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 11 March 2026, claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 recite a method comprising:
receiving a response of an item of a plurality of items of an item library executed by an object to obtain a response result of an object to an item, the response result indicating a successful response or a failure response of the object to the item;
determining, using an Item Response Theory (IRT model) based on an overall capability information and a local capability information, a capability update amount for the object based on capability information of the object, attribute information of the item, and the response result; and iteratively updating, by the IRT model, the capability information of the object timely based on responses of the plurality of items executed by the object and a capability update amount for a respective item of the plurality of items, to obtain updated capability information of the object, and reflect capability of the object,
wherein the attribute information of the item indicates at least one of a discrimination of the item, or a correct probability in pseudo-guessing of the item,
and wherein the capability information of the object comprises local capability information of the object at least one measurement branch at at least one hierarchical level in an item hierarchy, the item being related to examination of the at least one measurement branch.
The limitations of receiving a response of an item, determining by an IRT model a capability update amount, and iteratively updating the capability information of the object, 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 “processing unit” in claims 1 and 13 and a “processor” in claim 20, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing unit” and “processor” language, “receiving”, “determining” and “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually receiving responses of items, utilizing the IT model to determine a capability update amount, and update the capability information based on responses, for example 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.
As noted above, the claims also recite utilizing an IRT model, and therefore are also directed to a judicial exception in the form of a mathematical formula. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite using a processor to perform the claimed steps, and the online measurement system comprises the item library storing the plurality of items and associated attribute information. The processor and online measurement system in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing unit or processor performing generic computer functions of receiving, storing and handling item and response information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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 a processor and online measurement system to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims and only recite additional abstract limitations and details of the abstract idea (e.g. details of the capability information and determining capability update amount, attribute amount, etc.). Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed 11 March 2026 with respect to the section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of steps in claim 1 could not reasonably be performed by a person in real time, and therefore are not drawn to an abstract idea. However, the abstract idea identified in the rejection is the process of receiving the response, determining a capability amount, and updating the capability information. This is a process that a person could perform for example using a pen and paper. Furthermore, Applicant is directed to the decision in Electric Power Group, where a complex series of steps for receiving and analyzing a stream of power grid data in real time was found to be directed to an abstract idea, regardless of the extent to which the series of steps could be practically performed in the human mind.
Applicant further points to Example 37 of the 2019 PEG and argues that the instant claims similarly cannot be performed mentally because they require accessing and cross-referencing a live item library. However, claim 2 of Example 37 was found to not be abstract because the central determining step is drawn to using a processor to track memory allocation for each icon over a period of time, which a person could not reasonably perform. The instant claims, on the other hand, merely utilize an item library to store and retrieve data about items, which amounts to no more than the use of generic computer components to implement the abstract idea of determining capability amounts and updating capability information of items and objects.
Applicant further argues regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, that the use of an online measurement system with a stored item library represents a specific technical architecture which allows for real time parameter estimation. This is not persuasive. The item library amounts to no more than generic storage which allows for storage and retrieval of item and object information, which amounts to no more than use of generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. The real time capability of this system flows naturally from the use of a computer to perform the abstract idea, similar to the claims in Electric Power Group. This is not an improvement to any particular technological area as in claim 1 of Example 40.
Conclusion
5. 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