DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
1/15/2026. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 19-20 were amended. Claims 8, 9, and 18 are canceled. Claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 11-13 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the recited limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind, drawing a similarity to Claim 2 of Example 37. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person can conceptually create a test question by combining portions of two prior questions and can determine an answer from prior annotation results. The claim does not recite technical detail about the manipulation or combination. It is recited in result-based functional language.In Example 37, the automatic moving of the most used icons closer to the start icon of the computer based on a determined amount of use is considered a practical application because of the improvement to the graphical user interface. The focus of the invention is the particular functionality of the rearrangement of icons on a graphical user interface of a computer system. In contrast, the present claims are directed to a non-technical improvement of automating a business quality control workflow for generating test questions and answers. The feature including the step to “execute a computer program” does not render the claim eligible at Step 2A, Prong 1, but is further analyzed at Step 2A, Prong 2 as an additional element. Additionally, determining a claim is not directed to one of multiple recited abstract ideas at Step 2A, Prong 1 is not dispositive. A claim remains abstract at Step 2A, Prong 1 if another abstract idea remains.
Applicant argues on p. 13-14 that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because the specification illustrates the claims improve the technical field of efficiently generating test questions to evaluate the quality of contributor submitted annotations because conventionally, test questions are manually generated and the claims programmatically generate test questions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited efficiency improvement in Applicant’s specification [0023] is an improvement to a non-technical process, not an improvement to computer functionality or another technology or technical field. Merely automating a manual process amounts to applying an abstract idea to a technical environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues on p. 14-15 that the claims amount to significantly more at Step 2B because the recited claim language is other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional.Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited steps, with the exception to executing a computer program, are the steps that recite the abstract idea in Step 2A, Prong 1. The additional elements such as, a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory; a plurality of annotator devices via an annotation platform; a corresponding annotator device; execute a computer program are recited at a high-level and merely employed to perform their conventional functions in a conventional arrangement. As such, Claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 19-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments and amendments have been fully considered and they are persuasive to overcome the rejection.
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 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 19-20 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, system, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium). Claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-13 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”). Claims 14-16 and 19 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claim 20 is directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacturer (reciting a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 14 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting […] distribute a first subset of queries from input data associated with an annotation job to … receive a set of annotation results corresponding to the first subset of queries from … wherein the set of annotation results includes a first annotation result submitted by a first contributor to a first query and a second annotation result submitted by a second contributor to a second query; dynamically generate a set of test questions and corresponding test answers based at least in part on the first subset of queries and the set of annotations results, wherein to generate the set of test questions and corresponding test answers based at least in part on the first subset of queries and the set of annotations results comprises to: select the first annotation result corresponding to the first query: manipulate the first query to obtain a manipulated first query: select the second annotation result corresponding to the second query; manipulate the second query to obtain a manipulated second query, generate a test question by combining the manipulated first query and the manipulated second query, and generate a known test answer to the test question by …; distribute a second subset of queries from the input data and the set of test questions to … and perform an action corresponding to a third contributor with respect to the annotation job based at least in part on a submitted answer, received from … associated with the third contributor, corresponding to the test question (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mental processes like concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite steps to distribute and receive data (distribute queries and receive annotation results), analyzing data (generating questions and answers), and comparing data to make a decision (performing an action based on received test question answer). Applicant’s disclosure identifies the laborious nature of manually generating test questions in advance of distributing annotation tasks to workers. It is understood that the claimed steps aim to improve the quality of annotations provided by workers by automating the test question generation and assessment (Applicant’s Specification, [0002]). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and mental processes like concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., a dynamic test question generation system for assessing the quality of annotation providers).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a system, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory; a plurality of annotator devices via an annotation platform; a corresponding annotator device; executing a computer program to generate a prediction on a combination of the first annotation result and the second annotation result) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, 15-16, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps to “distribute” a first subset of queries, “receive” annotation results, “generate” test questions, “select” the first annotation result, “manipulate” the first query, “select” the second annotation result, “manipulate” the second query, “generate” a test question, “generate” a known test answer, “distribute” a second subset of queries, and “perform” an action based on provided answer to a test question (Example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 19-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11144602 B2: A system and a computer program product are provided for evaluating question-answer pairs in an answer key by generating a predicted answer to a test question based on the answer key modification history for comparison matching against a generated answer that is generated in response to the test question, and then comparing the predicted answer and generated answer to determine an accuracy score match indication therebetween so as to present an indication that the answer key may have a problem if there is a match between the predicted answer and generated answer.
AU 2007212424 A1: The present invention relates generally to multiple-choice questions, and more specifically to a method of generating a class of educational materials, including educational testing materials, based on multiple-choice questions.
Chethan et al., Kweri ME: A Q&A based model which predicts the accepted answers of questions in CQA sites, 2019: An approach to find the best answers from the multiple answer posted for given question in Community Question Answering(CQA) sites is tedious and most time consuming if manual process used. And also the experts are required to do this by analysis all given answers. So we presented an new approach based on topic modeling and classifier. To evaluate correctness of the proposed model, a set of parameters are used, such as Receiver Operating Characteristics Area Under Curve, Precision Recall Area Under Curve, Confussion matrix, F1 score and Accuracy. Results show that the proposed model is effective in predicting the best answer..
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 extension fee 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 MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights