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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on February 24, 2026. Claims 1-8 and 9-20 are pending, of which claims 1-6, 8-12, and 19 have been amended, claim 7 has been canceled and claims 13-18 and 20 have been withdrawn.
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 1-6, 8-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 9, and 19 are directed to method, a system, and computer readable medium (CRM). As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the invention is directed to teaching. For example, the user 100 of the display device 1000 may be a teacher, and external users of the at least one external device 200 may be students. In such an example, to conduct the class, the teacher may display content related to the class in the display device 1000. Alternatively or additionally, while the teacher conducts the class by displaying content related to the class in the display device 1000, the teacher may ask a question associated with the content displayed on the display device 1000 and/or gives a quiz. For example, the teacher may ask a question associated with the content displayed on the display device 1000 and/or utter speech asking a quiz. In such an example, after obtaining the speech of the teacher (e.g., user 100), the display device 1000 may transmit current content to the at least one external device 200. The at least one external device 200 may display the content transmitted from the display device 1000. Alternatively or additionally, the at least one external device 200 may transmit (e.g., submit), to the display device 1000, content for submission (e.g., submission content) in response to obtaining input from the student. See, Specification ¶¶45-47.
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A method of analyzing and evaluating content at a display device, comprising:
obtaining a speech input of a first user of the display device;
extracting, using first image analysis, one or more reference objects from reference content being displayed on the display device, the reference content comprising a plurality of objects;
determining an intent of the first user indicating an operation to be performed by the display device, based on a result of interpreting the speech input and the one or more reference objects;
determining, based on the intent of the first user, reference data from the one or more reference objects;
obtaining submission content from an external device, the external device being connected to the display device;
extracting, using second image analysis, a plurality of submission objects from the submission content, based on the intent of the first user; determining at least one target object to be compared with the reference data by selecting the at least one target object from among the plurality of submission objects;
evaluating the submission content by comparing the at least one target object with the reference data;
displaying, on the display device, information indicating a result of the evaluating of the submission content; and
sending, to the external device, the information indicating the result of the evaluating of the submission content, based on the result of the evaluating of the submission content being less than or equal to a predetermined threshold.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features in claims 9 and 19. Claims 2-8 and 10-12 further define the abstract idea such as by defining the reference content, inputs, and/or extra solution activity. Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. The claims recite a means of organizing human activity because they are drawn to a managing personal behavior students and teacher during learning activities, such as those in a classroom. Furthermore, the method can be performed in the mind of a human and/or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Selecting and providing questions to students, soliciting answers, and comparing the answers to a reference determine correctness and to evaluate the student as a means of teaching, training, and imparting knowledge is basic to the learning process. The method, system, and CRM in the instant application simply seek to automate this well-known activity using generic computers recited at a high level of generality, and, therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract concept sub-grouping of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" including teaching and following rules or instructions, for example, an instructor conducting training of students by administering questions for the student to complete or solve, and evaluating the student’s answers.
In addition, the claims also recite a mental process directed to observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. But for the recitation of the recitation of display device, external device, processor, memory and computer readable medium storing instructions, nothing in the claimed method or operations precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example, obtaining a speech input of a first user (e.g., a teacher asking a question); extracting, using first image analysis, one or more reference objects from reference content being displayed on the display device, the reference content comprising a plurality of objects (e.g., a teacher viewing a plurality of answer choices); determining an intent of the first user indicating an operation to be performed by the display device, based on a result of interpreting the speech input and the one or more reference objects (e.g., a teaching thinking which group of answers correspond to the question); determining, based on the intent of the first user, reference data from the one or more reference objects (e.g., a teacher thinking which answers respond to the question); obtaining submission content from an external device, the external device being connected to the display device (e.g., a teacher receiving a student response); extracting, using second image analysis, a plurality of submission objects from the submission content, based on the intent of the first user (e.g., a teacher reading the student response); determining at least one target object to be compared with the reference data by selecting the at least one target object from among the plurality of submission objects (e.g., a teacher thinking which answer is correct); evaluating the submission content by comparing the at least one target object with the reference data (e.g., a teacher thinking did the student answer match the correct answer); displaying information indicating a result of the evaluating of the submission content (e.g., a teacher writing down whether the student answer was correct); and sending the information indicating the result of the evaluating of the submission content, based on the result of the evaluating of the submission content being less than or equal to a predetermined threshold (a teacher providing the written result to the student) can be performed or formulated in the minds of a teacher, a tutor, or an instructor and student. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. To be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer or network as a network. Applicant’s invention does not meet these requirements. Applicant’s invention uses computers to process data to evaluate the user’s response. This does not improve the computer qua computer. Instead, Applicant’s invention uses generic computers and networks as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Mere automation of an abstract process is not a technical improvement to the system. As such, the claims are not eligible under Section 101.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a system having a computer and memory configured to perform the abstract idea. Applicant’s specification, for example, ¶¶39, 69, 309-313, recite off the shelf general purpose computing components such a display (e.g., a television, a monitor, and/or an electronic bulletin board), a microphone, a processor (e.g., central processing units (CPUs), microprocessors, graphic processing units (GPUs), application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), digital signal processors (DSPs), digital signal processing devices (DSPDs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), and the like, without being limited thereto.), and a memory (e.g., a flash memory, a hard disk, a multimedia card micro type memory, a card type memory (e.g., a secure digital (SD) memory card, an extreme digital (XD) memory card), a Random Access Memory (RAM), a Static Random Access Memory (SRAM), a Read-Only Memory (ROM), an Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), a Programmable Read-Only Memory (PROM), a magnetic memory, a magnetic disk, an optical disk, and the like, without being limited thereto) for storing instructions that can be executed by a computer. As a result, nothing in Applicant’s specification indicates the computer system performs anything other than well understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving, storing, and processing. See, Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (ed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the [S]pecification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”); see also Alice, 573 US. at 224—26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1340, 1355 (ed. Cir, 2014) (That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). At best, Applicant’s claimed subject matter simply uses generic processing circuitry to perform the abstract idea of converting input data from one form to another (e.g., student answers to evaluated results). As noted above, the use of a generic computer system does not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court has observed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223).
As a result, these additional elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional computer components. As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claimed features relating receiving an input, displaying information, and sending information represent extra-solution activities are not particular and are recited at a high level of generality.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1-6, 8-12 and 19 are not patent eligible
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Examiner acknowledges the Form 326 in the previous office action of November 24, 2025 inadvertently indicated the application as a Nation Stage Application. The current Form 326 attached to this action has been updated and the Examiner acknowledges the present application is a bypass continuation application of International Patent Application No. PCT/KR2021/019154, filed on December 16, 2021, which claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2021-0066496, filed on May 24, 2021, and to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2021-0128346, filed on September 28, 2021, at the Korean Intellectual Property Office.
The objection to claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim 19 as directed to non-eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn in view of the Amendment to the claim 19 and Applicant’s remarks. However, the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, and 19 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is maintained for the reasons given above. The rejection has been updated in view of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 does not describe concepts related to organizing human activity as enumerated in M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). However, Applicant’s claims do include concepts related to organizing human activity as enumerated in M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Applicant argues “For at least analogous reasons, independent claim 1 does not describe other methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See id. at § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).” However, Applicant’s remarks do not include any explanation of what the analogous reasons are or why these reasons support the proposition that claims are not directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and therefore are not persuasive.
Applicant also argues the claims limitations cannot be performed in the human mind and therefore are not directed to mental processes. However, Applicant merely recites the claims limitations with a bald statement that they are rooted in technology and cannot be practically performed in the human mind and does not provide any reasons or explanation as to why the limitations cannot be performed in the human mind. Even if the claims nominally required these steps to be performed by a computer system, this computer implementation of a mental process is insufficient to take the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract ideas. See Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” is insufficient to confer eligibility.) See also, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Ped. Cir. 2017) (Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers docs not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”}; see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Here a computer is used for its inherent processing ability of performing calculations on or processing of data in an efficient and timely manner to produce a directed result.
Applicant points to paragraph 4 of specification as providing a technical problem of a moderator may experience difficulty when attempting to determine whether a student is using different content. However, Applicant has not explained what limitations of the claims solve and overcome this problem. In addition, the paragraph explains the checking and evaluating content of another participant may disturb processing flows of the meeting and/or class. However, this is not a technical problem but a teaching/discourse problem. Applicant argues that the claims “include meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment because they solve a real problem with a solution that improves the analyzing and evaluating of content by automatically performing the analysis and the evaluating based on the intent of the user. These limitations provide steps that integrate claim 1 to a practical application, and improve the analyzing and evaluating of content, as described in Applicant's Specification.” However, Applicant provides no explanation of how the claimed limitations “improve” the analyzing and evaluating content beyond mere automation using a computer .
Applicant argues the claims are analogous to Example 40 of the 2019 PEG. However, the claims of Applicant’s invention are not analogous. The claims in Example 40 addressed a specific problem. Namely, Example 40 states a problem as:
Network visibility tools enable close monitoring of computer network traffic, applications, performance, and resources. The data acquired through these network visibility tools is extremely useful in optimizing network performance, resolving network issues, and improving network security. One industry standard network visibility protocol is NetFlow. In a typical setup, a NetFlow exporter generates and exports network traffic statistics (in the form of NetFlow records) to at least one NetFlow collector that analyzes the statistics. Because NetFlow records are very large, the continual generation and export of NetFlow records in such a setup substantially increases the traffic volume on the network, which hinders network performance. Moreover, continual analysis of the network is not always necessary when the network is performing under normal conditions.
In Example 40 the invention addressed the problem by varying the amount of network data collected based on monitored events in the network. That is, the system only collected NetFlow protocol data and exported a NetFlow record when abnormal network conditions were detected. In practice, during normal network conditions, a network appliance collects network data relating to network traffic passing through the network appliance. This network data, for example, could include network delay, packet loss, or jitter. Periodically, the network data is compared to a predefined quality threshold. If this network data is greater than the predefined quality threshold, an abnormal condition is detected. When an abnormal condition is present, the system begins collecting NetFlow protocol data, which can later be used for analyzing the abnormal condition. During this time, the network appliance continues to monitor the network conditions (i.e., comparing collected network data to the predetermined quality threshold) and when the abnormal condition no longer exists, NetFlow protocol data is no longer collected.
In the analysis for Example 40 under, Prong 2A it was found the claim recites a combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and collecting additional Netflow protocol data relating to the network traffic when the collected network delay, packet loss, or jitter is greater than the predefined threshold. Although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre- or post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The example explains that the claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application and is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
Applicant argues that Applicant claims “provide a specific improvement over prior systems by limiting transmission of information to the external device to results that indicate a failure condition, and thus the claims as a whole integrate a practical application.” However, Applicant has failed to provide any evidence that “limiting transmission of information to the external device” is a particular improvement to content evaluation devices and method and that it solves any known problem in such devices (such as that in Example 40 where Netflow networks suffered degraded network performance due to the NetFlow records substantially increasing the traffic volume on the network). Moreover, there is no evidence that any information is limited by Applicant’s claimed system. For example, nothing precludes Applicant’s system from also transmitting correct information. For example, the claim does not limit transmission to only results that indicate a failure condition. In addition, the claim says less than or equal to a threshold. There is no limitation indicated what the threshold is or that it limits answers to a failure condition. Therefore, if the threshold is 100 all answers would be transmitted (correct and failure). Moreover, if all answers are wrong then information transmitted may actually be increased. Instead, providing results to a student for wrong answers is merely insignificant post solution activity that does not provide a particular solution to any known technical problem.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and remarks, which are persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights