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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is generally narrative and appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. It is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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 Objections
Claim 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 3, “the practice includes” should read “the practice method includes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 2-6 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 2 recites the limitations “outputs a candidate” and “obtaining a result of selection from the output candidate”. The limitation is unclear as it reads as if the candidate is a list or plurality (one or more) candidates from which the user selects. However, the wording appears to be a singular candidate which makes it unclear, in view of the claim language and specification, what the user is “selecting”. This is further compounded by the recitations of the limitation of a/the “candidate” in claims 3-5 such as what the difference is between the “determined practice method” and “the output candidate” of claim 4 if there is only one candidate as the limitations would be the same thing and how the candidate can have an “arranged order” of claim 5 if not a plurality of items. This lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “outputs one or more candidates”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “according to the candidate” and “in association with the candidate”. It is unclear if this candidate is the output candidate of claim 2 or the selected candidate. This lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency and the issues discussed above.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 12, and 13 recite a process, a computing machine/device for performing the process, and a computer system for performing the process, the process including the steps of obtaining a target period for goal achievement of a user; setting a goal, based on the target period and current ability of the user; and determining a practice method, based on the goal and the target period. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are obtaining/deciding a target period for a user to achieve a goal, setting a goal based on the period and current ability of the user, and determining a practice method based on the goal and period. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (determining a practice method), judgement (setting a goal), observation (obtaining a target period)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 12, and 13 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are a computer [claim 1]; a processor [claims 12 & 13]; a server device [claim 13]; and an electronic device that is communicably connected to the server device over a network [claim 13]. The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraphs 0009, 0011, and 0019-0020 of the specification states the devices may be a personal computer and/or smartphone and describe the devices as a controller, RAM, storage, communication unit, display, and other generic hardware components wherein the processor may be any general purpose CPU or a dedicated microcontroller. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, 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 because, as discussed above, the additional elements of a computer, a processor, a server device, and an electronic device used to perform the process are generic computing components/devices used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 13 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-11 are dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of the independent claim. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2-5, 7-9, and 11 recite further abstract ideas including determining the practice method by obtaining a result of selection (judgement MP); calculating an estimated period (evaluation MP); determining the practice method (judgment MP): arranging the candidate based on a difference between the periods (evaluation MP); identifying the current ability of the user (observation/evaluation MP); setting the goal (judgment MP); the practice method including learning of an educational subject (certain method of organizing human activity, teaching); and creating a practice plan (judgement MP). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities including outputting/displaying the results of the process and the steps by performed/applied by a computer/generic computing device. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 6 and 10 recite insignificant extra-solution activity specifically storing the data/information, transmitting/receiving data from a database, and outputting/displaying data. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claim is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-11 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Clark (US PGPub 20150104768).
With regard to claims 1, 12, and 13, Clark teaches an information processing method to be performed by a computer [claim 1] (Paragraphs 0009, 0012, 0070; “method” performed using a computer), an information processing device that includes a processor wherein the processor performs the method [claim 12] (Paragraphs 0015, 0016, 0051 teach the embodiment can be a computer system including execution of instructions by a processor), and an information output system [claim 13] (Paragraph 0051, 0063; “server computer”), comprising:
a server device that includes a processor [claim 13] (Paragraphs 0051, 0063); and
an electronic device that is communicably connected to the server device over a network [claim 13] (Paragraph 0063 teaches the server is connected to a student and/or instructor computer via a communication network), wherein the processor performs the method comprising:
obtaining a target period for goal achievement of a user (Paragraphs 0027, 0076, 0091 teach the system can receive input parameters from a user including a length of time/practice duration (target period) or a defined number of drills);
setting a goal, based on the target period and current ability of the user (Paragraphs 0012-0013, 0020, 0074, 0077, 0089 teach the system can receive and determine goals for the user including goals for trainable skills and completion goals based on the parameters, such as length of time and the user’s abilities/statistics); and
determining a practice method, based on the goal and the target period (Paragraphs 0015-0022, 0074, 0076-0077 teach the system creates a practice plan based on the student statistics, skill targets, and determination of deviation between the goals and baseline values for the user wherein the practice plan includes drills selected from the database).
With regard to claim 2, Clark further teaches wherein: based on the target period and the goal, the computer outputs a candidate for the practice method (Paragraphs 0076, 0091-0092 teach the system can build a practice plan based on established parameters including the time/practice duration and target skills and goals wherein the practice plan includes proposed drills (candidate)), and the computer determines the practice method by obtaining a result of selection from the output candidate (Paragraphs 0074, 0076, 0096, 0110 teach the system can present or select a subset of drills for the drill library to create the practice plan and the instructor can review the practice plan and remove or change the presented drills (candidates) thereby selecting the drills for the practice plan (selection result)).
With regard to claim 3, Clark further teaches wherein: based on the current ability of the user, the target period, and the goal, the computer calculates an estimated period for the user to complete practice according to the candidate (Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0087, 0092 teach the system can determine a deviation between the student’s baseline value and goal value for a skill and the corresponding drills wherein the deviation is used to determine an allocated practice time (estimated period) based in part on estimated times to complete the drills and the user’s baseline (current ability)), and the computer outputs the estimated period in association with the candidate (Paragraphs 0092, 0116-0117 teach the practice plan can be published and viewed by the student including the list of drills including the estimated practice duration for the drills).
With regard to claim 4, Clark further teaches wherein: in response to the user selecting the practice method from the output candidate, the computer determines the practice method (Paragraphs 0074, 0076, 0096, 0110 teach the system can present or select a subset of drills for the drill library to create the practice plan and the instructor can review the practice plan and remove or change the presented drills (candidates) thereby selecting the drills for the practice plan (selection result) which is the published practice plan (practice method)), and the computer outputs the determined practice method and the estimated period instead of outputting the candidate for the practice method (Paragraphs 0092, 0116-0117 teach the practice plan can be published and viewed by the student including the list of drills including the estimated practice duration for the drills).
With regard to claim 5, Clark further teaches wherein: the computer arranges the candidate for the practice method, based on a difference between the estimated period and the target period (Paragraphs 0055-0058, 0092-0094 teach the drills and skills for a practice can be selected based on the deviation between the user’s baseline and target values based in part on the practice duration such that the drills are sorted by the deviation and those with the highest deviation are incorporated or a practice plan is built based on percentages and corresponding deviations), and the computer outputs the candidate in the arranged order (Paragraphs 0092, 0116-0117 teach the practice plan can be published and viewed by the student including the practice plan drills having the largest deviation).
With regard to claim 6, Clark further teaches wherein the computer refers to a storage that stores information on multiple practice methods (Paragraphs 0050, 0071-0073 teach the system is connected to a database and performs the calculations using data input into the databased including skill-targeted drills (multiple practice methods)) and outputs multiple candidates for the practice method (Paragraphs 0074, 0076, 0096, 0110 teach the system can present or select a subset of drills for the drill library to create the practice plan and the instructor can review the practice plan and remove or change the presented drills (candidates)).
With regard to claim 7, Clark further teaches wherein the computer identifies the current ability of the user, based on a practice history of the user (Paragraphs 0050, 0054-0055, 0088, 0090 teach the system can deter baseline statistical metrics (current ability) for the user based on performance data of the user’s past performance (practice history)).
With regard to claim 8, Clark further teaches wherein: based on the target period and the current ability of the user, the computer outputs multiple candidates for the goal (Paragraphs 0087, 0091 teach the system can have multiple levels of difficulty for the drills that impact the completion goal which can be selected by the user or instructor), and the computer sets the goal by obtaining a result of selection from the output candidates (Paragraphs 0087, 0091 teach the system can have multiple levels of difficulty for the drills that impact the completion goal which can be selected by the user or instructor thereby setting the goal for the drills).
With regard to claim 9, Clark further teaches wherein: the practice includes learning of an educational subject (Paragraphs 0008, 0127 teach the trainable skill that is set is related to academics or musical skills such that the training would be related to academics or music (educational subject)), and the practice method includes a learning method for learning the educational subject (Paragraphs 0008, 0071, 0127 teach the trainable skill that is set is related to academics or musical skills such that the training would be related to academics or music (educational subject) and the drills are skill-targeted such that they would be a learning method for learning the academic/educational subject/skill).
With regard to claim 10, Clark further teaches wherein: the computer obtains the practice history of the user by referring to a database stored in a storage, based on identification information of the user (Paragraphs 0050, 0071-0073 teach the system is connected to a database and performs the calculations using data input into the databased including student account information (identification information) including the student’s performance on drills and past performance data).
With regard to claim 11, Clark further teaches wherein: the computer creates a practice plan, based on the determined practice method (Paragraphs 0091-0092, 0109 teach the system builds and generates the practice plan based on the analyzed user data and selected drills (practice methods)), and the computer outputs the practice plan by displaying the practice plan on a display (Paragraphs 0116-0117 teach the practice plan can be published, accessed, and viewed by a student using a student computer (display)).
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-13 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pasqualis et al. (US PGPub 20130260351) teaches a system and method for sequencing learning objectives, content, and lessons based on target dates wherein the system adjusts the sequence of learning objectives based on student performance and can estimate how long it will take for a student to progress through a sequence.
Abecassis et al. (US PGPub 20210178226) teaches a system and method for a virtual athletic coach including building, monitoring, and modifying a training plan based on an athletes performance wherein the system generates a fitness profile for the user, collects goals and constraints, and designs a training plan based on the data wherein the goals can be specific achievements completed by a specific date.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights