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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, JP 2024-035078, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, the disclosure of the prior-filed application fails to provide sufficient written description for “an understanding level estimation unit configured to estimate a level of understanding of the user for each question scored as correct by the scoring unit, on the basis of the operation history information for the user acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit” in claim 1, “an understanding level estimation step in which an understanding level estimation unit of the learning assistance device estimates the user's level of understanding for each question marked as correct by the scoring unit, on the basis of the operation history information for the user acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit” in claims 11 and 12, “wherein the understanding level estimation unit estimates the user's level of understanding of the questions according to any changes in an answer content included in the operation history information acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit” in claim 2, “wherein the understanding level estimation unit estimates the user's level of understanding of a question according to an answer time included in the operation history information acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit” in claim 3, “wherein the understanding level estimation unit sets an estimation result for the understanding level for each question in stages” in claims 5 and 6, and “wherein the operation history information includes answers that have been inputted multiple times for one of the questions” in claim 9 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the specification of the prior-filed application, at best, merely recites similar language as the claims without providing any substantive description for the claimed limitations identified above for the same reasons that the instant specification also fails as identified in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) below for the same claim limitations.
Thus, claims 1-12 do not gain benefit of priority to JP 2024-035078. Therefore, claims 1-12 have an effective filing date of 04 March 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04 March 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the box identifying that a full translation into the English language is checked for the foreign patent document, but only the abstract of the foreign patent document is translated into the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. An English language translation of the Abstract is not considered an English translation meriting the checking of the English language translation box. While footnote 5 identifies that “Applicant is to place a check mark here if English language translation is attached”, this is with respect to the document itself. The Abstract is considered a concise explanation of relevance of the document which is distinctly different from a translation. See at least MPEP 609.04(a) Content Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement, section (II) Legible Copies, which recites
“37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii) states that if a written English language translation of a non-English language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c), a copy of the translation shall accompany the statement. Translations are not required to be filed unless they have been reduced to writing and are actually translations of what is contained in the non-English language information. If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches.”
See also MPEP 609.04(a)(III) Concise Explanation of Relevance for Non-English Language Information which also at least more explicitly recites that “[e]ach information disclosure statement must further include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from the specification or part of the specification. If the concise explanation is part of the specification, the IDS listing should include the page(s) or line(s) numbers where the concise explanation is located in the specification” and that “[s]ubmission of an English language abstract of a reference, such as one generated by a foreign patent office, may fulfill the requirement for a concise explanation.” Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 18 June 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because (1) the copy of the foreign patent document is incomplete (the second half of pg. 2 through pg. 10 are blank) and (2) the box identifying that a full translation into the English language is checked for the foreign patent document, but only the abstract of the foreign patent document is translated into the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. An English language translation of the Abstract is not considered an English translation meriting the checking of the English language translation box. While footnote 5 identifies that “Applicant is to place a check mark here if English language translation is attached”, this is with respect to the document itself. The Abstract is considered a concise explanation of relevance of the document which is distinctly different from a translation. See at least MPEP 609.04(a) Content Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement, section (II) Legible Copies, which recites
“37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii) states that if a written English language translation of a non-English language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c), a copy of the translation shall accompany the statement. Translations are not required to be filed unless they have been reduced to writing and are actually translations of what is contained in the non-English language information. If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches.”
See also MPEP 609.04(a)(III) Concise Explanation of Relevance for Non-English Language Information which also at least more explicitly recites that “[e]ach information disclosure statement must further include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from the specification or part of the specification. If the concise explanation is part of the specification, the IDS listing should include the page(s) or line(s) numbers where the concise explanation is located in the specification” and that “[s]ubmission of an English language abstract of a reference, such as one generated by a foreign patent office, may fulfill the requirement for a concise explanation.” Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The paragraphs in the specification are inconsistently numbered. While many paragraphs are numbered, many are also not numbered.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “an understanding level estimation unit configured to estimate a level of understanding of the user for each question scored as correct by the scoring unit, on the basis of the operation history information for the user acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit” in claim 1, “an understanding level estimation step in which an understanding level estimation unit of the learning assistance device estimates the user's level of understanding for each question marked as correct by the scoring unit, on the basis of the operation history information for the user acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit” in claims 11 and 12, “wherein the understanding level estimation unit estimates the user's level of understanding of the questions according to any changes in an answer content included in the operation history information acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit” in claim 2, “wherein the understanding level estimation unit estimates the user's level of understanding of a question according to an answer time included in the operation history information acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit” in claim 3, “wherein the understanding level estimation unit sets an estimation result for the understanding level for each question in stages” in claims 5 and 6, and “wherein the operation history information includes answers that have been inputted multiple times for one of the questions” in claim 9 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure, at best, merely recites similar language as the claim without providing the means, steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for a computer to perform the claimed functionality. In particular, while the specification and claims generically recite what operation history information may be, the specification is silent regarding any meaningful description of analysis of operation history information to estimate a level of understanding. For example, dependent claim 3 recites the use of an answer time. However, the specification references identifying whether a user hesitates or not to answer, but is silent regarding the metes and bounds of what amount of time constitutes a hesitation. See for example, at least para. 10, 12, 14, 15, 43, 47, 48, 66, and 72 of the specification. The same applies to “any changes in an answer content” in claim 2 and “answers that have been inputted multiple times for one of the questions” in claim 9. The disclosure is silent regarding any analysis of changes in answer content or of how many times answers are inputted, let alone of any other operation history information. Dependent claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to a method and a product which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Independent claim 1 recites:
A learning assistance device that is applied to a system in which a user operates an information processing terminal to input answers to questions, the learning assistance device comprising:
an answer acquisition unit configured to acquire answers to the questions;
a scoring unit configured to score the answers acquired by the answer acquisition unit;
an operation history information acquisition unit configured to acquire history information about operations inputted by the user to the information processing terminal when answering the questions; and
an understanding level estimation unit configured to estimate a level of understanding of the user for each question scored as correct by the scoring unit, on the basis of the operation history information for the user acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit.
Independent claim 11 recites:
A learning assistance method that is executed by a learning assistance device applied to a system in which a user operates an information processing terminal to input answers to questions, the learning assistance method comprising:
an answer acquisition step in which an answer acquisition unit of the learning assistance device acquires an answer to the question;
a scoring step in which a scoring unit of the learning assistance device scores the
answer on the basis of the answer acquired by the answer acquisition unit;
an operation history information acquisition step in which an operation history information acquisition unit of the learning assistance device acquires history information about operations inputted by the user to the information processing terminal when answering the question; and
an understanding level estimation step in which an understanding level estimation unit of the learning assistance device estimates the user's level of understanding for each question marked as correct by the scoring unit, on the basis of the operation history information for the user acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit.
Independent claim 12 recites:
A learning assistance program that is installed in a learning assistance device applied to a system in which a user operates an information processing terminal to input answers to questions, the learning assistance program causing a computer to execute a learning assistance method comprising:
an answer acquisition step in which an answer acquisition unit of the learning assistance device acquires an answer to the question;
a scoring step in which a scoring unit of the learning assistance device scores the answer on the basis of the answer acquired by the answer acquisition unit;
an operation history information acquisition step in which an operation history information acquisition unit of the learning assistance device acquires history information about operations inputted by the user to the information processing terminal when answering the question; and
an understanding level estimation step in which an understanding level estimation unit
of the learning assistance device estimates the user's level of understanding for each question marked as correct by the scoring unit, on the basis of the operation history information for the user acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit.
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by merely collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. This also evidences that these elements also amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a learning assistance device that is applied to a system (claims 1, 11, and 12), an information processing terminal (claims 1, 11, and 12), an answer acquisition unit (claims 1, 11, and 12), a scoring unit (claims 1, 11, and 12), an operation history information acquisition unit (claims 1, 11, and 12), an understanding level estimation unit (claims 1, 11, and 12), an advice generation unit (claim 4), an input device that inputs characters and symbols (claim 7), an operation device that moves a cursor (claim 8), a storage unit (claim 10), a learning assistance program (claim 12). Although some of the claims recite computer components for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, transmitting/receiving, storing, outputting data). This is evidenced by the lack of significant structure in the figures (i.e., Fig. 1-3 illustrate elements as non-descript black boxes and stock icons and while Fig. 4-10 illustrate the claimed invention as purely software) and the generic nature in which any structural items are described in the specification. See, for example, at least para. 2, 8, 30-45, and 69-83 of the specification which merely provide stock descriptions of generic computer hardware and software components in any generic arrangement and illustrate that the claimed invention is merely using a software application to cause a computer to implement the judicial exception. For instance, para. 7-8 identify the use of a computer as ancillary to the focus of the claimed invention which is entirely on assessment of a user’s level of understanding (i.e., collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis). Thus, the components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. With respect to the storage unit, the courts have recognized that mere storing and retrieving information in memory is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. In particular, the claims and disclosure as a whole are silent regarding specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Similarly, the input device, operation device, answer acquisition unit, and operation history acquisition unit, as recited and organized, merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere extra-solution stimulation and data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea), particularly since they are reasonably construed as a keyboard and mouse/touchpad/touchscreen and respective software for collecting input conventional to personal computers, tablets, and smartphones. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and specification as identified above. 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 additional elements 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). Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed product and the process it performs do not require the use of a particular machine, nor do they result in the transformation of an article. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, transmitting/receiving, storing, outputting data). BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (2016)), Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that Applicant believes the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. This is evidenced by the drawings and the specification as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. With respect to the storage unit, the courts have recognized that storing and retrieving information in memory, respectively, are well-understood, routine, and convention functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (which they are in the instant claims, as well as disclosed) and as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Thus, the focus of the claimed invention is on the analysis of the collected data, which is itself at best merely an improvement within the abstract idea. See pg. 2-3 in SAP America Inc. v. lnvestpic, LLC (890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which proffered “[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations.” Furthermore, the steps are merely recited to be performed by, or using, the elements while the specification makes clear that the computerized system itself is ancillary to the claimed invention as identified above. This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2)(1) as being anticipated by Brecknell et al. (US 2018/0114455, hereinafter referred to as Brecknell).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, Brecknell teaches a learning assistance device that is applied to a system in which a user operates an information processing terminal to input answers to questions (claim 1), a learning assistance method that is executed by a learning assistance device applied to a system in which a user operates an information processing terminal to input answers to questions (claim 11), and a learning assistance program that is installed in a learning assistance device applied to a system in which a user operates an information processing terminal to input answers to questions, the learning assistance program causing a computer to execute a learning assistance method (claim 12) (Brecknell, Title, “Assessment System, Device and Server”) comprising:
an answer acquisition step in which an answer acquisition unit of the learning assistance device acquires an answer to the question (Brecknell, para. 256, “The assessment device 12 may be configured to monitor and/or collect… the answer(s) to the question(s).”);
a scoring step in which a scoring unit of the learning assistance device scores the answer on the basis of the answer acquired by the answer acquisition unit (Brecknell, para. 18, “determine a score based on the answer”);
an operation history information acquisition step in which an operation history information acquisition unit of the learning assistance device acquires history information about operations inputted by the user to the information processing terminal when answering the question (Brecknell, para. 256, “The assessment device 12 may be configured to monitor and/or collect key candidate response information 8”); and
an understanding level estimation step in which an understanding level estimation unit of the learning assistance device estimates the user's level of understanding for each question marked as correct by the scoring unit, on the basis of the operation history information for the user acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit (Brecknell, para. 298, “In a fourth representation 203 (see FIG. 24), a table may be presented. The table may be separated into four portions---e.g. by a vertical and an intersecting horizontal line. The names of the candidates may be listed in the relevant portion based on their respective scores and confidence factors. In particular, each portion may represent candidates whose score and confidence factor indicate they were one of: confident but misguided (e.g. due to a high confidence factor but low score), uncertain and uninformed (e.g. due to a low confidence factor and low score), confident and knowledgeable (e.g. due to a high confidence factor and high score), and uncertain but knowledgeable (e.g. due to a high score but low confidence factor).”).
Regarding claim 2, Brecknell teaches the learning assistance device according to claim 1,
wherein the understanding level estimation unit estimates the user's level of understanding of the questions according to any changes in an answer content included in the operation history information acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit (Brecknell, para. 257-265, “This key candidate response information 8 may include, for example, one or more of:… the number of times a candidate changed their answer (this may be represented by a change indicator, for example); the length of time between changes to the answer; the time in the overall assessment in which an answer to a question was changed; whether a correct answer was changed to an incorrect answer prior to final submission of the answer; whether an incorrect answer was changed to a correct answer prior to final submission; an aspect of how the answer was changed (e.g. the degree of the change in relation to questions which allow different degrees of change such as a free text answer question);”).
Regarding claim 3, Brecknell teaches the learning assistance device according to claim 1,
wherein the understanding level estimation unit estimates the user's level of understanding of a question according to an answer time included in the operation history information acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit (Brecknell, para. 257-266, “This key candidate response information 8 may include, for example, one or more of: the length of time the candidate took to enter an answer to a question after the question panel was presented (this may be represented by a time taken indicator, for example); the length of time the candidate was presented with a question before the candidate caused (e.g. through input via the question interface) the presentation of the answer panel;… the length of time between changes to the answer; the time in the overall assessment in which an answer to a question was changed;… the time between inputs by the candidate into the assessment device via its input sub-system”).
Regarding claim 5, Brecknell teaches the learning assistance device according to claim 1,
wherein the understanding level estimation unit sets an estimation result for the understanding level for each question in stages (Brecknell, para. 298, “In a fourth representation 203 (see FIG. 24), a table may be presented. The table may be separated into four portions---e.g. by a vertical and an intersecting horizontal line. The names of the candidates may be listed in the relevant portion based on their respective scores and confidence factors. In particular, each portion may represent candidates whose score and confidence factor indicate they were one of: confident but misguided (e.g. due to a high confidence factor but low score), uncertain and uninformed (e.g. due to a low confidence factor and low score), confident and knowledgeable (e.g. due to a high confidence factor and high score), and uncertain but knowledgeable (e.g. due to a high score but low confidence factor).” Brecknell’s table is equivalent to the instant application’s description of a “user’s level of understanding in stages” found in para. 14 of the instant specification.).
Regarding claim 7, Brecknell teaches the learning assistance device according to claim 1,
wherein the operation history information includes input information from an input device that inputs characters and symbols into a text box on a browser (Brecknell, para. 58, “The input sub-system 1241 may include one or more of keyboard 124c”; para. 250, “The answer panel 73 may include, for example, a field for the candidate to enter their answer. This field may include a field to receive text or may include the selection of answers from a list (e.g. in a multiple choice question) and may include a tick box or the like.”).
Regarding claim 8, Brecknell teaches the learning assistance device according to claim 1,
wherein the operation history information includes operation information from an operation device that moves a cursor displayed on a display screen of the information processing terminal (Brecknell, para. 58, “The input sub-system 1241 may include one or more of… a mouse 124e; para. 257-273, “This key candidate response information 8 may include, for example, one or more of:… one or more movements of a cursor (e.g. under control of a mouse 124e of the assessment device 12) including the location of the cursor in relation to one or both of the question panel 72 and the answer panel 73, and/or the timing of such one or more movements.”).
Regarding claim 9, Brecknell teaches the learning assistance device according to claim 1,
wherein the operation history information includes answers that have been inputted multiple times for one of the questions (Brecknell, para. 257-274, “This key candidate response information 8 may include, for example, one or more of:… the number of times a candidate changed their answer (this may be represented by a change indicator, for example);… whether a correct answer was changed to an incorrect answer prior to final submission of the answer; whether an incorrect answer was changed to a correct answer prior to final submission; an aspect of how the answer was changed (e.g. the degree of the change in relation to questions which allow different degrees of change such as a free text answer question);… A degree of change may include, for example, the number of words or characters changed. In some embodiments, a degree of change include an assessment of the meaning of the change -- e.g. insertion of a ‘not’ is a single word, three character, change but has a very significant change to the meaning of a sentence.”).
Regarding claim 10, Brecknell teaches the learning assistance device according to claim 1,
further comprising a storage unit configured to store the operation history information for each question (Brecknell, para. 276, “The key candidate response information 8 may be stored in association with the candidate's answers to the assessment 5 on the storage medium 113.” para. 337, “the key candidate response information 8 is also recorded and stored by the assessment device 12 and may be encrypted.”).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. 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. 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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brecknell et al. (US 2018/0114455, hereinafter referred to as Brecknell) as applied to claim 1, in view of Bossart (US 2023/0290262).
Regarding claim 4, Brecknell teaches the learning assistance device according to claim 1.
Brecknell does not explicitly teach an advice generation unit configured to generate advice used for providing learning assistance to the user on the basis of any changes in a content of the answers by the user included in the operation history information acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit, and the level of understanding of each question estimated by the understanding level estimation unit.
However, in an analogous art, Bossart teaches an advice generation unit configured to generate advice used for providing learning assistance to the user on the basis of any changes in a content of the answers by the user included in the operation history information acquired by the operation history information acquisition unit, and the level of understanding of each question estimated by the understanding level estimation unit (Bossart, para. 37, “machine learning (i.e., artificial intelligence) is employed to take into other factors in order to provide improved lessons for the student. In some embodiments, machine learning can be used to consider other factors outside of the answered questions to determine if lesson focus on particular skills is warranted, for example, if a student had past difficulty (e.g., a record of past failed questions in a particular skill or set of related skills) in learning a related skill, the amount of time taken to pass related skills that the student answered correctly for (e.g., if a student answered a question correctly, but took three times as long to answer the question, suggesting more lessons may be required, or if a student answered one or more questions particularly quickly in comparison to other students/past test records, suggesting the student should be placed ahead), the number of inputs/changes to a passed or failed questions (e.g., taking into consideration that a student initially entered the correct answer but ultimately changed the input into an incorrect answer, perhaps suggesting confidence and/or sloppiness issues), the time of day the student took the test, the last time the student took an aptitude test and/or completed lessons, whether other applications were being operated at the same time that can suggest dishonesty (e.g., calculator software, Internet access to teaching sites during the test) or attention issues (e.g., Internet access to social media sites), whether recorded facial reactions, hand movements, and/or eye movements (recorded by a camera of student network access device 102) of the student suggest a particular issue that is impairing the student (external distractions, sleep deprivation, learning disability, dishonesty, disinterest, stress, boredom).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the skill improvement mapping of Bossart with the skill assessment of Brecknell because it enables the system to “provide improved lessons for the student.” See Bossart at para. 37.
Regarding claim 6, Brecknell in view of Bossart teaches the learning assistance device according to claim 4,
wherein the understanding level estimation unit sets an estimation result for the understanding level for each question in stages (Brecknell, para. 298, “In a fourth representation 203 (see FIG. 24), a table may be presented. The table may be separated into four portions---e.g. by a vertical and an intersecting horizontal line. The names of the candidates may be listed in the relevant portion based on their respective scores and confidence factors. In particular, each portion may represent candidates whose score and confidence factor indicate they were one of: confident but misguided (e.g. due to a high confidence factor but low score), uncertain and uninformed (e.g. due to a low confidence factor and low score), confident and knowledgeable (e.g. due to a high confidence factor and high score), and uncertain but knowledgeable (e.g. due to a high score but low confidence factor).” Brecknell’s table is equivalent to the instant application’s description of a “user’s level of understanding in stages” found in para. 14 of the instant specification.).
the advice generation unit generates advice corresponding to the estimation results set in stages (Bossart, para. 37, “machine learning (i.e., artificial intelligence) is employed to take into other factors in order to provide improved lessons for the student. In some embodiments, machine learning can be used to consider other factors outside of the answered questions to determine if lesson focus on particular skills is warranted, for example, if a student had past difficulty (e.g., a record of past failed questions in a particular skill or set of related skills) in learning a related skill, the amount of time taken to pass related skills that the student answered correctly for (e.g., if a student answered a question correctly, but took three times as long to answer the question, suggesting more lessons may be required, or if a student answered one or more questions particularly quickly in comparison to other students/past test records, suggesting the student should be placed ahead), the number of inputs/changes to a passed or failed questions (e.g., taking into consideration that a student initially entered the correct answer but ultimately changed the input into an incorrect answer, perhaps suggesting confidence and/or sloppiness issues), the time of day the student took the test, the last time the student took an aptitude test and/or completed lessons, whether other applications were being operated at the same time that can suggest dishonesty (e.g., calculator software, Internet access to teaching sites during the test) or attention issues (e.g., Internet access to social media sites), whether recorded facial reactions, hand movements, and/or eye movements (recorded by a camera of student network access device 102) of the student suggest a particular issue that is impairing the student (external distractions, sleep deprivation, learning disability, dishonesty, disinterest, stress, boredom).”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
O’Connor et al. (US 6,535,861) discloses a goal based educational system with support for dynamic characteristics tuning using a spread sheet object.
Koneru et al. (WO 01/43107) discloses methods and systems for assisting individuals learn subject matter and, in particular, to prepare for tests.
Applicant should remain cognizant of US 12,315,394 B2 and US 2025/0029512 when making amendments to avoid future double patenting rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (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.
/DANIEL LANE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights