DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 12 recites a method comprising:
generating and storing a set of questions for each of a plurality of segments that in their entirety constitute the course;
performing a test of each of the plurality of segments, after receiving an indication that the student has studied each of the plurality of segments, to determine whether the student has understood each of the plurality of segments by:
verifying the identity of the student;
only when the verification of the student taking the test of each of the plurality of segments indicates that it is the student registered for the course,
randomly selecting a portion of the set of questions for the segment being tested prior to presenting a first one of the selected set of questions, the portion of the set of questions constituting the entire test of the segment being tested such that the entire test is downloaded before starting of the test;
presenting the questions of the selected questions in a random order and receiving a response to each presented question from the student taking the test of each of the plurality of segments;
storing the responses to the questions provided by the student;
after a response to a last one of the downloaded set of questions is received from the student taking the test of each of the plurality of segments, analyzing the responses provided by the student to acceptable responses and based on the analysis of the responses, determining passing or failure of the test of each of the plurality of segments;
associating the passing of the test of each of the plurality of segments with the identification of the student and then generating and storing an indication of passing of that segment for that student; and
when the test of any of the plurality of segments is not passed, notifying to the student that they must repeat the study of that segment and the test of that segment; and then
updating a record associated with the student to include an indication of completion of the course only after indications of passing of all of the plurality of segments have been stored
whereby the random selection of the portion of the set of questions and the random presentation of the downloaded set of questions reduce the likelihood of any two students having the same questions in the same order and thereby reduce the likelihood of any one student taking the test being able to assist another student taking the same test of the course.
The limitations of generating and storing a set of questions, performing a test, verifying student identification, randomly selection a portion of the set of questions, presenting the questions in a random order, storing the responses, analyzing the responses, associating passing with identification of the student, notifying the student when not passed, and updating a user record, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a database to store the student and question data and download questions, and a headset with a user interface for the user to view and answer questions, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “database” and “processor” language, “generating”, “downloading”, “storing”, “updating”, etc. in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually maintaining the question and user data and randomly selecting questions from a storage for presenting to a user and analyzing the answers to update the user records, for example using a pen and paper. Similarly, the limitations of presenting questions and receiving answers, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claims are also directed to a method of teaching, and are therefore directed to an abstract idea under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of using a headset with a user interface to communicate questions and answers with a user, a database to store and update question and user data, and retrieve question, and a processor to analyze answers. The headset, processor and database in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic headset interface, processor and database performing generic computer functions of maintaining questions and user data, analyzing answers, and updating records) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, 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 headset is also utilized to perform a biometric verification of the student to verify the identification of the student. This amounts to no more than extra-solution data processing in the form of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), or only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using headset, processor and database to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the use of the headset for biometric verification amounts to no more than extra-solution data processing in the form of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), or only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, as shown by Fieldman (US 2022/0139056) (Par’s. 523-524), Breed et al. (US 2020/0301150) (Par. 152), and Publicover et al. (US 2015/0326570) (Par 152), this claim element represents well-understood, routine conventional activity previously known in the industry. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional abstract details of the testing, such as presenting further questions and receiving answers, directing the student to study, being performed by the generic computer components. Accordingly, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 1-11 and 14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the telecommunications device” in the 9th to last line. Claim 14 also recites this limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Dependent claims 2-11 inherit the deficiencies of parent claim 1 through their dependencies, and are thus rejected for the same reasons.
Claims allowable over the Prior Art
5. The closest prior art of record, Breed (US 2015/0037781) and Mortimer et al. (US Patent No. 6,091,930) disclose the limitations in claims 1 and 12 of performing a test of segments of questions of a student, performing biometric verification using a headset of a student, generating and storing questions, after a response to at least one question, analyzing to determine passing or failure, and updating a record associated with this student. However, these references and the other prior art of record do not disclose or reasonably suggest the combination of features in claims 1 and 12, including generating and storing segments of question sets in a database, performing a test after receiving an indication the student has studied each segment, performing the biometric identification, downloading a randomly selected portion of the set of questions, presenting the question in a random order, storing and analyzing the responses to determine passing or failure, associating passing with the student record, and notifying the student they must repeat if not passed.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday Eastern.
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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights