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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner Note
Claims 1-22 and 50 have not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) as these modules are stored as software modules in memory and are being executed by a processor .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-22, 24 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claims recites a computer-implemented system, method and non-transitory computer-readable storage media. These are directed to a machine, a series of steps or acts, and manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1, 24 and 50 are directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
A system, method and manufacture comprising :
applying a cryptographic hash function to each educational resource to generate a content validation hash; (mathematical concept: performing a mathematical calculation on each educational resource to generate a corresponding hash value);
generating a unique key for each educational resource; (mental process: a human-being assigning an identifier or unique label to each educational resource.)
applying the cryptographic hash function to each educational resource to generate a content consumption hash; (mathematical concept: performing a mathematical calculation on each educational resource to generate a corresponding hash value);
determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash (mathematical concept/mental process: comparing calculated values and evaluating the comparison to determine a confidence level).
Claims 1, 24 and 50 recites the following additional elements:
Wherein the system is a “computer implemented system”
a computing device comprising at least one processor and instructions executable by the at least one processor ;
an accreditation management system (AMS);
a plurality of software modules configured to
ingest a plurality of educational resources;
persisting each key in association with its respective educational resource and content validation hash;
sending the keys and associations to a remote learning management system (LMS);
receive a data stream from a student user engaged with the educational resources on the remote LMS;
a computing device of the student user;
The above operations performed at the AMS of claim 24;
The manufacture is a “Non-transitory computer-readable storage media encoded with instructions executable by one or more processors”
an education accreditation management application;
a database comprising education records;
a content ingestion module, a content validation module, a streamlining module, a content consumption validation module, a consumption confidence scoring module.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea and additionally merely provide the computer environment in which the abstract mathematical calculations and evaluations are performed. Ingesting the educational resources and receiving the data stream constitutes as mere data gathering, extracting the keys from the data stream constitutes merely obtaining information for use in the abstract comparison, persisting the key, educational resource and hash association constitutes as storage of information and sending the keys and associations to the remote LMC constitutes as transmission of information.
The claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of the cryptographic hash function, the AMS, the LMS, the database, the student computing device or the data stream. The claims also do not require that the confidence level alter the educational resource, control the operations of the LMS, prevent access to content, modify operations of the student computing device or produce some form of technological change or improvement. Instead the additional elements amounts to using generic components to collect, store, transmit and process information used in the abstract mathematical comparison and evaluation. Thus the additional elements are considered mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea and additionally merely provide the computer environment in which the abstract mathematical calculations and evaluations are performed. Ingesting the educational resources and receiving the data stream constitutes as mere data gathering, extracting the keys from the data stream constitutes merely obtaining information for use in the abstract comparison, persisting the key, educational resource and hash association constitutes as storage of information and sending the keys and associations to the remote LMC constitutes as transmission of information.
The claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of the cryptographic hash function, the AMS, the LMS, the database, the student computing device or the data stream. The claims also do not require that the confidence level alter the educational resource, control the operations of the LMS, prevent access to content, modify operations of the student computing device or produce some form of technological change or improvement. Instead the additional elements amounts to using generic components to collect, store, transmit and process information used in the abstract mathematical comparison and evaluation. Thus the additional elements are considered mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
claim 5 does not introduce a new abstract idea outside of what claim 1 recites.
Claims 5 recites the following additional elements:
wherein each key is associated with its respective educational resource as metadata to the educational resource.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely specifies that the key is stored as information associated with the education resource. The claim does not recite a particular metadata structure, a technique for embedding, preserving or improving the operations related to storing or retrieving the metadata. Instead the limitation amounts to storage and organization of the information used in the abstract resource validation process. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, file format, metadata structure, database or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a The additional elements merely specifies that the key is stored as information associated with the education resource. The claim does not recite a particular metadata structure, a technique for embedding, preserving or improving the operations related to storing or retrieving the metadata. Instead the limitation amounts to storage and organization of the information used in the abstract resource validation process. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, file format, metadata structure, database or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim 7-9
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 7-9 are directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
claims 7-9 do not introduce a new abstract idea outside of what claim 1 recites.
Claims 7-9 recites the following additional elements:
the data stream from the computing device of the student user is generated by a browser widget, add-in, add-on, or extension;
the data stream from the computing device of the student user is generated by a visible browser widget;
the data stream from the computing device of the student user is generated by an invisible browser widget.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to necessary data gathering to perform the abstract idea. The claim does not recite. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, browser, browser widget, add-in, add-on, extension or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to necessary data gathering to perform the abstract idea. The claim does not recite. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, browser, browser widget, add-in, add-on, extension or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim 10
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
applying a keyword analysis algorithm to each educational resource to generate an array of content validation keywords for the educational resource (mental process: reviewing the education resource, identifying keywords and organizing the identified keywords based on a process);
the resulting array of content validation keyword (mental process: organizing the identified keywords into a collection associated with the educational resource).
Claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
the keyword analysis algorithm;
persisting each key in association with its respective educational resource and array of content validation keywords
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely stores the information produced by the analysis. The claim does not recite a particular improvement to keyword analysis or text processing. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, text analysis system, database, data structure or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely stores the information produced by the analysis. The claim does not recite a particular improvement to keyword analysis or text processing. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, text analysis system, database, data structure or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim 12
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
claim 12 do not introduce a new abstract idea outside of what claim 1 recites.
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the keyword analysis algorithm utilizes one or more neural networks.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to using neural networks as tools to perform the abstract idea. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, neural network or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to using neural networks as tools to perform the abstract idea. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, neural network or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim 13
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
claim 13 do not introduce a new abstract idea outside of what claim 1 recites.
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the keyword analysis algorithm utilizes one or more regular expression methodologies..
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to using expression methodologies as tools to perform the abstract idea. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, regular expression processing, text analysis or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to using expression methodologies as tools to perform the abstract idea. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, regular expression processing, text analysis or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim 16
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
claim 16 do not introduce a new abstract idea outside of what claim 1 recites.
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
extracting an attendance list from the data stream;
extracting a transcript with speaker attributions from the data stream.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, data stream processing, transcription technology, speaker attribution technology or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, data stream processing, transcription technology, speaker attribution technology or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim 19
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
claim 19 do not introduce a new abstract idea outside of what claim 1 recites.
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the consumption validation operations further comprise extracting a screen recording or screen shot from the data stream.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, screen recording technology, screen shot technology, data stream processing or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, screen recording technology, screen shot technology, data stream processing or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claim20
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea:
applying one or more facial detection and identification methodologies to the screen recording or screen shot. (mental process: revieing an image to detect and identify a face).
Claim 20 recites the following additional elements:
one or more facial detection and identification methodologies.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to data gathering and using facial detection and identification methodologies as tools necessary to perform the abstract idea. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, image processing system, facial detection system, facial identification system or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Likewise to step 2A prong 2, the claims fails to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus the claim fail to provide an improvement to the function of a computer or to a technology itself. The claim culminate with determining a confidence level, at least in part, by comparing the content validation hash to the content consumption hash. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The additional elements merely amounts to data gathering and using facial detection and identification methodologies as tools necessary to perform the abstract idea. As such the claim does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, image processing system, facial detection system, facial identification system or another technology or technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).Therefore, the examiner must find that the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, even when the additional elements are considered alone and in combination with the abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable.
Claims 2-4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 22
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 22 the following claim limitations recites an abstract idea
classifying the educational resources ( mental process: reviewing the education resources and placing the resources into corresponding categories .)
applying a rules-based governance workflow to approve each educational resource (mental process/certain method of organizing human activity: following rules or instructions to determine whether to approve each educational resource.)
wherein the educational resources are organized into a cohort ( mental process: organizing the educational resources into groups .)
applying a rules-based governance workflow to approve the cohort (mental process/certain method of organizing human activity: following rules or instructions to determine whether to approve the cohort.)
wherein the cryptographic hash function utilizes a SSHA256 standard ( mathematical concept: performing a mathematical calculation according to a specified mathematical algorithm.)
wherein the array of content validation keywords comprises a frequency for each keyword (mathematical concept: determining the number of occurrences associated with each keyword)
applying the keyword analysis algorithm to each educational resource to generate an array of content consumption keywords ( mental process: reviewing educational resources, identifying content consumption keywords and organizing the identified keywords .)
determining the confidence level by comparing the array of content validation keywords to the array of content consumption keywords ( mental process: comparing two collections of keywords and evaluating the comparison .)
wherein the confidence level is further determined by comparing a frequency of each content validation keyword to a frequency of each content consumption keyword. (mathematical concept: comparing numerical frequencies associated with corresponding keywords)
wherein the confidence operations further comprise further determining the confidence level by comparing the attendance list to the speaker attributions. ( mental process: comparing persons identified in the attendance list with persons identified by the speaker attributions and evaluating the comparisons .)
further determining the confidence level by comparing confidence levels for other students in a student group. ( mental process/mathematical concept: comparing confidence levels associated with different students and evaluating the comparison.)
wherein the confidence operations further comprise further determining the confidence level by comparing an identified face to a known student photo. ( mental process: comparing the identified face with a known photograph and evaluating whether the identified face corresponds to the student .)
wherein each educational resource comprises one or more defined intended learning outcomes (ILOs), at least one workload, and at least one grade weight (certain method of organizing human activity: organizing educational information according to intended learning outcomes, workload and grade weighting used in teaching and educational administration.)
Claims 2-4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 22 recites the additional elements:
no new additional elements beyond those analyzed with respect to the base claim from with they depend.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B
Claims 2-4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 22 fail to recite any new additional elements relative to base claims 1, 24 and 50. Thus, the analysis and findings for step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B incorporates the analysis and findings of claims 1, 24 and 50 however, the analysis and findings includes consideration of claims 1, 24 and 50 as a whole. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 22 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is unpatentable.
Claim Objections
Claims 5. 17, 18 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “as metadata to the educational resource” is grammatically unclear as to the relationship between the key, the metadata and the educational resource.
Regard claims 17, 18 and 21 the phrase “further comprise further determining the confidence level” appears to recite the term “further” in a redundant manner and does not appear to add any effect to the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
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 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 1-22, 24 and 50 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1, 24 and 50 the claims recites the limitation validating consumption of educational resources by “extracting keys from the data stream.” The claim subsequently recite generating a confidence level for “the consumption validation of the extracted education resources.” However, the preceding limitation recites extraction of the keys and not extraction of the educational resources. It is therefore unclear what is meant by “the extracted educational resource” because the claims do not previously recite extracting educational resources, thus lacking an antecedent basis.
Furthermore, the claims recites “applying the cryptographic hash function to each educational resource to generate a content consumption hash.” After the claimed extraction of the keys from the data stream, the claims do not recite how the corresponding educational resource that is to be hashed is obtained. Therefore it is unclear if “each educational resource” in the confidence operations refers to the educational resource originally ingested by the AMS, the copy maintained by the LMC, educational resource content contained in the student data stream, an educational resource retrieved using the extracted key or some other copy of the resource. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed consumption validation and the source of the educational resource used to generate the content consumption hash are unclear.
In regards to claim 6, the limitation “wherein the cryptographic hash function utilizes a SSHA256 standard” renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, the phrase “SSHA256 standard” relative term rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-22, 24 and 50 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM CST.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights