. Nothing in the applicant’s disclosure indicates anything more than generic computers performing general computing operations or instructions. See Applicant’s specification [0025]. Applicant’s argument that implementing the elements in a conventional system would not be possible in any practical way without the teachings of the present invention is unpersuasive. Applicant’s specification indicates that the limitations would be able to be implemented, and the use of a computer system to automate the steps merely results in user convenience or efficiency. "Claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP ¶2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues that the claimed features provides an improved assessment for a group of learnings by implementing technical functions in a learning management system. This argument is unpersuasive. The alleged improvement, again, is an improvement to the judicial exception itself and not an improvement in computers or technology. Applicant is merely implementing the limitations that correspond to the judicial exception on a computer, which does not constitute an improvement in computers or technology. Technical improvement focuses on enhancing the computers or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. Applicant’s claimed invention falls in the latter category, and are not technical improvements. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP §2106.05(a).
Applicant contends that the claims are “analogous to” cases in which the Federal Circuit fond claims directed to a “specific method of analyzing and classifying data to improve the functioning of a computer system” to be patent 0elgible. This argument is unpersuasive. As an initial matter, applicant does not identify which Federal Circuit decision(s) purportedly supports this argument. A bare assertion that unspecified case law exists somewhere that resembles the claims is not a legal argument, but is instead a conclusory statement unsupported by evidence or citation. As such, it is entitled to little to no weight. More importantly, the analogy fails on its own terms. The claims here are not directed to a specific method of analyzing or classifying data that improves the functioning of a computer itself, such as in the case of McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather the claims recite generic learning/assessment management functionality: collecting/receiving assessments, reviewing assessments for issues, retuning assessments for additional review when issues are found, aggregating assessments to provide an aggregated assessment for each learner, etc. This is precisely “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea that is ineligible under the Alice/Mayo framework. The limitations have absolutely nothing to do with improving the computer’s own technological capabilities.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of has been withdrawn.
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, 3-5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 3-5 recite a method (i.e. process), and claims 8-11 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 1, 3-5, and 8-11 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite the limitations of: receiving assessments from a plurality of assessors for a plurality of learners; reviewing the assessments for any issues in the assessments themselves; when issues are found, returning the assessments for additional review, prior to continuing the method; aggregating the assessments to provide an aggregated assessment for each learner of the plurality of learners, wherein, for language-based assessments, the aggregating the assessments comprises copying each of the language-based assessments into a document and combining the language-based assessments into a single assessment using a [large language model]; reviewing the aggregated assessment for any aggregated issues in the aggregated assessment itself, wherein the aggregated issues comprise conflicts between assessors; when conflicts between assessors are found, returning the aggregated assessments for additional review by using the [large language model] to: review of one or more assignments that lead to the assessments; assess the one or more assignments; and aggregate the [large language model] assessment with the aggregated assessments, prior to continuing the method; and providing the aggregated assessment to each learner of the plurality of learners. The invention and claim limitations are drawn towards course assessment by multiple assessors in a learning management system, and the claim limitations directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, interactions, relationships; following rules or instructions) as evidenced by limitations relating to receiving assessments from a plurality of assessors for a plurality of learners; reviewing the assessments for any issues in the assessments themselves; when issues are found, returning the assessments for additional review, prior to continuing the method; aggregating the assessments to provide an aggregated assessment for each learner of the plurality of learners, reviewing the aggregated assessment for any aggregated issues in the aggregated assessment itself, wherein the aggregated issues comprise conflicts between assessors; when conflicts between assessors are found, returning the aggregated assessments for additional review, review of one or more assignments that lead to the assessments; assess the one or more assignments, and providing the aggregated assessment to each learner of the plurality of learners. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidence by limitations detailing the evaluation or observation of learners and making a judgment/opinion based on the evaluation or observation; reviewing assessments for issues and when issues are found, returning the assessments for additional review; aggregating the assessments for each learner. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a learning management system, a large language model, a processor (claim 8), and memory (claim 8). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the large language model amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (course assessment in learning management systems). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 9-11 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 3-5 and 9-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Luca (2018/0130154) which discloses a system for objective assessment of learning outcomes that includes a data repository comprising at least a hierarchical arrangement of a plurality of learning goals, a report generator, an analysis engine, a rules engine, and an application server adapted to receive application-specific requests from a plurality of client applications. The application server provides an administrative interface for viewing, editing, or deleting a plurality of learning goals and relationships between them, learning assessment tools, learning outcome reports, and learning indexes, and the rules engine performs a plurality of consistency checks to ensure alignment between and among learning goals, learning assessment tools, learning outcomes, and learning indexes. The reference does not appear to disclose the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art reference.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “Systematic Review of Approaches to Improve Peer Assessment at Scale & Possible Research Questions” (Ravikiran, 2020) which discloses a review on peer assessment to improve the review process itself focusing on auto grading and peer assessment tools, strategies to handle rogue reviews, and peer review improvement using natural language processing. The reference does not appear to disclose the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights