DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendment filed 26 November 2025, claims 1-15 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising:
storing in a knowledge base an item of context data relative to an encounter of a given item of information extracted by analyzing text and/or image and/or sound types the user has received, sent or searched for, with an entry for the given item of information;
determining a knowledge index of the given item of information, specific to the user, according to context data recorded in the knowledge base with the entry for the given item of information; and
proposing access to at least one element for understanding the given item of information as a function of the knowledge index determined.
The limitations of storing an item of context data, determining a knowledge index, and proposing access, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “computation machine” (interpreted according to the specification as a generic computer), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “machine” language, “storing”, “determining”, and “proposing” in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually maintaining a knowledge based of data, determining a knowledge index, and proposing access, as a purely mental process or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a generic computer to perform the claimed steps. The computer in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-15 recite the same abstract idea as in claim 1, and do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more. Claims 2-7 only recite additional details of the abstract idea itself, such as context data, information items, knowledge index, etc. Claims 8-12 recite utilizing a generic machine learning algorithm to implement steps of the abstract idea, which amounts to no more than utilizing a computer programmed to perform the abstract idea, or alternatively no more than directing the abstract idea to a particular technological area. Claims 13-15 recite no more than utilizing a generic computer to implement the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Schaack et al. (US Patent No. 6,652,283 B1) in view of Smith Allen et al. (US 2007/0202481 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van Schaack discloses a method, implemented by a computation machine, for of assisting the learning of a plurality of items of information by a user of a terminal, wherein the method comprises, during an encounter of the user with a given item of information, among the plurality of items of information, during a use of the terminal:
storing in a knowledge base an item of context data relative to the encounter, with an entry for the given item of information (see Fig. 9; column 34, line 43 – column 35, line 1 – items are presented to a user, and based on correct/incorrect and user’s rating of quality of response, each item is sent to a particular register and given that item of context data);
determining a knowledge index of the given item of information, specific to the user, according to context data recorded in the knowledge base with the entry for the given item of information (registers Dn and Sn+1 are each associated with a knowledge index of known/unknown); and
proposing access to at least one element for understanding the given item of information as a function of the knowledge index determined (column 35, lines 31-37 – access to particular information items proposed based on the knowledge index of the items).
Van Schaack does not appear to explicitly disclose the encounter comprising analyzing contents comprising text and/or image and/or sound types that the user has received, sent or search for and extracting the given item of information based on the analyzing. However, Smith Lewis discloses a similar system for providing study material to a user (see abstract) that involves analyzing text content a user sent or searched for and extracting a study item based on the analyzing (see Par’s. 43, 50, 69 – user inputs/sends study goal information as the basis of a search at step M1, which is utilized to query a database and extract items at step M2, after which the items are stored in a database at step M3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Van Schaack by analyzing text contents associated with a study goal search from a user, and extracting information items based on the search, as taught by Smith Lewis. Such a modification would involve combining prior art element according to known methods to yield predictable results of continuously delivering new study content for the user (as described in Smith Lewis, Par. 8).
Regarding claims 2-7 and 13-15, Van Schaack in view of Smith Lewis further discloses:
in a case of respectively access and non-access, by the user to the at least one element for understanding, the method comprises a storage, with the entry, of at least one item of context data relative to the respective access and the non-access (Van Schaack - storage in registers Dn and Sn+1) (as per claim 2),
the encounter of the user with the given item of information comprises presence of the item of information in a search carried out by the user (Smith Lewis - query based on study goal – Par. 43) (as per claim 3),
the at least one element for understanding comprises a definition of the given item of information (Van Schaack - e.g. definition of the fifth amendment – Fig. 32) (as per claim 4),
the at least one item of information data comprises a nature of the given item of information (Van Schaack - Fig. 32) (as per claim 5),
the context data comprises a date of the encounter of the user with the given item of information or of the access or of the non-access to the at least one element for understanding (Van Schaack - number of days since an item was learned – Fig. 23, column 42, lines 38-55) (as per claim 6),
the determination of the knowledge index is a function: of a period of time since a last encounter of the user with the given item of information, the period of time being computed according to the information and context data stored, with the entry for the given item of information, in the knowledge base (Van Schaack - column 42, lines 38-55); and of a forgetting curve (Van Schaack - decay rate – column 39, lines 17-34) (as per claim 7),
a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer program which, when the computer program is executed by the processor, cause the processor to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Van Schaack - column 13, lines 7-23) (as per claim 13),
a storage medium readable by a computer and non-transient, storing the computer program according to claim 13 (Van Schaack - column 13, lines 7-23) (as per claim 14), and
a computation machine configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Van Schaack - column 13, lines 7-23) (as per claim 15).
7. Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Schaack et al. (US Patent No. 6,652,283 B1) in view of Smith Allen et al. (US 2007/0202481 A1), and further in view of Adiatullin et al. (US 2020/0202736 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 10-12, the combination of Van Schaack and Smith Allen does not appear to explicitly disclose the determination of the knowledge index uses a machine learning model and comprises: generating an item of entry data, comprising a plurality of attributes themselves determined according to the information and context data stored, with the entry for the given item of information, in the knowledge base; providing the item of entry data to the machine learning model; and the machine learning model computing a result forming the knowledge index (as per claim 8),
the method comprises a building of the machine learning model, by carrying out a determined number of building iterations, each corresponding to an iteration of the method for assisting learning, and each comprising the following steps: generating the item of entry data, comprising the plurality of attributes themselves determined according to the information and context data stored, with the entry for the given item of information, in the knowledge base; determining an estimation of the knowledge index, according to the access or the non-access by the user to the at least one element for understanding; and providing to the machine learning model the item of entry data and a known result, defined as the estimation of the knowledge index (as per claim 10),
the estimation of the knowledge index is equal to: a first value indicating that the given item of information is not known to the user, in the case of access by the user to the at least one element for understanding; and a second value indicating that the given item of information is known to the user, in the case of non-access by the user to the at least one element for understanding (as per claim 11), and
the building of the machine learning model is carried out again after a predetermined number of iterations of the method for assisting learning and/or at a predetermined frequency (as per claim 12).
However, Adiatullin discloses a similar system for measuring a person’s retention of multimedia messages (see abstract) that utilizes a machine learning model to compute results forming a knowledge index for knowledge items by estimating a knowledge index of the items (retention probability), wherein the model is carried out after a predetermined number of iterations (see Par’s. 74-75, 81-84). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Van Schaack and Smith Allen by utilizing a machine learning model to classify and estimate the knowledge index for each of the items in Van Schaack based on their correct/incorrect and user ratings, as suggested by Adiatullin. Such a modification would involve a use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way.
Regarding claim 9, Van Schaack further discloses the attributes comprised in the item of entry data comprise at least one attribute, inputted with the at least one item of information data (e.g. date regarding user’s rating of quality of response – column 34, lines 57-59).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 with respect to the section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed analyzing of text and/or image and/or sound data, extracting data, and storing items in a knowledge base, cannot be performed in the human mind and represents an improvement to the functioning of the computation machine. This is not persuasive. As claimed, the method merely involves analyzing different types of data, storing items in a knowledge base, determining a knowledge index and proposing access. This series of steps could be performed by a person observing text, images, and sound, maintaining a knowledge base relating to these contents, and making mental determinations. This is a mental process of processing data as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG). It is also akin to the series of steps in Electric Power Group for collecting power grid data, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis, which the court found to be an abstract idea. Furthermore, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f), the claimed use of a computation machine to perform these steps is not indicative of integration into a practical application or significantly more, as it involves mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the section 102 rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715