DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed 10/10/2025
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are pending.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed 10/10/2025 in response to office action mailed 06/10/2025. The Applicant’s remarks and any amendments to the claims or specification have been considered with the results that follow.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Objections and Informalities
In Remarks page 7, Argument 1
Applicant amends "one of 1, 2, .. . R" to "an integer from I to a positive integer R" in claim I with reference to the Examiner's comments (see, e.g., FIG. 7, Response Comparison Information 1,1, .. . , R,R).As for the term "mode," Applicant corrects "mode M" to "model M" in claim 1. Withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response to Argument 1
Applicant’s amendments convincingly overcome the objections which are withdrawn accordingly.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 — abstract idea
In Remarks page 7-9, Argument 2
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that the claims were amended, citing the claim language and reference to the specification. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to merely an abstract idea, and that the additional elements and their combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner’s response to Argument 2,
Examiner disagrees. The claim amendments merely limit the type of data input to the trained AI model, which amounts to merely limiting the claim to a particular field of use. MPEP 2106.05(h) recites “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 — software per se
In Remarks page 9, Argument 3
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that the independent claim is directed to a method claim and thus is not directed to software per se.
Examiner’s response to Argument 3
Examiner agrees that the claims as amended are no longer directed to software per se and thus the 101 software per se rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103
In Remarks page 10, Argument 4
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that the art applied (Loh) was published after the effective filing date of the present invention. Applicant further argues that Loh is not qualified as prior art because it falls under the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) exception because the inventors are the same and it was published within one year prior to the effective filing date of the present invention.
Examiner’s response to Argument 4
Applicant’s arguments are convincing and refreshed search did not reveal any new references that teach on the claims as amended. Accordingly, the claims are not taught or suggested by any of the prior art of record and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are indicated as allowable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 103. Examiner reminds applicant that rejections persist under 35 U.S.C. 101. Reasons for allowance are apparent from the record.
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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for containing an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of:
generating a user information table by analyzing the collected question solving information, wherein the user information table includes the IDs of the plurality of users, a plurality of pieces of response information corresponding to the plurality of users, and label information corresponding to the plurality of users, wherein each of the plurality of pieces of response information indicates a group of IDs of questions to which a user responds with a same answer, and the label information numerically expresses a learning ability of the user, — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of questions answered by users and other user data.
generating a filtered user information table by filtering the user information table with M reference users among the plurality of users, wherein the filtered user information table includes IDs of the M reference users, a plurality of pieces of response information of the M reference users and label information of the M reference users — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing a judgement of information in a table to determine which information should remain in the table and which information should be left out.
generating a response comparison table having response comparison information by performing multi-dimensional pairwise comparison between question solving data of a new user and question solving data of the M reference users, and — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing evaluations of questions answered by users.
predicting a score of the new user by inputting the response comparison information to the trained Al model — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of a model in order to make predictions, which can be performed by the human mind or by a human using pen and paper.
wherein the predicting the score of the new user comprises: determining one model among model 1 and model M to be used to predict the score of the new user based on an operating environment, wherein the operating environment includes one or more among a performance of a hardware of the user score prediction device and a performance of the trained AI model — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an opinion about the best choice among an arbitrary number of options.
and predicting the score of the new user using the determined model among the model 1 and the model M, wherein the model 1 is a model that predicts the score using only prediction label information generated through one-to-one comparison of the new user with one reference user among the M reference users, and wherein the model M is a model that predicts the score using prediction label information generated through M-to-one comparison of the new user with the M reference users — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of a model in order to make predictions, which can be performed by the human mind or by a human using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
A method of operating a user score prediction device for predicting a score of a user through multi-dimensional pairwise comparison, by using an artificial intelligence (AI) model, the method comprising: — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic device as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)).
providing questions to be solved to a plurality of users through user terminals and collect question solving information of the plurality of users, wherein the question solving information includes IDs of the plurality of users, IDs of the questions, and responses to the questions — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
training an artificial intelligence (Al) model by using the question solving information of the plurality of users as training data — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using artificial intelligence training to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the artificial intelligence training is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and transmitting the predicted score to a user terminal of the new user — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
wherein the M reference users include a first reference user and a second reference user, wherein the response comparison table includes: a first column including first response comparison information, first label information and first prediction label information for the new user and the first reference user, and a second column including second response comparison information, second label information and second prediction label information for the new user and the second reference user — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the judicial exception to the technological environment of a particular type of data to be operated upon.
wherein the first response comparison information includes a plurality of pieces of first comparison information each of which indicates a number of questions to which the new user responds with a first answer and the first reference user responds with a second answer, where the first answer is an integer from 1 to a positive integer R, and the second answer is an integer from 1 to R, the first label information numerically expresses a learning ability of the first reference user, and the first prediction label information numerically expresses a learning ability of the new user — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the first response comparison information to a particular type of data.
wherein the second response comparison information includes a plurality of pieces of second comparison information each of which indicates a number of questions to which the new user responds with the first answer and the second reference user responds with the second answer, where the first answer is an integer from 1 to R, and the second answer is an integer from 1 to R, the second label information numerically expresses a learning ability of the second reference user, and the second prediction label information numerically expresses a learning ability of the new user — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the second response comparison information to a particular type of data.
wherein only the first response comparison information among the first response comparison information and the first label information constitutes a feature defined as an input of the trained Al model for inferring a prediction value — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the input of the trained AI model.
wherein the feature having only the first response comparison information among the first response comparison information and the first label information is used as the input of the trained Al model to output the first prediction label information — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the input of the trained AI model.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
A method of operating a user score prediction device for predicting a score of a user through multi-dimensional pairwise comparison, by using an artificial intelligence (AI) model, the method comprising: — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
providing questions to be solved to a plurality of users through user terminals and collect question solving information of the plurality of users, wherein the question solving information includes IDs of the plurality of users, IDs of the questions, and responses to the questions — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
training an artificial intelligence (Al) model by using the question solving information of the plurality of users as training data — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
and transmitting the predicted score to a user terminal of the new user — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the M reference users include a first reference user and a second reference user, wherein the response comparison table includes: a first column including first response comparison information, first label information and first prediction label information for the new user and the first reference user, and a second column including second response comparison information, second label information and second prediction label information for the new user and the second reference user — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the first response comparison information includes a plurality of pieces of first comparison information each of which indicates a number of questions to which the new user responds with a first answer and the first reference user responds with a second answer, where the first answer is an integer from 1 to a positive integer R, and the second answer is an integer from 1 to R, the first label information numerically expresses a learning ability of the first reference user, and the first prediction label information numerically expresses a learning ability of the new user — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the second response comparison information includes a plurality of pieces of second comparison information each of which indicates a number of questions to which the new user responds with the first answer and the second reference user responds with the second answer, where the first answer is an integer from 1 to R, and the second answer is an integer from 1 to R, the second label information numerically expresses a learning ability of the second reference user, and the second prediction label information numerically expresses a learning ability of the new user — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim merely recites the additional abstract idea:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein the user information table matches response information and label information for each user of the plurality of users based on the question solving information of the plurality of users — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein each of the M reference users is a user serving as a standard for comparison with the question solving data of the new user when generating the response comparison information and a preset number of users are determined as the M reference users in descending order of the number of questions solved — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the reference users.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein each of the M reference users is a user serving as a standard for comparison with the question solving data of the new user when generating the response comparison information and a preset number of users are determined as the M reference users in descending order of the number of questions solved — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 4 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 4). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the response comparison information includes a number of questions correctly answered by both the new user and the M reference users, a number of questions correctly answered only by the new user, a number of questions correctly answered only by the M reference users, and a number of questions incorrectly answered by both the new user and the M reference users — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the response comparison information.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the response comparison information includes a number of questions correctly answered by both the new user and the M reference users, a number of questions correctly answered only by the new user, a number of questions correctly answered only by the M reference users, and a number of questions incorrectly answered by both the new user and the M reference users — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Heldsinger et al. “Using the Method of Pairwise Comparison to Obtain Reliable Teacher Assessments” for teaching on using comparison with a reference user to obtain a new score (see page 15 paragraph 4).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ezra J Baker whose telephone number is (703)756-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 8:00 pm ET.
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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/E.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126