Microsoft Seeks 1-Click(er) Patent

theodp writes "Assuming things go patent reformer Microsoft's way, answering multiple choice, true/false, or yes/no questions in a classroom could soon constitute patent infringement. Microsoft's just-published patent application for its Adaptive Clicker Technique describes how 'multiple different types of clickers' can be used by students to answer questions posed by teachers. The interaction provided by its 'invention', explains Microsoft, 'increases attention and enhances learning.' Microsoft's Interactive Classroom Add-In for Office (video) provides polling features that allow students to 'answer and respond through their individual OneNote notebooks, hand-held clickers, or computers, and the results display in the [PowerPoint] presentation.' So, did Bill Gates mention to Oprah that the education revolution will be patented?"

Comments

Don't forget to read the claims

[Dachannien]

Claim 1: A computer-implemented process for allowing different types of clicker devices to be used in a personal response system, comprising:

receiving inputs from more than one type of clicker device;

formatting the inputs from the more than one type of clicker device with at least one clicker adapter for the type of clicker device to adapt the inputs from the more than one type of clicker device to a common single polling controller;

processing the adapted inputs from the clicker adapters with the polling controller to interface the adapted inputs with a personal response system software application to allow user polling data to be obtained,

wherein the receiving, formatting and processing are performed by at least one processor.

Re:Don't forget to read the claims

[VortexCortex]

Show's Host: Boy, That last clip sure seemed "innovative", [Applaud Light Flashes]
but will it oust the Amazon 1-Click?

Who will be the winner of the most absurd patent?

Audience, You Decide! Take out your buzzers and Vote Now.

Home viewers call or send a text to 1-800-555-8008 to vote for Microsoft, or 1-800-555-5413 to vote for Amazon.
Or, place your vote online a our website [...]

Re:Don't forget to read the claims

[drmofe]

Wow. I may actually have prior art on this. I implemented such a system for my PhD thesis in 1990.

Re:Don't forget to read the claims

[Dachannien]

You can submit your prior art within 2 months of the application's publication date to the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.99. There is a fee of $180 associated with doing so (covering up to 10 references submitted), and you have to make sure you jump through all the hoops that the regulation requires (e.g., you're not allowed to explain the relevance of your prior art, and you have to serve the applicant with a copy of your submission).

Re:Don't forget to read the claims

[blackest_k]

would a slashdot poll be an example of prior art?

Or even who wants to be a millionaire ask the audience.

The only positive about software patents such as this. Is as an example to show European politicians why we don't want software patents in Europe.

Re:Don't forget to read the claims

[ratboy666]

In 1977/78, I worked on a system called PEAC. It was developed for CTW (Childrens Television Workshop), and used for Sesame Street production (among other programs).

A number of clicker boxes were plugged into a charging/syncing station. All of the clickers could be synchronized by a single button press. They were then disseminated into an audience. Both demographic questions (are you male/female, what is your age, etc.) were collected, and then polling data for the program was collected (like/dislike on a scale of 1 to 5, for example).

Afterwards, the clickers were put back into the syncing station, and the data was transferred to an Apple ][. If the material was sourced from a video tape, a secondary audio channel was written to the tape, with time marks.

The time marks were fed into the Apple ][ audio controller, and the floppy based demographic and polling data was then set up to produce interactive cross-tabulations, color swash (called "mondrian" analysis), and other investigative approaches. The bulk of the analysis software was written in Apple ][ Integer BASIC, along with machine code routines for actually performing the cross tabulation.

The Apple ][ was chosen because it supported "color" graphics, audio input, and floppy discs.

The system was delivered in 1977/78.

I don't know when it was decommissioned. But, I imagine it wasn't unique (well, the time synchronization made the "user interface" simple -- just fast forward, rewind and play on the video tape deck! The audio channel was composed of many short independent "files", each recording a time-stamp; and, I have never seen the "mondrian" style display for analysis again, but maybe it was a bust). But the patent is deliberatly vague about that end of things, anyway.

Now, honestly, we would have liked to use RF, infrared, or "mobile device" clickers. Instead, we had to develop our own stand-alone clicker device (and, honestly, I don't know if you can run 30 IR clickers in a classroom at the same time!). RF would have been an option -- but we put storage into each clicker, and synchronized the lot in the charging station. But, the need for clicker synchronization was a weak point, and we recognized that (back then). We could have used low frequency FM (47Mhz required a license, and cell and "wifi" didn't exist). So, low power 88Mhz was an option. Still, not as reliable as the hard-sync approach.

Another problem (back then) was that available AFFORDABLE computers would have been hard-pressed to reliably support 30 concurrent clickers. We would also have needed to add a processing layer in to support that. With a sync box, each clicker could be read out and converted to floppy in turn.

We did think of it. It was documented. Question is, does the paper from back then even exist? We never considered it patentable material.

Re:Don't forget to read the claims

[Dachannien]

The fee is to prevent a third party from submitting thousands of documents to the USPTO regarding an application, which would create an expense not covered by fees and which would likely cause delays in prosecution of the application. I'm sure you don't want actual tax dollars covering the operational costs of the USPTO, do you?

Now, an applicant does have a duty to disclose documents pertinent to the patentability of their invention. You could conceivably send them the documents and hope that they submit them to the USPTO, but that's not a guarantee that the documents would be considered.

old tech

[ArgumentBoy]

goodness. i'm teaching a large lecture class and we already do this. i think it's been going on, on a large scale, for 5-10 years. this doesn't matter? seriously?

Re:old tech

[queequeg1]

Has your class been doing this with more than one type of clicker device? When I initially read the summary, I thought that there was tons of prior art. Haven't game shows been using clicker techology for years to poll what the audience things ("Who Wants to be Millionaire?" for example). The distinguishing feature here might be more than one type of clicker. I'm not sure where that distinction would come in handy, however. Any ideas?

Re:old tech

[ArgumentBoy]

yes. some kids use laptops, some use smartphones, and some use (several models of) dedicated clickers.

Re:old tech

[jmichaelg]

Gee. It sounds like you're describing pollanywhere.com. I've been using them this year in my classroom in lieu of clickers but judging from the patent claim, Microsoft claims to have invented what they're already doing.

My guess without reading the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that theodp has grossly over simplified what the patent is really about and the summary is nothing but a troll. Welcome to Slashdot.

A system called DISCOURSE had this in the 90's

[teambpsi]

In Minnesota an in classroom system called DISCOURSE had this in the early 90's -- should be an easy patent to knock down.

Re:As far as I can tell,

[Haedrian]

http://theopinion.in/tamil-nadu-student-wins-microsoft-imagine-cup-2010-finals-amongst-85000-students-across-india/

Found this... its sort of like that.

America's Funniest Home Videos

[BadAndyJ]

OK, so how does this patent differ from what America's Funniest Home Videos did back in the 80s? Each audience member had a clicker (so there was more than one) and made a simple selection based on 3 choices. The information was aggregated and a prize was given. I really don't see why anyone would allow MS's patent on this.

Re:As far as I can tell,

[RotateLeftByte]

So using my Mouse Click and the Touch Screen on the PC in the same APP is going to be in breach of this patent?

AFAIK, using a mouse button and a touch screen are different types of pointer devices.
Move the mouse, click.
Swipe the screen and touch it, click.

Pah. Bah Humbug.

Re:As far as I can tell,

[fractalVisionz]

Check out http://www.einstruction.com/products/student-response-systems. They allow both mobile, computer, and clicker type devices for the same system. This seems to be prior art for what is claimed (not just the abstract).

Re:As far as I can tell,

[camperslo]

Pre-iMac Macs had an interface buss called ADB (Apple Desktop Buss). One could string multiple input devices together and use them at the same time. Support went beyond mice, keyboards, trackpads, game controllers, drawing tablets etc. A third party product called ADBI/O used the ADB to interface external hardware through the ADB. It could interact with custom Apps or simple scripts (Apple Script). The ADBI/O could be support multiple contact closure inputs and do A/D conversion of voltages (anything that could be converter to a voltage) as well. Between the two, many types of inputs were possible. (It also could provide outputs, good for control or status indicators). With simple electronics one might detect specific sounds from dog whistles tuned to different frequencies (or use an old ultrasonic TV remote like the type Zenith used in the 60's). One could use hardware with radio signals, like a garage door controller, or attach solar cells with different colored filers, so flashlights with different filters could be used for different functions or by different people. One might use microwave or light-beam interruption proximity detectors to tell when someone reaches a certain point, or moves a hand to actuate a particular sensor. Certainly any existing technology that could provide a contact closure could be used for input. Put a butt-switch in a chair, measure temperature, windspeed, sense a childs wet pants, use a float in a tank... Homemade input sensors could use something as simple as magnets and magnetic reed switches. Use a foot switch if you like, or connect one of those clap-on/clap-off devices through a simple interface. Various types of infra-red sensors could be used. Some computers had infrared sensors built in. Many different styles of remotes are possible.

Scripts working between apps or machines are nothing new, so having more than one or various types involved is an obvious use. Using anything you've ever seen clickable on a web page as input is an obvious possibility which would certainly support many different varieties of question response mode, style or appearance. Having various types of input styles certainly predates web software. Apples FileMaker database product goes way back (Apple bought it in early days). A great variety of educational apps and styles were seen with the Apple Hypercard product, which supported web-like linking between "stacks" although it wasn't across a net at that time. However the ability to tie multiple things made by different people together was there. Since users created those hypercard stacks, and endless variety of educational inputs and outputs was possible. If you wanted a "moo" or picture of a bottle of milk when you clicked on a cows tit, no problem.

There used to be a mailing list for ADBI/O user discussion groups. I'm not sure if archives are out there somewhere. The product was discontinued after Apple went USB. It had seen use in a great variety of applications from industrial, to sales / museum kiosk interactivity, to education.

With the scriptability of Applications within Mac OS, there was no requirement to have custom apps to be able to use different types of input. The OS and third-party apps also supported a wide variety of things to aid interface with people having various types and degree of disabilities. Speech recognition tied to scripting was supported too. Even in the 90's it was easy to set Mac OS so you could say "computer show me porn" and have a slideshow start.

Using various types of clickers as input for standard or custom software is nothing new. Just ask the person doing the weather at your local tv station. (I suspect Steve Jobs has a clicker or two in use during those great keynote presentations

It's really absurd that an OS / app / platform developer should be able to patent the things users come up with as uses for computers. I do think more tools for user app creativity should be provided. What will get kids to take an early interest in programming. Imagine a simple we

The Abstract

[DavidD_CA]

For those of you who are too lazy to click on the link for the abstract:

An adaptive clicker technique is described that provides a standardized polling control and a registration system to support mixed types of clickers and integrate the polling data. One embodiment of the adaptive clicker technique operates as follows. User inputs from more than one type of clicker device (e.g., personal interactive response system device) are received. The inputs from the more than one type of clicker device are formatted with a clicker adapter for each type of clicker to adapt user inputs to a common polling controller. The adapted inputs are then processed with the common polling controller to interface the adapted inputs with a personal response system software application to allow user polling data to be collected and assessed.

So no, there is no prior art as far as I can tell. This is like a middle-man approach so that a variety of inputs can be used in any setting such as a classroom. I presume this means a student could respond to a question via text message, laptop running One Note, a tablet running Chrome, an iPad app, or a generic clicker device hooked up to who-knows-what, and all the data is aggregated together.

The advantage being twofold: the administrator (teacher) doesn't have to somehow write code for 10 different inputs, and the students don't have to standardize on one input device.

Why patent it? Because Microsoft has to. If they don't, then someone else will and they could waste time and money in courts over it. That's why Microsoft and others are pushing for patent reform.