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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2020-0119379, filed on 09/16/2020.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections. The amended claims have been searched, but no prior art teaches all the limitations of claims 1-17. The claims are allowable over prior art.
Applicant’s Argument: On page 12-13 of Applicant’s response, applicant states that the claims recite a specific electronic-device process for diagnosing why a response generated by a multi-module user-input processing system has changed. Applicant states that the specific technological improvement is using hash values to compare and determine which module changed its behavior when the same intended operation results in a different response. In addition, the amended claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement (see MPEP §2106.05(a)). The MPEP (§2106.05(a)(II)) also warns, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Here, the alleged improvement in the form of “searching module-related information using a hash value obtained from module input information, comparing module output information, and identifying a changed module based on different output information” is an improvement to the abstract idea of a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. From the Specification (par. 188), a hash value may include only a number value, and it is used to easily search for the same input information among other modules. The claim as a whole is directed to finding input information that is the same among the plurality of modules, comparing the outputs of the module that share the same input information, and determining a module is a changed module because the output information is different. The claim as a whole is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Processing the user input using the electronic device is mere instructions for using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The amended claims do not provide sufficient details to describe any technological improvement. If the specifications explicitly set forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1): a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A method performed by at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry of an electronic device, the method comprising” and is thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“… generating second module-related information including input information and output information of individual modules used to process the second user input” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, i.e. judgement)
“wherein, based on the second response being different from the first response: selecting a first module among the modules used to process the first user input” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
“searching the second module-related information using the first hash value to identify module-related information about a corresponding module including a same hash value as the first hash value” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
“based on the module-related information about the corresponding module including the same hash value, comparing the output information of the first module with output information of the corresponding module” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
“based on the output information of the first module being different from the output information of the corresponding module, identifying the first module as a changed module” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
“identifying a reason for the second response being different from the first response, based on the changed module” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. evaluation)
“based on the identified reason, providing a recommended input ” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. evaluation)
Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
"receiving a first user input” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
“processing the first user input using modules of the electronic device” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
"outputting, through at least one of a display or a speaker, a first response based on the processing of the first user input” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
"storing, in a memory of the electronic device, first module-related information about the modules used to process the first user input, wherein the first module-related information includes input information and output information of individual modules used to process the first user input” (This step is directed to storing data in memory, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
"receiving a second user input for a same intended operation as the first user input” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
“processing the second user input using modules of the electronic device” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
"outputting, through at least one of the display or the speaker, a second response based on the processing of the second user input” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
"obtaining input information and output information of the first module” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
"obtaining a first hash value from the input information of the first module” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
"obtaining hash values obtained from input information of individual modules used to process the second user input” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
“” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
"receiving a first user input” (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court - see MPEP 2106.05(d))
“processing the first user input using modules of the electronic device” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
"outputting, through at least one of a display or a speaker, a first response based on the processing of the first user input” (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine and conventional activity of gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result as identified by the court - see MPEP 2106.05(d))
"storing, in a memory of the electronic device, first module-related information about the modules used to process the first user input, wherein the first module-related information includes input information and output information of individual modules used to process the first user input” (This step is directed to storing data in memory, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory as identified by the court - see MPEP 2106.05(d))
"receiving a second user input for a same intended operation as the first user input” (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court - see MPEP 2106.05(d))
“processing the second user input using modules of the electronic device” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
"outputting, through at least one of the display or the speaker, a second response based on the processing of the second user input” (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine and conventional activity of gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result as identified by the court - see MPEP 2106.05(d))
"obtaining input information and output information of the first module” (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court - see MPEP 2106.05(d))
"obtaining a first hash value from the input information of the first module” (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court - see MPEP 2106.05(d))
"obtaining hash values obtained from input information of individual modules used to process the second user input” (This step is directed to transmitting or receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity and well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court - see MPEP 2106.05(d))
“” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above. Therefore, Claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim recites a system (“An electronic device comprising”) that performs the method as described in claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as disclosed for claim 1. The limitations for additional elements of claim 8 are analyzed below.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Please see Step 2A Prong 1 analysis of claim 1
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“an input” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
“a display” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
“a speaker” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
“memory” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
“at least one processor comprising processing circuitry” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
“wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the electronic device to” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claims 2 and 9:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the corresponding module is identified based on module identification information corresponding to module identification information of the first module” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the first module-related information and the second module-related information further include module identification information of the individual modules” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Regarding Claims 3 and 10:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“based on no module-related information including the same hash value as the first hash value existing in the second module-related information, determining that the first module is not the changed module” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claims 4 and 11:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“based on the input information of the first module being different from the input information of the corresponding module, determining that the first module is not the changed module” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claims 5 and 12:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein selecting the first module comprises selecting the first module according to priority assigned to the modules used to process the first user input” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claims 6 and 13:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“generating information related to the reason for the second response begin different from the first response, the reason including the identified reason” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claims 7 and 14:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“response including the information related to the reason for the second response being different from the first response is generated with respect to an inquiry related to the second response being different from the first response” (a mental process, i.e. evaluation)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“training, in advance, at least one artificial intelligence (Al) model used to ” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
“outputting, according to receiving of an input including the inquiry, a response including the information related to the reason for the second response being different from the first response, based on the Al model trained in advance” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity (2106.05(g) in step 2A prong 2) and well understood, routine and conventional activity of gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result as identified by the court (2106.05(d) in step 2B))
Regarding Claims 16 and 17:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: None
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the reason for the second response being different from the first response comprises at least one of whether at least one AI model used in the module has been changed, and whether a location of each device has changed” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Regarding Claim 15:
The claim recites an article of manufacture that performs the method as described in claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as disclosed for claim 1. The limitations for additional elements of claim 15 are analyzed below.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Please see Step 2A Prong 1 analysis of claim 1
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program which, when executed by at least one processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform operations comprising” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY MAC whose telephone number is (703)756-1517. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached on (571) 270-3169. 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.
/GARY MAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2127
/ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights