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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 13, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, and 9-10:
A content output method, performed by a processor of a computer device in a field of education, the method comprising:
obtaining information of each of candidate content items for a user generated based on input from the user on a display of the computer device;
predicting, based on the information of each of the candidate content items by invoking a pre-trained content recommendation model, an expected benefit for each of the candidate content items resulting from a user’s operation on each of the candidate content items, the pre-trained content recommendation model being trained by historical data of the user, and the historical data comprising an actual benefit resulting from a user’s operation on a historical content item, information of the historical content item, and capability attribute information of the user; and
outputting a first content item based on the expected benefit for each of the candidate content items
displaying the first content item on the display of the computer device for viewing by the user, and receiving an operation performed by the user on the first content item displayed on the display, wherein
the information of the candidate content item is information of a candidate question, the information of the candidate question comprising question difficulty and a predetermined question benefit, the predetermined question benefit comprising a predetermined correctness benefit and a predetermined incorrectness benefit, wherein the predetermined correctness benefit is learning effect benefit when the user answers the candidate question correctly, and the predetermined incorrectness benefit is learning effect benefit when the user answers the candidate question incorrectly,
said predicting, based on the information of each of the candidate content items by invoking the pre-trained content recommendation model, the expected benefit for each of the candidate content items resulting from the user's operation on each of the candidate content items comprises:
predicting, based on the information of the candidate question by means of the content recommendation model, a correctness probability, a correctness benefit, an incorrectness probability, and an incorrectness benefit for the user to answer the candidate question; and
calculating an expected benefit for the candidate question based on the correctness probability, the correctness benefit, the incorrectness probability, and the incorrectness benefit for the user to answer the candidate question.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer readable medium”, “processor of a computer device”, “display of computer device”, “memory” and “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher observing students’ answer in an assessment, performing calculation to determine the most beneficial content and adjusting its instruction/lecture level accordingly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” (teaching) or “Mental Process” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – a computer readable medium”, “processor of a computer device”, “display of computer device”, “memory” and “a processor”.
The a computer readable medium”, “processor of a computer device”, “display of computer device”, “memory” and “a processor” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] 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 processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 29 – 32, 79 using generic computing device or cloud computing system).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 13, 15-17, 19-20 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued that the amended amendment provides an improvement to the field of education by predicting an expected benefit for each the candidate content item resulting from a user’s operation on each of the candidate item; the computer device predicting an expected benefit for each of the candidate content items resulting from a user's operation on each of the candidate content items; the computer device outputting a first content item based on the expected benefit for each of the candidate content items; the computer device displaying the first content item on the display of the computer device for viewing by the user, and receiving an operation performed by the user on the first content item displayed on the display. As such, the computer device in the field of education can recommend the most suitable content item for a user based on the operation of the user on the computer device, and can guide subsequent operations of the user on the recommend content item displayed on the display of the computer device. Therefore, the efficiency of the computer device recommending the content item is improved, and the response accuracy of the computer device is improved. However, an improvement of the functioning of the computer such that computer is able to provide an improved recommendation are not compatible to the examples of improvement to the technologies and improvement in functioning of the computer in MPEP 2106.05(a). The type of improvement described in MPEP 2106.05(a) appears to be directed to the technical improvement of the computing device. For example, rendering a halftone digital image, inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content and a method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Since there are no similar examples that speaks to the field of maximizing learning effect and increasing the knowledge level of the users in the shortest possible time. A review of the applicant’s shows that the aim of the invention is to “improve the knowledge level or ability level of the user is desired to be improved to the maximum extent in a shortest time” (see paragraph 3 and 37). The examiner takes the position is not directed to the improvement of the functioning of a computer. Instead, it is directed to the improvement of an abstract idea (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). The examiner takes the position these arguments are not consistent to the type of improvement described in MPEP 2106.05(a). As such, the examiner will maintain the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights