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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the independent claims have been amended to recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Remarks, filed 2/10/2026, p. 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional limitations encompass abstract idea(s), generic computing components, instructions to implement the abstract idea(s) in a particular environment, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as presented in detail below, which do not provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The partitioning behavior of the constrained RNN layer claimed does not alter the neural network model itself and is, instead, a method of organizing the mathematical calculations performed. Thus, the aforementioned architecture does not improve the functioning of the neural network itself. The claims, specifications, and the equations provided in the specifications (00001-00005) fail to indicate any reason the probability calculations could not be done using mental processes and mathematical concepts. Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 1 recites in part “A method […]”, which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101.
[Step 2A — Prong 1] The claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) and/or mathematical concepts (i.e. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Claim 1 recites: A method comprising:
determining, by a neural network model executed by a processing device, an initial knowledge state of a student relating to a subject;
generating a vector representation of a set of items associated with the subject;
executing, by the neural network model, an assessment comprising at least a portion of the set of items relating to the subject;
providing a first item of the set of items to the student;
receiving, from the student, a first response to the first item;
generating an updated vector representation based on the first response to the first item;
partitioning, by the neural network model, the set of items into levels based on prerequisite relationships between the items;
generating, by the neural network model based on the updated vector representation and the initial knowledge state, a first set of probabilities associated with an updated knowledge state of the student corresponding to the set of items relating to the subject, wherein each probability of the first set of probabilities represents an estimated probability that the student has established a threshold level of proficiency for a respective item of the set of items, wherein the neural network model generates the first set of probabilities by processing the levels sequentially using a constrained recurrent neural network layer, wherein for each level after a first level, an output of the constrained recurrent neural network layer from a previous level is passed back into the constrained recurrent neural network layer, and wherein a probability estimate for each item in a subsequent level is constrained to be less than or equal to a maximum probability estimate of prerequisite items in one or more prior level;
selecting, by the neural network model based on the first set of probabilities, a second item of the set of items: and
providing the second item of the set of items to the student.
As indicated above, the “determining”, “generating”, “executing”, “providing”, “receiving”, “partitioning”, and “selecting” limitations encompass, under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind and/or mathematically calculated. For example, a teach could merely gather information from a student through questions and answers and using them to calculate vectors and probabilities associated with the student. In other words, the underlined portions could have been done by a teacher using mental processes and mathematical concepts to mathematically characterize the knowledge state of their student using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or the utilization of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, neural network model executed by a processing device is a generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The Specification further demonstrates that the training module is recited for its well- understood, routine, and conventional functionality (i.e., software/application), referring to the additional element in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy enablement (See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A)). Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. 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 and/or implements the use of a particular machine. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasoning. The additional limitations of “a memory to store instructions associated with a neural network model; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to execute the instructions associated with the neural network model to perform operations” and ”a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations” recite generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. Claims 8 and 15 fail to include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claims 8 and 15 are also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Particularly, the additional limitations further define the insignificant extra-solution of evaluation of the mental processes and mathematical concepts and additional iterations on the existing abstract concepts. Furthermore, these additional limitations encompass the use of generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The dependent claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715