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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims listed above do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea without significantly more.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court set forth an analytical “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. For example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355—57. If, at the first stage of the Alice analysis, we conclude that the claim is not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, it is considered patent eligible under § 101 and the inquiry ends. RapidLitig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72—73). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (internal citation omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “‘[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In determining whether a process claim recites an abstract idea, we must examine the claim as a whole, keeping in mind that an invention is not ineligible just because it relies upon a law of nature or mathematical algorithm. Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. Electronics for Imaging Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As noted by the Supreme Court, “an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981). The “directed to” inquiry asks not whether “the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept,” but instead whether, “considered in light of the specification,…‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). In that regard, we determine whether the claims “focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology” or are “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention is related to systems and methods for learning support; however, claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 309 (1980).
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “the present disclosure relates to a learning support system, a learning support method, and a storage medium” (Paragraph 0002).
Representative claim 8 recites the following with (with emphasis):
A learning support method implemented by a computer, the method comprising:
controlling obtaining timekeeping information in a case in which an answerer inputs by handwriting through an operator an answer including a mathematical formula or a chemical formula in a step-by-step answer process leading to a final answer; and
in a case in which the answer handwritten by the answerer is displayed on a display as a handwritten input image, controlling displaying by generating data to display a length of a duration required for the answerer to input by handwriting the answer process in a state associated with each step of the answer process.
The underlined portions of claim 8 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features found in claims 1-7 and 9-20. Independent claim 1 defines the computing environment in which a substantially identical method is to be performed, reciting components used to perform the method such as “an operator; a display; and at least one processor”. Independent claim 15 defines the storage medium, storing a program to perform a substantially identical method. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further define the abstract idea such as by: defining time intervals to measure an answerers response time; defining which time measurements are to be displayed to an answerer; delineating steps with whitespace; and defining cases in which a correct answer is to be displayed to an answerer.
Under step 2A, prong 1, the instant claims encompass abstract ideas in the form of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts. The process of solving or teaching mathematical or chemical problems by following a step-by-step set of instructions is a method of organizing human activity; the process of measuring a time interval, for example, by subtracting a start time from an end time, is a form of a mathematical process; displaying a correct answer upon a student inputting an answer is basic to the teaching process; therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract concept sub-groupings of "managing personal behavior” and “interactions between people including teaching and following rules or instructions.”
Under step 2A, prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The instant claims only merely link the abstract ideas of learning through a step-by-step process; measuring time to answer a question; and displaying an answer to the field of educational devices without providing features that improve any technology or field.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims encompass the following additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: an operator capable of receiving a handwritten input image; a display; at least one processor; and a storage medium storing a program. However, these features amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional objects to carry out the abstract idea. In Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) the courts recognized that “the use of existing scanning and processing technology to recognize and store data from specific data fields such as amounts, addresses, and dates’ did not amount to significantly more than the ‘abstract idea’ of recognizing and storing information from hard copy documents using a scanner and a computer”. Further, in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the courts found that claims directed towards “no more than the use of existing handwriting and voice capture technologies using a computer system” are not patent eligible. In the same way, an operator capable of receiving a handwritten input image; a display; at least one processor; and a storage medium storing a program; as disclosed in the instant claims, are all basic to computer systems for handwriting capture technologies. Using a display to present time to an answerer is also conventional and well known in the art of online test taking. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations 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 itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0266856 Hung et al. (hereinafter Hung), in view of US 2018/0096619 Fuka (hereinafter Fuka), and further in view of US 2024/0070565 Cohen et al. (hereinafter Cohen).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 Hung teaches:
Claim 1: a learning support system comprising:
an operator (Fig. 1, Label 12 and Paragraph 0033 disclose a student terminal, for example a tablet or a smartphone);
a display (the display of said tablet or smartphone); and
at least one processor (Paragraph 0034 discloses details of the processor of the student terminal); and
Claims 1, 8 and 15: the processor, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to:
obtain timekeeping information (Fig. 3, Label 12, SP20 shows the student terminal acquiring state data, and Paragraph 0048 discloses the state information comprising timekeeping information) in a case in which an answerer inputs, by handwriting an answer, including a mathematical formula, in a step-by-step answer process, leading to a final answer (Fig. 1 shows electronic pens, Label 14, and Fig. 4 shows digital ink through which a user inputs handwritten steps, comprising mathematical formulas, leading to a final answer);
Hung teaches state data comprising an amount of study time, start time, end time, and elapsed time while a student is working on an exercise problem (Paragraph 0048); however, instead of displaying the amount of time a user spends on each step of a problem, the system of Hung teaches a generic visualization, representing study time or progress on an entire exercise problem for a user (Paragraph 0112 and Fig. 10).
Therefore, Hung lacks an explicit teaching of:
in a case in which the answer handwritten by the answerer is displayed as a handwritten input image, a display presents a length of duration required for the answerer to input, by handwriting, the answer process in a state associated with each step of the answer process.
However, Hung recites that the processor of the user terminal “may switch between a ‘single-screen mode,’ in which a single screen is displayed, and a ‘split-screen mode,’ in which split screens are displayed, according to an operation performed by the user. During execution of the split-screen mode, the processor splits the display region into two or more sub-regions… The sizes, shapes, number of divisions, positions, or arrangement of the sub-regions may be changed or adjusted depending on each application” (Paragraph 0093).
Additionally, Fuka teaches a learning support system wherein a single problem is further divided into several subproblems, each of which corresponds to a step for solving the single problem (Fig. 11A shows an example question, Label 1102, from which several steps originate. Label 1104 shows a solution entry section for said steps. Since each step has a corresponding solution, each step is considered a problem). Fuka teaches that “unique question variants can be produced” (Paragraph 0005) and that the method of creating unique questions identifies a student’s strengths or weaknesses for a given subject (Abstract).
Further, Cohen teaches a skill training device wherein a user answers challenges, considered questions, and a display presents a count up timer (see Fig. 2J and Paragraph 0303). Cohen discloses that the background of the timer changes color, for example, changing from green to red to represent a delayed answer (Paragraph 0304). Cohen discloses that the timer may optionally present a configurable “timing score” corresponding to how quickly a user answers a question (Paragraph 0305).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Hung with the method of dividing problems into several subproblems as taught by Fuka. The modified system would result in a system capable of displaying a visualization representing the time an answerer used to input each step of the answer process since each step would be considered its own exercise problem. One would have been motivated to make this modification to better identify a student’s strengths or weaknesses, thus enabling an instructor to create a more personalized study plan.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system to be capable of displaying the timer, as taught by Cohen, within one of the display regions disclosed by Hung. This modification would result in a system capable of displaying the length of time an answerer used to input each step of an answer process. One would be motivated to make this modification, so that a user could have a means for immediate feedback with respect to the speed of the user’s answers.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, the modified system, as discussed above, and as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, displays the length of the duration from an entry start timing of a predetermined step of an answer process to an entry end timing of the predetermined step (the count-up timer in the modified device displays a user’s time taken to answer a step to a question, in other words, the duration from the start of a step to the end of said step).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 the modified system, as discussed above, and as applied to claims 1,8, and 15, lacks further comprising:
a first mode wherein the system displays the length of the duration from an entry end timing of a predetermined step of the answer process to an entry start timing of a next step of the predetermined step; and
a second mode wherein the system displays the length of the duration from an entry start timing of a predetermined step of the answer process to an entry end timing of the predetermined step;
However, Hung discloses state data including presence/absence, studying, taking a break, amount of study time, start time, end time, and elapsed time (Paragraph 0048). Measuring the length of a break in the system of Hung necessarily means the system measures the time a user takes in between problems, in other words, the length of the duration from an entry end timing of a predetermined step of the answer process to an entry start timing of a next step of the predetermined step; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system to display, on the count-up timer, a user’s down time in between steps of a problem. One would have been motivated to make this modification so that a user could have a visual indicator keeping track of the length of a break, with a color changing capability, for example, turning from green to red, serving as a reminder to be considerate of time. Upon this modification, the system would comprise a first mode, displaying a count representing the time a user needed to answer a question, and a second mode, displaying a count representing a break when a user is not actively answering a question.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, the modified system, as discussed above, and as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, lacks each step being judged to process a transition to the next step by a line break.
Hung shows steps to solve a math problem, each step on its own independent line (Fig. 4, Label 68), but the system of Hung does not explicitly teach steps delineated by a line break.
However, Fuka discloses a mode wherein a user’s input regarding a step necessarily lays on its own line (Fig. 11A, Label 1104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system, as discussed above, and as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, to have a mode wherein a user’s input regarding a step is necessarily on its own line as taught by Fuka. One would have been motivated to make this modification for students who are disorganized, and the modification would force such students to express their steps in a linear fashion, allowing for an instructor to better understand said steps.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, the modified system, as discussed above, and as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, lacks but Cohen teaches:
preset comments to be displayed when an answerer takes longer than a threshold time to answer. (Paragraph 0153 discloses that a trainee can be assigned a timing score in a challenge, with scores corresponding to certain predetermined time thresholds. Paragraph 0157 discloses displaying comments, depending on the timing score and that comments may be in terms of points or descriptive text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system, as discussed above, and as applied to claims 1,8, and 15, to display a comment depending on the timing of a user’s answer to a step. One would have been motivated to make this modification, so that a user could have informative feedback on their performance with respect to time.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung, in view of Fuka, further in view of Cohen, and further in view of US 2020/0286402 He et al. (hereinafter He). The modified system, as discussed above, and as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, lacks wherein:
in a case in which the answer handwritten by the answerer is displayed on the display as the handwritten input image, data is generated to display a corresponding question and a corresponding answer together.
However, He teaches a method and system for assisting with a math problem, wherein a question, its corresponding answer, and an explanation corresponding to the answer are displayed on the same screen at time of a trigger (Fig. 1A, question, Label 101, first answer, Label 102, and solving steps, Label 105, are simultaneously displayed on a screen, Label 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system, as discussed above, and as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, to display a question and a corresponding solution and explanation, as taught by He, upon a user completing a question. One would have been motivated to make this modification, so that a user could quickly and conveniently see content to learn from, facilitating said user’s learning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LEE GARLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-0810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed, 8:30-8:30; Thu 8-12.
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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights