CTNF 18/401,074 CTNF 84717 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, and 17 recite “predicting a question type.” The disclosure is limited to a single species of types: that the question starts with what, when, where, who, whom, which, whose, why, or how. There is no indication that Applicant contemplated other types, such as typing questions and answers by a topic or subject of the question and answer, or the like. The claims therefore cover every way of achieving the result while disclosing only a single way. This is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement with respect to the full scope of the limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. As per claims 1, 8, and 17: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “predicting a question type for each section of a document, each section including a different portion of the document,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “predicting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what type of question is appropriate for each section. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “generating multiple question-answer pairs, each question-answer pair comprising (i) a question having a type corresponding to one of the predicted question types and being associated with content in the section corresponding to the type and (ii) an answer to the question,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of the questions and answers. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). The abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, that the predicting is “using at least one processing device of an electronic device” and “using a trained question type prediction model,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of predicting the question type because it recites the outcome of the trained question type prediction model predicting the question type without reciting details of how the trained question type prediction model predicts the question type. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). The additional element, that the generating is “using the at least one processing device,” and “using a trained question-answer generation model that receives the predicted question types and the document as input,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of generating question-answer pairs because it recites the outcome of the trained question-answer generation model generating the question-answer pairs type without reciting details of how the trained question-answer generation model generates the question-answer pairs. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). The additional element, “outputting, using the at least one processing device, the question-answer pairs for use in training a question answering model,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, that the predicting is “using at least one processing device of an electronic device” and “using a trained question type prediction model,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the element is solely described, Specification ¶ [0068], in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the function. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01. The additional element, that the generating is “using the at least one processing device,” and “using a trained question-answer generation model that receives the predicted question types and the document as input,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the element is solely described, Specification ¶ [0074], in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the function. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01. The additional element, “outputting, using the at least one processing device, the question-answer pairs for use in training a question answering model,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claims 2 and 10: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “wherein the type of the question in each question-answer pair indicates that the associated question starts with one of: what, when, where, who, whom, which, whose, why, or how,” limiting the universe of predictions made, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “predicting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which word to begin a question that is appropriate for the section. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claims 3 and 11: The abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “wherein the question type prediction model is trained to predict one or more question types for the document based on one or more entities described in the document,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of predicting the question type because it recites the outcome of the trained question type prediction model predicting the question type without reciting details of how the type prediction model is trained to predict the question type. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 4: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “predicting a question type for each of the one or more entities,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “predicting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what type of question is appropriate for each section based on the entity. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “generating multiple additional question-answer pairs,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of the questions and answers. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). The abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, that the predicting is “using the question type prediction model,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of predicting the question type because it recites the outcome of the trained question type prediction model predicting the question type without reciting details of how the trained question type prediction model predicts the question type. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). The additional element, “inputting the document and the question type for each of the one or more entities to the question-answer generation model,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the question-answer generation model. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, that the generating is "using the question-answer generation model,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of generating question-answer pairs because it recites the outcome of the trained question-answer generation model generating the question-answer pairs type without reciting details of how the trained question-answer generation model generates the question-answer pairs. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “inputting the document and the question type for each of the one or more entities to the question-answer generation model,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because communicating the input to the model is described in a manner that indicates that such inputting is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of inputting to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because it is solely described in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the input. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01. As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claims 5, 13, and 19: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “generating at least one question-answer pair for each of the possible combinations,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of the questions and answers. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). The abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “the question type prediction model is trained to output a list of possible question types for possible combinations of section and entity for the document,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of producing a list of possible question types for possible combinations of section and entity for the document because it recites the outcome of the question type prediction model being trained to output the list without reciting details of how the question type prediction model is trained to output the list. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claims 6 and 14: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “each question-answer pair is associated with a quality score,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “associating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what quality score to assign to each question-answer pair. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). The abstract idea of generating quality scores for question-answer pairs from sections of a document is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “a particular question-answer pair is not output if the quality score of the particular question-answer pair is less than a specified threshold,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of producing a list of possible question types for possible combinations of section and entity for the document based on a quality score because it recites the outcome of comparing a quality score to a threshold without details of how the quality score is determined or the threshold is determined. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claims 7, 15, and 20: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “comparing the question-answer pairs to each other to determine any duplicate question-answer pairs,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “comparing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether pairs are identical. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “removing one or more duplicate question-answer pairs before outputting the question-answer pairs,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “removing” encompasses a person forming a judgment to remove one of the duplicates from a list to be output. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claims 8 and 16: The abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “wherein the question type prediction model and the question-answer generation model comprise large language models,” is mere instruction to apply the exceptions of predicting the question type and generating question-answer pairs because it recites large language models predicting question types and generating question-answer pairs without details of how the large language models do so. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 18: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “predicting a question type for each of the one or more entities,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “predicting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what type of question is appropriate for each section based on the entity. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “generating multiple additional question-answer pairs,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of the questions and answers. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). The abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “wherein the question type prediction model is trained to predict one or more question types for the document based on one or more entities described in the document,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of predicting the question type because it recites the outcome of the trained question type prediction model predicting the question type without reciting details of how the type prediction model is trained to predict the question type. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). The additional element, that the predicting is “using the question type prediction model,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of predicting the question type because it recites the outcome of the trained question type prediction model predicting the question type without reciting details of how the trained question type prediction model predicts the question type. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). The additional element, “inputting the document and the question type for each of the one or more entities to the question-answer generation model,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the question-answer generation model. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, that the generating is "using the question-answer generation model,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of generating question-answer pairs because it recites the outcome of the trained question-answer generation model generating the question-answer pairs type without reciting details of how the trained question-answer generation model generates the question-answer pairs. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “inputting the document and the question type for each of the one or more entities to the question-answer generation model,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering for the question-answer generation model. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “inputting the document and the question type for each of the one or more entities to the question-answer generation model,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because communicating the input to the model is described in a manner that indicates that such inputting is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of inputting to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because it is solely described in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the input. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01. As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of generating question-answer pairs from sections of a document because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al., Asking Questions the Human Way: Scalable Question-Answer Generation from Text Corpus . As per claims 1, 9, and 17, Liu teaches: predicting, using at least one processing device of an electronic device, a question type for each section of a document using a trained question type prediction model, each section including a different portion of the document , Liu pp. 5-7, where a corpus is processed to generate a style, the claimed question type ; generating, using the at least one processing device, multiple question-answer pairs using a trained question-answer generation model that receives the predicted question types and the document as input, each question-answer pair comprising (i) a question having a type corresponding to one of the predicted question types and being associated with content in the section corresponding to the type and (ii) an answer to the question , Liu pp. 5-7, where the questions and answers are generated according to the style ; and outputting, using the at least one processing device, the question-answer pairs for use in training a question answering model , Liu pg. 1 (“generating question-answer pairs from unlabeled text passages is of great value to many applications, such as assisting the training of machine reading comprehension systems”) . As per claims 2 and 10, the rejection of claims 1 and 9 is incorporated, and Liu further teaches: wherein the type of the question in each question-answer pair indicates that the associated question starts with one of: what, when, where, who, whom, which, whose, why, or how , Liu pg. 3 (“Style: denote a question style as s. We classify each question into nine styles: “who”, “where”, “when”, “why”, “which”, “what”, “how”, “yes-no”, and “other”.”) . As per claims 3 and 11, the rejection of claims 1 and 9 is incorporated, and Liu further teaches: wherein the question type prediction model is trained to predict one or more question types for the document based on one or more entities described in the document , Liu pp. 5-7, where the style depends on named entity recognition . As per claims 4 and 12, the rejection of claims 3 and 11 is incorporated, and Liu further teaches: predicting a question type for each of the one or more entities using the question type prediction model , Liu pp. 5-7, where style is predicted ; inputting the document and the question type for each of the one or more entities to the question-answer generation model , Liu pp. 5-7, where the passage and style are input ; and generating multiple additional question-answer pairs using the question-answer generation model , Liu pp. 5-7, where multiple questions are generated . As per claims 5, 13, and 19, the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 is incorporated, and Liu further teaches: the question type prediction model is trained to output a list of possible question types for possible combinations of section and entity for the document , Liu pp. 5-7, where different styles are identified to generate questions ; and generating the multiple question-answer pairs using the trained question-answer generation model comprises generating at least one question-answer pair for each of the possible combinations , Liu pp. 5-7, where questions of different styles are generated . As per claims 6 and 14, the rejection of claims 1 and 9 is incorporated, and Liu further teaches: each question-answer pair is associated with a quality score , Liu pg. 7, section 3.4 ; and a particular question-answer pair is not output if the quality score of the particular question-answer pair is less than a specified threshold , Liu pg. 7, section 3.4, where the decision to keep the sample outputs it . As per claims 7, 15, and 20, the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 is incorporated, and Liu further teaches: comparing the question-answer pairs to each other to determine any duplicate question-answer pairs , Liu pg. 7, section 3.4, where duplicates are identified ; and removing one or more duplicate question-answer pairs before outputting the question-answer pairs , Liu pg. 7, section 3.4, where duplicates are removed . As per claims 8 and 16, the rejection of claims 1 and 9 is incorporated, and Liu further teaches: wherein the question type prediction model and the question-answer generation model comprise large language models , Liu pg. 2, where GPT2 is a large language model . As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated, and Liu further teaches: wherein the question type prediction model is trained to predict one or more question types for the document based on one or more entities described in the document , Liu pp. 5-7, where the style depends on named entity recognition ; predicting a question type for each of the one or more entities using the question type prediction model , Liu pp. 5-7, where style is predicted ; inputting the document and the question type for each of the one or more entities to the question-answer generation model , Liu pp. 5-7, where the passage and style are input ; and generating multiple additional question-answer pairs using the question-answer generation model , Liu pp. 5-7, where multiple questions are generated . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3. 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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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. WILLIAM SPIELER Primary Examiner Art Unit 2159 /WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 2 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 3 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 4 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 5 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 6 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 7 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 8 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 9 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 10 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 11 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 12 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 13 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 14 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 15 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 16 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 17 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 18 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 19 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 20 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 21 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 22 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/401,074 Page 23 Art Unit: 2159
Prosecution Insights