/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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 06/09/2026.
Claims 1, 2, and 14-15 have been amended.
Claim 20 has been added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 06/09/2026, have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 8-12 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 6 of this final office action.
On pages 8-10 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the amended claims recite limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and that the claim steps are fully integrated into a practical application and include additional limitations amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. On page 10 of the Response, the Applicant argues “the presently claims system and method of claims 1 and 14, respectively, further require a number of electronic devices to provide the learning assessment, including…These electronic devices, when connected together as claimed, provide an improvement to a computing system…Real-time re-prescription and portal update tie the claim to a specific technological process and a practical-application integration and add a meaningful limitation…”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims do not recite concepts of mental processes and that the additional elements of the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner notes, “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). As currently drafted, the independent claims recite steps for collecting information (e.g., receiving learner assessment data for the one or more core learning skills being assessed, including completion time, error rate, and delay time), organizing information (e.g., a plurality of learner profiles for a plurality of learners comprising a learner identification, learner assessment data, and skill masteries; updating the learner profile in real time as additional data is collected), and judgement/analyzing information (e.g., prescribing learning activities that are associated with a specific core learning skill of the plurality of core learning skills for which the learner does not yet have skill mastery) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. Furthermore, the independent claims, as a whole, are directed towards providing learning assessments to students, receiving assessment data associated with students, maintaining/updating data associated with the students, and prescribing learning activities to students- which is the concept of managing personal behavior that includes “social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
The additional elements of the claim include a plurality of generic computer tools and instructions utilized to implement the abstract idea. In particular, independent claim 1 provides “a learning assessment database comprising a plurality of learning assessment modules”, “each learning assessment module comprising an interactive game-based task capable of being presented on a display screen”, “an interactive assessment device comprising a display screen and an assessment application displayed on the display screen to display a learning assessment module from the learning assessment database”, “a processor for receiving the learner assessment data relevant to the learning assessment module”, steps for “automatically” collecting the learner assessment data, a “learner profile database”, “a learning activities database”, and a “prescriptive learning engine for receiving” information. The additional elements of claim 1, as identified above, merely amount to generic computer tools and instructions to automate the abstract idea (i.e., mental processes and managing personal behavior) in a computing environment. Merely utilizing generic computer components to display/transmit information, collect information, and store information does not reflect a technical improvement to the technical functioning of the computing environment. The Examiner notes, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
On pages 11-12 of the Response, the Applicant argues “the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer to provide an unbiased learning assessment and prescribing a learning activity from the learning activities database…”; “The specification has provided sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement, and the inventors have a wealth of evidence that their system and method work to accurately and fairly assess early learners and help them to achieve skill mastery faster than with traditional methods”; “The technological improvement of collecting granular learner assessment data by the interactive assessment device enables both an identification of skill mastery of the learner in each of the plurality of core learning skills…and an unbiased learning assessment that could not be accomplished by an educator”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the independent claims recite additional elements that reflect a technical improvement to the technological environment itself. As discussed further above, the additional elements of claim 1 merely amount to generic computer tools and instructions to automate the abstract idea (i.e., mental processes and managing personal behavior) in a computing environment. Specifically, the additional elements of the claim merely provide generic computer tools and instructions to automatically collect learner information, store/update learner information, and transmit/display learning assessment information – which does not reflect a technical improvement to the technical functioning of the computing environment. The Examiner notes, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Furthermore, although the Applicant argues that the claimed invention may “accurately and fairly assess early learners and help them to achieve skill mastery faster than with traditional methods”, these benefits are considered to be, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea itself. That is, helping learners achieve skill masteries faster and assessing learners more accurately is an improvement to the concept of managing personal behavior (e.g., teaching) and mental processes (e.g., analyzing information). The Examiner notes that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself […] is not an improvement in technology” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 12-14 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are moot in view of the amended §103 rejection that may be found starting on page 18 of this final office action.
In view of the amendments to independent claims 1 and 14, the Examiner has set forth an amended §103 rejection of the claims with newly cited prior art to address the amended limitations of the claims.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 12-14 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 2 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the amended §103 rejection that may be found starting on page 18 of this final office action. In view of the amendments to claim 2, the Examiner has set forth an amended §103 rejection of the claim.
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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-13 are directed to a machine (“a system”), and claims 14-20 are directed to a process (“a method”). Thus, claims 1-19 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
[…] the plurality of core learning skills set by one or more of a standard curriculum, educational research, school board requirements, and jurisdictional requirements;
[…] receive learner assessment data for the one or more core learning skills being assessed during delivery of the learning assessment […], and […] receiving the learner assessment data relevant to the learning assessment […] the learner assessment data comprising assessment module completion time, error rate, and delay time.
[…] a plurality of learner profiles for a plurality of learners, each learner profile comprising a learner identification, the learner assessment data from each learning assessment […] attempted by the learner, and an identification of skill mastery of the learner in each of the plurality of core learning skills […] based on the learner assessment data.
[…] a plurality of learning activities, each learning activity associated with the one or more core learning skills; and
[…] receiving the identification of skill mastery of the learner in the plurality of core learning skills and prescribing at least one learning activity […] that is associated with a specific core learning skill of the plurality of corer learning skill for which the at least one learner does not yet have skill mastery and updating the learner profile in real time as additional learner assessment data is collected […].
Claims 1 and 2-13, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information (i.e., receiving learner assessment data comprising completion time, error rate, and delay time), organizing data (i.e., organizing/updating learner profiles in real-time for a plurality of learners comprising a plurality of learner data, and organizing a plurality of learning activities associated with one or more core learning skills), and displaying a result of collecting and analyzing data (i.e., receiving an identification of skill mastery of a learner in a plurality of core learning skills and prescribing at least one learning activity based on the skill mastery of the learner in one or more core learning skills). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, claim 1 recites concepts of certain methods of organizing human activity. As a whole, the limitations identified above are directed towards collecting learner assessment information corresponding to learners (i.e., students), storing/updating learner data in learner profiles, and prescribing learning activities to the learners based on an identification of skill masteries of the learners in one or more core learning skills. These limitations, as a whole, recite concepts of managing personal behavior in the form of teaching and following/providing instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). This is further evidenced by the specification at ¶ [0022] and ¶ [0058]-¶ [0060].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “learning assessment database comprising a plurality of learning assessment modules and a plurality of core learning skills, each learning assessment module associated with and for assessing one or more core learning skills”, a “learning assessment module comprising an interactive game-based task capable of being presented on a display screen”, “an interactive assessment device comprising a display screen and an assessment application displayed on the display screen to display a learning assessment module from the learning assessment database to a learner and to” receive information, “a processor” for receiving information “relevant to the learning assessment module”, steps “wherein the interactive assessment device automatically collects, during delivery of the learning assessment module, and without data entry by an educator, the learner assessment data”, “a learner profile database”, “learning assessment module”, “learning activities database”, and “prescriptive learning engine”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for storing/retrieving information in a memory, i.e., storing/retrieving information in the “learning assessment database”, “learner profile database”, and “learning activities database”. These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for storing/retrieving information in a memory amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for storing/retrieving information in a memory fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found storing/retrieving information in a memory to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve storing/retrieving information in a memory, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 14, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Providing a learner with a learning assessment […] the learning assessment […] associated with a plurality of core learning skills associated with one or more of a standard curriculum, educational research, school board requirements, and jurisdictional requirements;
Assessing the learner on the plurality of core learning skills by […] collecting […] learner assessment data comprising assessment module completion time, error rate, and, delay time;
For the learner, assigning a skill mastery status for each of the plurality of core learning skills being assessed by the learning assessment […] based on the […] collected learner assessment data;
Storing the skill mastery status for each of the plurality of core learning skills in a learner profile for the learner […];
Selecting at least one learning activity […], the at least one learning activity associated with at least one core learning skill for which the learner does not yet have skill mastery status; and
Updating, in real time as additional learner assessment data is collected, the learner profile […].
Therefore, claims 14 and 15-19, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations identified above recite concepts of observation and judgement (i.e., assessing the learner on the plurality of core learning skills by collecting learning assessment data, assigning a skill mastery status for each of the plurality of core learning skills being assessed based on the collected learner assessment data, and selecting at least one learning activity associated with at least one core learning skill for which the learner does not yet have skill mastery status), and organizing information (i.e., storing the skill mastery status for each of the plurality of core learning skills in a learner profile for the learner, updating the learner profile in real time as additional learner assessment data is collected). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, claim 14 recites concepts of certain methods of organizing human activity. As a whole, the limitations identified above are directed towards assessing learners (i.e., students) on a plurality core learning skills, assigning a skill mastery status for each of the core learning skills being assessed, selecting learning activities for the learners associated with core learning skills for which the learner does not yet have mastery status, and updating a learner profile in real time as learner assessment data is collected. These limitations, as a whole, recite concepts of managing personal behavior in the form of teaching and following/providing instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). This is further evidenced by the specification at ¶ [0022] and ¶ [0058]-¶ [0060].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include providing “a learning assessment module on an interactive assessment device comprising a display screen”, “the learning assessment module comprising an interactive game-based task”, “the learning assessment module associated with a plurality of core learning skills”, steps for “automatically collecting, with the interactive assessment device during delivery of the learning assessment module and without data entry by an educator” the learning assessment data, steps for storing/updating information in a “learner profile database”, a “learning activities database”, and steps for updating information on “an educator portal in communication with the learner profile database”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for storing/retrieving information in a memory, i.e., “storing the skill mastery […] in a learner profile database”, “selecting at least one learning activity from a learning activities database”, “updating […] the learner profile in the learner profile database and an educator portal in communication with the learner profile database”. These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for storing/retrieving information in a memory amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for storing/retrieving information in a memory fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found storing/retrieving information in a memory to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve storing/retrieving information in a memory, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 describes the core learning skills as being associated with a plurality of grade levels. Thus, claim 2 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 3 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “learning milestones database comprising a plurality of learning milestones”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 4 further describes collecting data pertaining to an assessment, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps for collecting information via generic computer components (“wherein the interactive assessment device can receive one or more of notes, audio, video, photograph of assessment, voice to text, and sensor data pertaining to the assessment”).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 5 further describes collecting additional learner assessment data that is added to a learner profile, and this further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps for collecting information via generic computer components (“wherein the interactive assessment device is connected to a peripheral assessment tool, and the peripheral assessment tool collects additional learner assessment data”).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 6 recites the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 5, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the peripheral assessment tool is a toy, hand puppet, card, tile, or manipulative”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Because merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 7 recites the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 5, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the peripheral assessment tool comprises an external sensor, embedded sensor, microphone, or camera”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 8 further describes providing auditory language instruction for completing an assessment, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the interactive assessment device further comprises a speaker and the assessment module comprises auditory language instruction for completing the assessment module”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 9 further describes the learner assessment data as comprising completion time, error rate, and delay time. Thus, claim 9 further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 10 further describes collecting information regarding an identification of skill mastery in a plurality of core learning skills for a group of learners and prescribing a specific learning activity for the group of learners based on the skill mastery in the plurality of core learning skills for the group of learners. Thus, claim 10 further describes the abstract idea.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps for collecting information via generic computer components, i.e., “wherein prescriptive learning engine receives […]”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 11 further describes collecting learner assessment data for the core learning skills being assessed. Thus, claim 11 further describes the abstract idea.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps for collecting and displaying information via generic computer components, i.e., “wherein the interactive assessment device displays the learning assessment module and the processor receives the learner assessment data […]”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 12 further describes the learner profile as comprising learner information and tailoring a learning assessment based on the learner information. Thus, claim 12 further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 13 further describes the learner information as comprising a birth date, grade level, school, teacher, school board, educational history, family information, domestic situation, community or extracurricular associations, learner’s interests, cultural group, geographical area, migration history, languages spoked, and a first language. Thus, claim 13 further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1 and 12 from which the claim depends.
Claim 15 further describes assessing the skill mastery of a plurality of learners in a learner group by sorting the plurality of learners in the learner group by a selected core learning skill to identify learners in the learning group who do not yet have skill mastery status in the selected core learning skill. Thus, claim 15 further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 14 from which the claim depends.
Claim 16 further describes selecting the at least one learning activity for the learner group based on the core learning skill mastery status for the set of learners in the learner group, and updating the learner profile for each learner in the learner group indicating that the learning activity was completed by each learner in the group of learners. Thus, claim 16 further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 14-15 from which the claim depends.
Claim 17 further describes comparing the skill mastery status to learning milestones in a learning milestones database. Thus, claim 17 further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 14 from which the claim depends.
Claim 18 further describes the learner profile a comprising learner information and tailoring the learning assessment based on the learner information. Thus, claim 18 further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 14 from which the claim depends.
Claim 19 further describes the learner information as comprising a birth date, grade level, school, teacher, school board, educational history, family information, domestic situation, community or extracurricular associations, learner’s interests, cultural group, geographical area, migration history, languages spoked, and a first language. Thus, claim 19 further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 14 and 18 from which the claim depends.
Claim 20 further describes collecting additional learner assessment data comprising audio data, video data, object manipulation and selection, and movement data, and thus further describes the abstract idea.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps for collecting information via generic computer components (“during assessing the learner on the plurality of core learning skill, during delivery of the learning assessment module, using at least one peripheral assessment tool connected to the interactive assessment device and comprising an embedded sensor”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Novatin et al. U.S. Publication No. 2025/0378518, hereafter known as Novatin, in view of Wilson et al. U.S. Publication No. 20100233667, hereafter known as Wilson, in further view of Chugrinov et al. WO2025226176, hereafter known as Chugrinov.
Claim 1: Novatin teaches the following:
A learning assessment database comprising a plurality of learning assessment modules and a plurality of core learning skills, each learning assessment module associated with and for assessing one or more core learning skills, […]; (Abstract: System and methods for adaptive artificial intelligence based course template generation. The system is configured to generate a first course template and a first set of learning course content that adheres to the first course template); (¶ [0003]: the system may generate and display the learning course content via a graphical user interface); (¶ [0016]: the AI engine may adapt course content, including course templates, in real-time, which may offer personalized learning paths for an individual learner user); (¶ [0038]: the content assessment and development system may include one or more databases); (¶ [0044]: the content assessment and development system may develop and maintain instructor profiles); (¶ [0042]: the instructor profiles include learning topics/materials (e.g., fractions, verb tenses, etc.). Instructor profiles additionally include data relating to an instructor’s teaching goals, including learner users’ performance metrics indicating a proficiency with one or more topics (e.g., fractions, multiplication, chemical reactions, balancing equations, etc.)); (¶ [0040]: learner profiles include information relating to performance metrics for a learner user, such as scores for quizzes or tests); (¶ [0069]: course types and categories include, e.g., mathematics, science, literature, philosophy, etc.); (¶ [0045]: The learning content may be authored by third-party users, or may be developed for or by an instructor).
An interactive assessment device comprising a display screen and an assessment application displayed on the display screen to display a learning assessment module from the learning assessment database to a learner and to receive learner assessment data for the one or more core learning skills being assessed, and a processor for receiving the learner assessment data relevant to the learning assessment module, wherein the interactive assessment device automatically collects, during delivery of the learning assessment module, and without data entry by an educator, the learner assessment data, the learner assessment data comprising assessment module completion time, […], and delay time; (¶ [0038]: the content assessment and development system may include one or more databases); (¶ [0003]: the system may generate and display the learning course content via a client device graphical user interface); (¶ [0019]: client device may correspond to a user in a class); (¶ [0045]: the learning course content may include content associated with a learning course, such as webpages, lessons, coursework elements, charts, written work, videos, training materials, syllabi, various training interfaces, assessments, etc. The learning content may be authored by third-party users, or may be developed for or by an instructor); (¶ [0042]: see above); (¶ [0060]: the AI engine may receive feedback data including learner user performance metrics); (¶ [0040]: The learner profile may include user data specific to a particular learner user. For instance, the learner profile may include user performance and the like for a particular learner user. The learner profile may include information or data relating to how a learner user interacts with course content or materials, such as, e.g., clicks, dwell time, time duration on a particular content section or learning objective, quiz responses, or the like. Furthermore, the learner profile may include information or data relating to performance metrics for a learner user, such as, e.g., assessment performance or scores, including, e.g., quiz or test scores); (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may update (continuously or intermittently) the learner profile(s) as additional user data becomes available).
A learner profile database comprising a plurality of learner profiles for a plurality of learners, each learner profile comprising a learner identification, the learner assessment data for each learning assessment module attempted by the learner, and an identification of skill mastery of the learner in each of the plurality of core learning skills in the learning assessment database based on the learner assessment data; (¶ [0040] - ¶ [0041]: see above); (¶ [0038]: the system includes one or more databases, and may store/manage user data); (¶ [0039]: user data includes learner profiles and instructor profiles); (¶ [0073]: a particular learner user is associated with a learner user profile); (¶ [0040]: learner profiles may include user data specific to a particular learner user. Learner profile may include user history, scores, performance metrics, and the like for a particular learner user. Learner profile may include information relating to how a learner user interacts with course content, and content usage patterns of a user); (¶ [0062]: the AI engine may generate a first course template for a group of learner users. As part of the course, the learner users may take an assessment. The AI engine may determine whether learner users achieved a non-satisfactory score on the assessment (e.g. achieved a performance metric or score below a performance threshold indicating a certain proficiency or mastery level) or achieved a satisfactory score on the assessment. As such, the AI engine may adapt the course template and content for learner users based on the results); (¶ [0042]: Instructor profiles include data relating to an instructor’s teaching goals, including learner users’ performance metrics indicating a learner-user’s readiness to advance (e.g., to a subsequent grade level), and performance metrics indicating a proficiency with one or more topics (e.g., fractions, multiplication, chemical reactions, balancing equations, etc.)).
A learning activities database comprising a plurality of learning activities, each learning activity associated with the one more core learning skills; (¶ [0038]: the content assessment and development system may include one or more databases); (¶ [0045]: the databases may include the learning course content associated with a learning course); (¶ [0045]: the learning course content may include content associated with a learning course, such as lessons, coursework elements, charts, written work, videos, training materials, syllabi, various training interfaces, assessments, etc. The learning content may be authored by third-party users, or may be developed for or by an instructor); (¶ [0042]: see above); (¶ [0043]: instructor profiles may include one or more recordings. Recordings may be a recording of the instructor teaching a learning objective (e.g., how to balance an equation, how to simplify fractions, how to use quadratic equations, etc.). Recordings may be viewed on demand by one or more students).
A prescriptive learning engine for receiving the identification of skill mastery of the learner in the plurality of core learning skills and prescribing at least one learning activity from the learning activities database that is associated with a specific core learning skill of the plurality of core learning skills for which the at least one learner does not yet have skill mastery, and updating the learner profile in real time as additional learner assessment data is collected by the interactive assessment device. (¶ [0042]: see above); (¶ [0062]: see above); (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may update (continuously or intermittently) the learner profile(s) as additional user data becomes available); (¶ [0040]: learner profiles may include user data specific to a particular learner user. Learner profile may include user history, scores, performance metrics, and the like for a particular learner user); (¶ [0062]: the AI engine may generate a first course template for a group of learner users. As part of the course, the learner users may take an assessment. The AI engine may determine whether learner users achieved a non-satisfactory score on the assessment (e.g. achieved a performance metric or score below a performance threshold indicating a certain proficiency or mastery level) or achieved a satisfactory score on the assessment. As such, the AI engine may adapt the course template and content for learner users based on the results); (¶ [0016]: the AI engine may adapt course content, including course templates, in real-time, which may offer personalized learning paths for an individual learner user. For instance, when a student is struggling with a concept, the AI engine can dynamically adjust or revise a course template by automatically introducing supplementary materials, adjusting a difficulty level of assessments, etc.); (¶ [0074]: a server may synthesize relevant user data and learning content to identify one or more relationships among learning objectives, instructors, students, students facing challenges or achieving high scores, etc.); (¶ [0075]: the server may determine recommendations based on the determined relationships/patterns of the synthesized data, such as assignments tailored to student performance metrics, and generate the course templates based on the recommendations).
Although Novatin teaches a system configured to provide learning course content via interactive programs (see ¶ [0045]), Novatin does not explicitly teach each learning assessment module comprising an interactive game-based task capable of being presented on a display screen, the plurality of core learning skills set by one or more of a standard curriculum, educational research, school board requirements, and jurisdictional requirements.
However, Wilson teaches the following:
[…] each learning assessment module comprising an interactive game-based task capable of being presented on a display screen, the plurality of core learning skills set by one or more of a standard curriculum, educational research, school board requirements, and jurisdictional requirements; (Abstract: An electronic game-based learning system capable of providing a game-based learning environment(s) to at least one user is described); (¶ [0013]: The game scenario includes learning standards based on national standards, state standards, or other similar learning standards. The game scenario is implemented within a virtual environment(s) and tested. Once the game scenario is deemed acceptable, the game scenario may be included within a game-based learning environment(s)); (¶ [0028]: each of the client systems is a computer system associated with a user or group of users. For example, client system may be associated with a particular student or a particular group of students); (¶ [0054]: electronic game-based learning system provides users a mechanism to interact in the virtual environment(s) while teaching concepts and skills based on national learning standards, state learning standards, etc.).
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 Novatin with the teachings of Wilson by incorporating the features of a learning assessment module comprising interactive game-based task capable of being presented on a display screen, where the plurality of core learning skills set by jurisdictional requirements, as taught by Wilson, into the system of Novatin that is configured to provide learning course content via interactive programs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification when one considers the “concepts and skills are provided in a real-world context giving users experience in solving authentic problems” (¶ [0168]), as suggested by Wilson.
Although Novatin discloses a system configured to receive and record learner-user performance metrics, Novatin does not explicitly teach receiving an error rate.
However, Chugrinov teaches the following:
[…] the learner assessment data comprising assessment module completion time, error rate, and delay time; (¶ [0005]: method includes operations performed for dynamically grouping and regrouping students based on their tracked progress in interacting with digital educational learning objects); (¶ [0103]: Data is collected on user performance, including number of attempts, response time, and error rate); (¶ [0084]: Survival analysis: Can be used to analyze the time it takes users to complete different learning modules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Novatin/Wilson the ability to receive learner assessment data comprising an error rate, as taught by Chugrinov, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose of “helping to optimize learning paths and predict potential barriers” (¶ [0084]), as suggested by Chugrinov. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Chugrinov are compatible with the system of Novatin/Wilson as they share capabilities and characteristics. In particular, they are both systems directed towards providing users/students with digital educational content and receiving performance metrics.
Claim 2: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the plurality of core learning skills are associated with a plurality of grade levels. (¶ [0039]: an instructor user may include a user that teaches or develops educational content, while a learner user may include a user that interacts with the developed educational content to learn a skill, a learning objective, etc.); (¶ [0042]: the instructor profile may include a list of educational courses taught by the instructor, teaching preferences, a class list of learner users, teaching history, recordings, and the like. The instructor profile may include information or data relating to an instructor user’s teaching goals or outcomes, including, e.g., learner users’ performance metrics indicating the learner-users readiness to advance (e.g., to a subsequent grade level)); (¶ [0062]: the performance threshold may be a course criterion or preference set by the instructor user (e.g., included as user data in a corresponding instructor profile)).
Thus, the learning content provided to a learner user may be associated with a particular grade level, such that a learner user’s performance metrics may indicate a learner user’s readiness to advance to a subsequent grade level of learning content.
Claim 3: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Further comprising a learning milestone database comprising a plurality of learning milestones. (¶ [0085]: the AI engine may access/retrieve profiles stored in a database); (¶ [0042]: the instructor profile may include information or data relating to an instructor user’s teaching goals or outcomes, including, e.g., learner users achieving a skill proficiency necessary for obtaining a professional certification or license (e.g., a human resources certification, a nursing certification, a CPA certification, etc.), learner users achieving a passing score on an advanced placement examination (e.g., AP Literature, AP Biology, etc.)); (¶ [0016]: the AI engine may adapt course content, including course templates, in real-time, which may offer personalized learning paths for an individual learner user).
Claim 4: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the interactive assessment device can receive one or more of notes […] pertaining to the assessment. (¶ [0040]: the learner profile may include information relating to qualitative feedback provided by the learner user, such as, e.g., survey responses, forum discussions, unsolicited feedback, and the like); (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may develop and maintain individual learner profiles based on learner user’s interactions with course materials, direct feedback, etc. For instance, the system may update a learner profile as additional user data becomes available, e.g., the learner user submits qualitative feedback, completes a new assessment, etc.).
Claim 5: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the interactive assessment device is connected to a peripheral assessment tool, and the peripheral assessment tool collects additional learner assessment data which is added to the learner profile. (¶ [0029]: the system includes one or more user interface input devices integrated with the computing system. Input devices include a voice command recognition system, microphone, digital camera, webcam, eye gaze tracking device, a digital musical instrument, MIDI keyboard, and the like); (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may develop and maintain individual learner profiles based on learner user’s interactions with course materials, assessment performances, and the like).
Claim 6: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 5. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the peripheral assessment tool is […] or manipulative. (¶ [0029]: the system includes one or more user interface input devices integrated with the computing system. Input devices include a digital musical instrument, MIDI keyboard, and the like); (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may develop and maintain individual learner profiles based on learner user’s interactions with course materials, assessment performances, and the like).
Claim 7: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 5. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the peripheral assessment tool comprises an external sensor, embedded sensor, microphone, or camera. (¶ [0029]: the system includes one or more user interface input devices integrated with the computing system. Input devices include a voice command recognition system, microphone, digital camera, webcam, eye gaze tracking device, a digital musical instrument, MIDI keyboard, and the like).
Claim 8: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the interactive assessment device further comprises a speaker and the assessment module comprises auditory language instruction for completing the assessment module. (¶ [0050]: the AI engine may generate a course template that aligns with an example-based teaching style, i.e., the course template may include, as learning course content, a large number of example problems to be worked through as part of teaching a course or portion thereof); (¶ [0029]: the system includes one or more user interface output devices integrated with the computing system. Output devices include audio output devices and speakers); (¶ [0040]: learner profiles may include information relating to effectiveness of different types of content for a learner user, including, e.g., audio).
Claim 9: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the learner assessment data comprises one or more of assessment module completion time, error rate, and delay time. (¶ [0040]: the learner profile includes information relating to how a learner user interacts with course content or materials, such as, e.g., clicks, dwell time, time duration on a particular content section or learning objective, and the like. The learn profile further includes performance metrics, such as test scores).
Claim 10: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the prescriptive learning engine receives the identification of skill mastery in the plurality of core learning skills for a group of learners and prescribes a specific learning activity for the group of learners based on the skill mastery in the plurality of core learning skills for the group of learners. (¶ [0016]: the AI engine may adapt course content in real time for individual learner users, a group of learner users, etc.); (¶ [0062]: the AI engine may generate a first course template for a group of learner users. As part of the course, the learner users may take an assessment. Based on the results of the assessment, the AI engine may generate a second course template (as a revised version of the first course template) for a subgroup of the learner users enrolled in the course, where the subgroup of learner users achieved a non-satisfactory score on the assessment (e.g., achieved a performance metric or score below a performance threshold indicating a certain proficiency or mastery level). The AI engine may generate the second course template such that the second course template includes supplementary material directed towards a learning objective or topic of the assessment such that the subgroup of learner users may further develop their proficiency or mastery level of that learning objective or topic. The learner users that achieved a satisfactory score on the assessment may continue to follow the first course template).
Claim 11: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the interactive assessment device displays the learning assessment module and the processor receives the learner assessment data for the core learning skill being assessed by the learning assessment module. (¶ [0025] - ¶ [0026]: the computing system may correspond to any of the computing devices described and disclosed. The computing system includes one or more processors); (¶ [0003]: the system may generate and display the learning course content via a graphical user interface); (¶ [0016]: the AI engine may adapt course content, including course templates, in real-time, which may offer personalized learning paths for an individual learner user); (¶ [0060]: the AI engine may receive feedback data including learner user performance metrics); (¶ [0040]: learner profiles may include user data specific to a particular learner user. Learner profile may include user history, scores, performance metrics, and the like for a particular learner user)
Claim 12: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the learner profile comprises learner information, and wherein the learning assessment module is tailored based on the learner information. (¶ [0040]: learner profiles may include user data specific to a particular learner user. Learner profile may include user history, scores, performance metrics, and the like for a particular learner user); (¶ [0016]: the AI engine may adapt course content, including course templates, in real-time, which may offer personalized learning paths for an individual learner user. For example, AI engine can dynamically adjust a course template by automatically adjusting a difficulty level of assessments); (¶ [0075]: the system server may determine recommendations, such as assignments tailored to student performance metrics, and generate the course templates based on the recommendations).
Claim 13: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 12. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the learner information comprises one or more of […] learner’s interests […]. (¶ [0040]: The learner profile may include user preferences for a particular learner user); (¶ [0085]: Examples of preferences include interaction level, type of content, etc.).
Claim 14: Novatin teaches the following:
Providing a learner with a learning assessment module on an interactive assessment device comprising a display screen […] the learning assessment module associated with a plurality of core learning skills […]; (Abstract: System and methods for adaptive artificial intelligence based course template generation. The system is configured to generate a first course template and a first set of learning course content that adheres to the first course template); (¶ [0003]: the system may generate and display the learning course content via a graphical user interface); (¶ [0016]: the AI engine may adapt course content, including course templates, in real-time, which may offer personalized learning paths for an individual learner user); (¶ [0069]: course types and categories include, e.g., mathematics, science, literature, philosophy, etc.).
Assessing the learner on the plurality of core learning skills by automatically collecting, with the interactive assessment device during delivery of the learning assessment module and without data entry by an educator, learner assessment data comprising assessment module completion time, […], and delay time; (¶ [0060]: the AI engine may receive feedback data including learner user performance metrics); (¶ [0045]: the learning course content may include content associated with a learning course); (¶ [0040]: The learner profile may include user data specific to a particular learner user. For instance, the learner profile may include user performance and the like for a particular learner user. The learner profile may include information or data relating to how a learner user interacts with course content or materials, such as, e.g., clicks, dwell time, time duration on a particular content section or learning objective, quiz responses, or the like); (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may update (continuously or intermittently) the learner profile(s) as additional user data becomes available); (¶ [0062]: The AI engine may determine whether learner users achieved a non-satisfactory score on the assessment (e.g. achieved a performance metric or score below a performance threshold indicating a certain proficiency or mastery level) or achieved a satisfactory score on the assessment. As such, the AI engine may adapt the course template and content for learner users based on the results);
For the learner, assigning a skill mastery status for each of the plurality of core learning skills being assessed by the learning assessment module based on the automatically collected learner assessment data; (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may update (continuously or intermittently) the learner profile(s) as additional user data becomes available); (¶ [0062]: the AI engine may generate a first course template for a group of learner users. As part of the course, the learner users may take an assessment. The AI engine may determine whether learner users achieved a non-satisfactory score on the assessment (e.g. achieved a performance metric or score below a performance threshold indicating a certain proficiency or mastery level) or achieved a satisfactory score on the assessment. As such, the AI engine may adapt the course template and content for learner users based on the results); (¶ [0040]: learner profiles include information relating to performance metrics for a learner user, such as scores for quizzes or tests).
Storing the skill mastery status for each of the plurality of core learning skills in a learner profile for the learner in a learner profile database; (¶ [0041]: see above); (¶ [0062]: see above); (¶ [0040]: Learner profiles may include user data specific to a particular learner user. Learner profile may include user history, scores, performance metrics, and the like for a particular learner user. Learner profiles include information relating to performance metrics for a learner user, such as scores for quizzes or tests).
Selecting at least one learning activity from a learning activities database, the at least one learning activity associated with at least one core learning skill for which the learner does not yet have skill mastery status. (¶ [0038]: the content assessment and development system may include one or more databases); (¶ [0045]: the databases may include the learning course content associated with a learning course); (¶ [0062]: the AI engine may generate a first course template for a group of learner users. As part of the course, the learner users may take an assessment. Based on the results of the assessment, the AI engine may generate a second course template (as a revised version of the first course template) for a subgroup of the learner users enrolled in the course, where the subgroup of learner users achieved a non-satisfactory score on the assessment (e.g., achieved a performance metric or score below a performance threshold indicating a certain proficiency or mastery level). The AI engine may generate the second course template such that the second course template includes supplementary material directed towards a learning objective or topic of the assessment such that the subgroup of learner users may further develop their proficiency or mastery level of that learning objective or topic. The learner users that achieved a satisfactory score on the assessment may continue to follow the first course template).
Updating, in real time as additional learner assessment data is collected, the learner profile in the learner profile database and an educator portal in communication with the learner profile database. (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may update (continuously or intermittently) the learner profile(s) as additional user data becomes available); (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may provide instructor user(s) with detailed insights into each learner user’s learning process, aiding in more targeted and effective teaching approaches. As such, the content assessment and development system may facilitate or implement dynamic learner profile design, including, e.g., the creation of learner profile(s), the aggregation and analysis of data for inclusion in learner profile(s), and/or the provision of feedback to instructor users).
Although Novatin teaches a system configured to provide learning course content via interactive programs (see ¶ [0045]), Novatin does not explicitly teach a learning assessment module comprising an interactive game-based task, and learning assessment module associated with a plurality of core learning skills associated with one or more of a standard curriculum, educational research, school board requirements, and jurisdictional requirements.
However, Wilson teaches the following:
[…] the learning assessment module comprising an interactive game-based task, the learning assessment module associated with a plurality of core learning skills associated with one or more of a standard curriculum, educational research, school board requirements, and jurisdictional requirements; (Abstract: An electronic game-based learning system capable of providing a game-based learning environment(s) to at least one user is described); (¶ [0013]: The game scenario includes learning standards based on national standards, state standards, or other similar learning standards. The game scenario is implemented within a virtual environment(s) and tested. Once the game scenario is deemed acceptable, the game scenario may be included within a game-based learning environment(s)); (¶ [0028]: each of the client systems is a computer system associated with a user or group of users. For example, client system may be associated with a particular student or a particular group of students); (¶ [0054]: electronic game-based learning system provides users a mechanism to interact in the virtual environment(s) while teaching concepts and skills based on national learning standards, state learning standards, etc.).
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 Novatin with the teachings of Wilson by incorporating the features of a learning assessment module comprising an interactive game-based task and the learning assessment module associated with a plurality of core learning skills associated with jurisdictional requirements, as taught by Wilson, into the system of Novatin that is configured to provide learning course content via interactive programs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification when one considers the “concepts and skills are provided in a real-world context giving users experience in solving authentic problems” (¶ [0168]), as suggested by Wilson.
Although Novatin discloses a system configured to receive and record learner-user performance metrics, Novatin does not explicitly teach receiving an error rate.
However, Chugrinov teaches the following:
[…]learner assessment data comprising assessment module completion time, error rate, and delay time; (¶ [0005]: method includes operations performed for dynamically grouping and regrouping students based on their tracked progress in interacting with digital educational learning objects); (¶ [0103]: Data is collected on user performance, including number of attempts, response time, and error rate); (¶ [0084]: Survival analysis: Can be used to analyze the time it takes users to complete different learning modules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Novatin/Wilson the ability to receive learner assessment data comprising an error rate, as taught by Chugrinov, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose of “helping to optimize learning paths and predict potential barriers” (¶ [0084]), as suggested by Chugrinov. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Chugrinov are compatible with the system of Novatin/Wilson as they share capabilities and characteristics. In particular, they are both systems directed towards providing users/students with digital educational content and receiving performance metrics.
Claim 15: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 14. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Assessing the skill mastery of a plurality of learners in a learner group by sorting the plurality of learners in the learner group by a selected core learning skill to identify learners in the learning group who do not yet have skill mastery status in the selected core learning skill. (¶ [0062]: the AI engine may generate a first course template for a group of learner users. As part of the course, the learner users may take an assessment. Based on the results of the assessment, the AI engine may generate a second course template (as a revised version of the first course template) for a subgroup of the learner users enrolled in the course, where the subgroup of learner users achieved a non-satisfactory score on the assessment (e.g., achieved a performance metric or score below a performance threshold indicating a certain proficiency or mastery level). The AI engine may generate the second course template such that the second course template includes supplementary material directed towards a learning objective or topic of the assessment such that the subgroup of learner users may further develop their proficiency or mastery level of that learning objective or topic. The learner users that achieved a satisfactory score on the assessment may continue to follow the first course template).
Claim 16: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 15. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Selecting the at least one learning activity for the learner group based on the core learning skill mastery status for the set of learners in the learner group, and updating the learner profile for each learner in the learner group indicating that the learning activity was completed by each learner in the group of learners. (¶ [0062]: see above); (¶ [0040]: Learner profiles may include user data specific to a particular learner user. Learner profile may include user history, scores, performance metrics, and the like for a particular learner user. Learner profiles include information relating to performance metrics for a learner user (such as test scores) and time duration on particular content sections, learning objectives, and the like).
Claim 17: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 14. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Comparing the skill mastery status to learning milestones in a learning milestones database. (¶ [0085]: the AI engine may access/retrieve profiles stored in a database); (¶ [0042]: an instructor profile may include information or data relating to an instructor user’s teaching goals or outcomes, including, e.g., learner users achieving a passing score on an advanced placement examination (e.g., AP Literature, AP Biology, etc.)), learner users performance metrics indicating the learner users readiness to advance (e.g., to a subsequent grade level), and learner users ability to performance metrics indicating a proficiency with one or more learning objective or topics (e.g., fractions, multiplication, etc.)); (¶ [0016]: the AI engine may adapt course content, including course templates, in real-time, which may offer personalized learning paths for an individual learner user).
Claim 18: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 14. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the learner profile comprises learner information, and wherein the method further comprises tailoring the learning assessment module based on the learner information. (¶ [0042]: see above); (¶ [0040]: learner profiles may include user data specific to a particular learner user. Learner profile may include user history, scores, performance metrics, and the like for a particular learner user); (¶ [0016]: the AI engine may adapt course content, including course templates, in real-time, which may offer personalized learning paths for an individual learner user. For example, AI engine can dynamically adjust a course template by automatically adjusting a difficulty level of assessments); (¶ [0074]: a server may synthesize relevant user data and learning content to identify one or more relationships among learning objectives, instructors, students, students facing challenges or achieving high scores, etc.); (¶ [0075]: the server may determine recommendations based on the determined relationships/patterns of the synthesized data, such as assignments tailored to student performance metrics, and generate the course templates based on the recommendations).
Claim 19: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 18. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Wherein the learner information comprises one or more of […] learner’s interests […]. (¶ [0040]: The learner profile may include user preferences for a particular learner user); (¶ [0085]: Examples of preferences include interaction level, type of content, etc.).
Claim 20: Novatin/Wilson/Chugrinov teaches the limitations of claim 14. Furthermore, Novatin teaches the following:
Further comprising, during assessing the learner on the plurality of core learning skills, during delivery of the learning assessment module, using at least one peripheral assessment tool connected to the interactive assessment device and comprising an embedded sensor, collecting additional learner assessment data comprising one or more of audio data, video data, object manipulation and selection, and movement data. (¶ [0029]: the system includes one or more user interface input devices integrated with the computing system. Input devices include a voice command recognition system, microphone, digital camera, webcam, eye gaze tracking device, a digital musical instrument, MIDI keyboard, and the like); (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may develop and maintain individual learner profiles based on learner user’s interactions with course materials, assessment performances, and the like)\; (¶ [0041]: the content assessment and development system may update (continuously or intermittently) the learner profile(s) as additional user data becomes available).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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 Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights