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 25 November 2025, claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 9 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, 2, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 6 recite a method comprising:
generating concept-specific correctness/incorrectness sequence data with respect to at least one user, with reference to data on a result of the at least one user solving at least one question associated with at least one concept; and
estimating a first user's understanding of a first concept using a concept-specific understanding estimation model that is trained on the basis of the concept-specific correctness/incorrectness sequence data,
wherein the concept-specific correctness/incorrectness sequence data includes first sequence data generated at a first time point and second sequence data generated at a second time point that follows the first time point by a predetermined amount of time,
wherein the concept-specific understanding estimation model is trained such that the concept-specific understanding is estimated by assigning a greater weight to the second sequence data generated at the second time point than to the first sequence data generated at the first time point,
wherein a weight assigned to lth sequence data out of a total oft pieces of sequence data is determined on the basis of a value obtained by dividing a t-lth power of a specific constant by a geometric series from a first term to a (t-1)th term for the t-lth power of the specific constant, and
wherein in the estimating step, similarity between a concept not encountered by the first user and a concept encountered by the first user is assessed, and the first user's understanding of the concept not encountered by the first user is estimated from the first user's understanding of the concept encountered by the first user on the basis of the similarity
The limitations of generating sequence data and estimating understanding using a trained model, 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 system comprising one or more processors, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processors” language, “generating” and “estimating” in the context of these claim encompasses a user manually generating the sequence data and estimating the understanding using a generic, trained model comprising a mathematical algorithm, as a series of purely mental steps 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 claims only recite one additional element – using one or more processors to perform the claimed steps. The processors in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 generic processors 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. Furthermore, as detailed in Applicant’s specification, page 10, lines 4-11, the use of a system comprising such processors represents routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more. Claims 2, 4, 7 and 9 only recite additional details of the abstract idea (using particular types of models and sequence data), and claim 5 recites a computer-readable medium to perform the method of claim 1, which is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed 25 November 2025 with respect to the section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 1 Applicant argues that the claimed series of steps, specifically training a model in the manner claimed, cannot be practically be performed by a human. Applicant likens the claim to that in Example 39 of the 2019 PEG. This is not persuasive. In Example 39, the claim is drawn to training a neural network based on digital facial images. Training a neural network based on image data cannot practically performed in the human mind. However, the instant claims merely recite training a generic “model” based on correctness/incorrectness data. The model in the BRI could be any mathematical algorithm, and the use of weighted sequence data to train the model based on the correctness/incorrectness data could be performed by a human. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues that the claimed training of a model represents an improvement in the functioning of a computer or improvement to other technology. This is not persuasive. As noted above, this model is a generic mathematical trained simply by inputting incorporating correctness/incorrectness data and assigning weighted sequence data. Utilizing a generic model trained in such as manner with a generic processor is not an improvement to the computer or any technical area. Furthermore, to the extent that the claims may recite a particular machine learning/artificial intelligence model, Applicant is directed to the Federal Circuit court decision in Recentive v. Fox, where the court held that iteratively training a machine learning model to produce an updated event schedule based on real-time event data is ineligible. The instant claims are ineligible for the same reasons.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that training a model in the manner claimed is not routine and conventional activity, and that according to the Berkheimer Memo, the rejection must present facts supporting such an assertion. As detailed above, the claimed training of a generic model in the manner claimed is an abstract idea of itself, as it merely involves inputting mathematical data into a generic model that could be, for example, performed by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, the additional limitations are limited to the use of a system comprising one or more processors to perform this abstract idea. As detailed in the rejection above, Applicant’s specification (page 10, lines 4-11) recites that this system comprising a processor may be any type of portable digital equipment have a memory and a microprocessor, such as a smart phone and a table PC. Therefore, these additional limitations represent routine and conventional activity according to Applicant’s specification.
5. In response to the amendments to claim 6 removing the term “unit”, the claim is no longer interpreted under section 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the section 102 and 103 rejections, in view of the corresponding amendments to claims 1 and 6, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The section 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
7. 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.
8. 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