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 22 July 2026, claims 1-5, 7-16 and 18-20 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 1-5, 7-16 and 18-20 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,
determining, by the at least one processing unit using the IRT model, an attribute update amount for the item based on the capability information of the object, the attribute information of the item, and the response result;
updating, by the at least one processing unit using the IRT model, the attribute information of the item based on the attribute update amount to obtain updated attribute information of the item; and
recording, by the online measurement system, the updated attribute information of the item and using the updated attribute information in a next update or in predicting a next response result for the item
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, iteratively updating the capability information of the object, determining an attribute updated amount, updating the attribute information of the item, and recording the updated information of the item, 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”, “determining”, “updating” and “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually receiving responses of items, utilizing the IT model to determine a capability update amount, updating the capability information based on responses, determining an update amount, updating the attribute information, and recording the updated information. For example, a person could perform these steps by observing the pieces of information such as the received response and evaluate the information using a model and update information attributes for future use, 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 2-5, 7-12, 14-16, 18 and 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 22 July 2026 with respect to the section 101 rejection of claims 1, 13 and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant points to the newly added features of updating and recording attribute information of items based on received updated attribute information, and argues that results in an updated system state. Applicant argues that this claimed system is not directed to a mere mental process because a person using a pen and paper cannot practically perform these operations in an online measurement system to update a state of the system. This is not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection above, the claims are directed to the idea of receiving updated attribute information, using the information to update the item, and recording the information of the item for use in a next update or in predicting a next response result. This is a series of steps for managing, updating, and recording information for further use, that could be performed regardless of the system on which it is implemented. These steps could be performed by a person for example using pen and paper to observe attribute updates, evaluate them, and update and record the items for later use. The claims only go on to recite a generic online measurement system implementing these steps, which amounts to no more than implementing an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Applicant further argues the claims integrate any mathematical calculation into a practical application by updating and maintaining technical information of the object and the item, and recording the updated information changes how the system performs the next steps. However, these are routine steps performed by computers (updating information stored in a system, and performing latter processes based on the updated information). Applicant has not shown how this is indicative of integration into an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues the ordered combination of operations recites significantly more than an abstract idea since the combination changes the state of the online measurement system. However, as discussed above the state of the system is not being changed; instead the state of the information (items and objects) stored by the system is being changes, which only amounts to a use of a computer as a tool to organize and update information.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. 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 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday Eastern.
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, 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 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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights