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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 have been examined.
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.
Independent Claims 1, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are in a statutory category of invention. However, the claims recite accessing one or more user details corresponding to the user for: updating a user profile associated with the user based on the one or more user details related to the online learning platform; fetching a topic of interest of the user, wherein the topic of interest is selected by the user; a mastery progress indicator to track academic proficiency levels of the user; a points system to incentivize participation and progress; displaying a plurality of questions on based on the topic of interest selected by the user; receiving the user response corresponding to the plurality of questions and matching the user response to a plurality of pre-stored answers for identifying correct or incorrect answer; employing to access the user response to award the gamification points only for correct answers without deducting the gamification points for incorrect answers; increasing the gamification points and the mastery progress for correct answer and only reducing the mastery progress for incorrect answer; and triggers a reward to detect and respond when a mastery level of the user is increased. This is considered in the Abstract Idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The additional elements are considered executing code using one or more processors of a computer system to cause the computer system to perform operations comprising, implementing a tracking system within the online learning platform, including; points systems, rewards system, tracking system; a user interface of the online learning platform. These are considered generic. The generically recited computer elements do not add a practical application or meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations only perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Also, the additional hardware elements are: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions. Viewed separately or 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 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea, in that there is no improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of a computer, no application with, or by use of a particular machine, no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, no specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routing and conventional in the field, no unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-19 are not considered directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful description for the claimed invention, these elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts identified in the claimed invention. Hence, these dependent claims are also rejected under 101.
Please see the 35 USC 101 section at the Examination Guidance and Training Materials page on the USPTO website.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 16, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maharaj (20170193834).
Claims 1, 13. Maharaj discloses a method for tracking progress details of a user on an online learning platform comprising: executing code using one or more processors of a computer system to cause the computer system to perform operations comprising ([10]):
accessing one or more user details corresponding to the user for: updating a user profile associated with the user based on the one or more user details related to the online learning platform (see profile at [6, 25]); fetching a topic of interest of the user, wherein the topic of interest is selected by the user [38, 18];
implementing a tracking system within the online learning platform, including: a mastery progress indicator to track academic proficiency levels of the user ([25]); a points system to incentivize participation and progress on the online learning platform of the user [25];
displaying a plurality of questions on a user interface of the online learning platform based on the topic of interest selected by the user (see question at [40]);
receiving the user response corresponding to the plurality of questions and matching the user response to a plurality of pre-stored answers for identifying correct or incorrect answer (see score for correctness or incorrectness [5, 26]);
employing the points system to access the user response to award the gamification points only for correct answers without deducting the gamification points for incorrect answers (see score for correct answer at [26] and points for score at [5, 28] and points are incentive at [25]);
increasing the gamification points and the mastery progress for correct answer (see Table 2 at [28] which tracks aggregate points).
Maharaj does not explicitly disclose and only reducing the mastery progress for incorrect answer. However, Maharaj discloses correct or incorrect answer at Fig. 3b, item 318 and calculating aggregate score at [322] and also that a range of varied scores can be provided for a correct or incorrect answer (see score for correctness or incorrectness [5, 26]). Also, Maharaj discloses a user badge and point scorecard and different levels (see points and badge and level at [5]; see Table 2 at [28] which tracks aggregate points, note moderator level at [25]). Also Maharaj discloses separate points and badges totals (“[7]… a user point and badge scorecard repository to score the points and badges accrued by the user during the course of engaging with different activities in the system as mentioned above”). And, Maharaj discloses different questions and scores based on the user level ([26]). And, the MPEP states that ranges are obvious (2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maharaj different scores for incorrect and correct answers to Maharaj’s points and badge levels so that incorrect answers can reduce movement towards a new badge level. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better update points and also badge levels.
Maharaj further discloses tracking system triggers a reward system to detect and respond when a mastery level of the user is increased (see points and badge and level at [5]; see Table 2 at [28] which tracks aggregate points, note moderator level at [25]).
Claim 2, 14. Maharaj further discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: enabling the reward system on the online learning platform, wherein the reward system is configured to: acknowledge when the mastery level of the user is increased; and enhance user engagement through positive reinforcement mechanisms (see points and badge and level at [5]; see Table 2 at [28] which tracks aggregate points, note moderator level at [25]).
Claim 4, 16. Maharaj further discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: using a plurality of algorithms to: track and differentiate between the mastery progress and the gamification points; and assess the correctness of answers and adjust the mastery level of the user accordingly (see points and badge and level at [5]; see Table 2 at [28] which tracks aggregate points, note moderator level at [25]).
Claim 5, 17. Maharaj further discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: incorporating a conditional logic to: ensure that the points are incremented only upon correct answers; and adjust the increment of the gamification points based on difficulty level of the plurality of questions and performance of the user (Maharaj discloses different questions and scores based on the user level [26]).
Claim 7. Maharaj further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein monitoring the user responses corresponding to the plurality of questions for: increasing the mastery level corresponding to the correct answers provided by the user; and decreasing the mastery level corresponding to the incorrect answers provided by the user (Maharaj discloses different questions and scores based on the user level [26]; see points and badge and level at [5]; see Table 2 at [28] which tracks aggregate points, note moderator level at [25]).
Claim 9, 19. Maharaj further discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: storing the one or more user details, plurality of questions, user response, mastery progress and gamification points into a database (Maharaj discloses different questions and scores based on the user level [26]; see points and badge and level at [5]; see Table 2 at [28] which tracks aggregate points, note moderator level at [25]).
Claim 10. Maharaj does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein awarding higher gamification points to the user for providing correct answers on first attempt and providing correct answers for higher difficulty level question from the plurality of questions. However, Maharaj discloses correct or incorrect answer at Fig. 3b, item 318 and calculating aggregate score at [322] and also that a range of varied scores can be provided for a correct or incorrect answer (see score for correctness or incorrectness [5, 26]). And, Maharaj discloses different questions and scores based on the user level ([26]). And, the MPEP states that ranges are obvious (2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maharaj different scores for answers to Maharaj’s points so that different questions at different levels can get different points. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better incentivize with points.
Claim 11. Maharaj further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein mastery level of the user keeps on updating in real-time based on the user response corresponding to the displayed question from the plurality of questions (see real-time at [5]; see points and badge and level at [5]; see Table 2 at [28] which tracks aggregate points, note moderator level at [25]).
Claim 12. Maharaj further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of questions provided to the user include a mixed set of questions across all standards related to a topic (see category or course and question bank at [7, 37]).
Claims 3, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maharaj (20170193834) in view of Fadel (20050191609).
Claim 3, 15. Maharaj does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising: utilizing a learning analytics on the online learning platform to: provide the user with estimated time for completing the topic of interest selected by the user; and analyze the one or more user details to inform the estimation of time. However, Maharaj discloses the user selecting courses/topics (see above) and also time spent on material [20]. And, Fadel discloses improving on standardized tests and estimated times of completions and questions [81, 84]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Fadel’s estimate time of completion Maharaj’s tests for knowledge improvement and time spent on material. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better track user progress and improve user test taking.
Claims 6, 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maharaj (20170193834) in view of Cunningham (20040076941).
Claim 6. Maharaj does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein monitoring the user responses corresponding to the plurality of questions include identifying number of attempts taken by the user for providing the correct answer.
However, Maharaj discloses user profile with detailed course history [6] and question quality ([5]). And, Cunningham discloses tracking questions and number of attempts relevant to a question 9 (Page 16 Appendix A “question Summary”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Cunningham’s tracking attempts to Maharaj’s user profile and correct/incorrect answers and question quality. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better track user progress and question quality.
Claim 8, 18. Maharaj does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising: accessing a curriculum database to align the plurality of questions with the educational standards. Or, in further regards to claim 18, Maharaj does not explicitly disclose standards related to the topic selected by the user. However, Maharaj discloses the topics selected by the user feature above. And, Maharaj discloses user credentials [17, 25] and a question bank and quality [5]. And, Cunningham discloses standardized tests and reorganized standardized tests [2, 3, 18] and official certification [125]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Cunningham’s official certification and standardized tests to Maharaj’s question bank and quality, and credentials. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better provide question quality and credentials.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) Devarakonda discloses questions and profiles, see the other cited art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 3/24/26
Prosecution Insights