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 .
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 1-20 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, 10 and 19 recite(s):
A method for facilitating AI-based language learning, the method comprising:
providing, on a computing device, a voice-based language learning partner chatbot;
constructing a first text prompt for a generative artificial intelligence (Al)engine which comprises a large language model (LLM) to obtain language- teaching content from the generative Al engine, wherein the language-teaching content includes content that facilitates a flow of conversation between a user and the chatbot based on a primary language and a secondary language;
delivering, via the chatbot, audio messages based on the language-teaching content to the user in a combination of the primary language and the secondary language, thereby allowing the user to learn the secondary language;
receiving from the user an audio response message in the secondary language, the primary language, or a combination thereof;
converting, by an audio-text conversion engine of the computing device, the audio response message into text using a lowered tolerance for mispronunciation such that a mispronounced word in the audio response message is converted to corresponding incorrectly spelled word in the text;
constructing a second text prompt for the generative AI engine based on the converted text to request the generative AI engine to identify a mistake made in the user audio response message and provide corresponding explanation in both the primary language and secondary language;
providing to the user an audio explanation for the identified mistake based on information provided by the generative AI engine and a prompt for the user to provide a response to correct the mistake;
updating in student record management subsystem, a machine-readable learning history that records the mistakes and a corresponding correction for the user;
determining whether a subsequent message from the generative AI engine does not require user input and causes discontinuity in the conversation; and
in response to determining that the message from the generative AI engine does not require user input, generating an additional user prompt or Al prompt, thereby facilitating the continuous flow of the conversation,
wherein the additional user prompt requests the user to generate additional user audio input, and
wherein the additional Al prompt causes the generative Al engine to generate more language learning content based at least in part on the learning history recorded for the user.
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 computing device”, “chatbot”, “generative AI engine”/”generative AI”[claim 1, 10 and 19], “processor”, “storage device“ [claim 10] and “non-transitory computer readable medium” [claims 8 and 15], 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 practicing a foreign language conversational skill with a student.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” 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 computing device”, “chatbot”, “generative AI engine”/”generative AI”, “processor”, “storage device“ and “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
The elements 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 or a field of use limitation that automates the abstract idea.
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 22, 23 that shows the use of a generic computing devices and paragraph 30-32 showing a high level description of a chatbot/AI engine).
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) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 is/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 or present additional abstract idea group (mental process). For examples, claims 2, 4, 11 and 20 describe delivering audio message to the user; claims 3, 5, 11 provide additional description of the type of audio output that is delivered to the user; claims 6, 15 describe a process of determining a user’s level based on the user’s input (a mental process); claims 7, 18 describe maintaining a record of the mistakes that user made (mental process); and claims 8-9, 17-18 describes matching up user with a real-life language partner (mental process).
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 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the argument that human tutor does not use a lowered-tolerance audio text-conversion engine that preserves the mispronunciation artifacts and a human tutor does not maintain a machine learning history in the manner described in independent claim 1, 10 and 19. However, the use of a computer in combination in an abstract idea has not been found sufficient to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C). In this particular case, the specification shows that the changes of the tolerance of the speech recognition are done in generic speech recognition engine (see paragraph 48) and the history in question is directed to generic feature of a generic generative AI (see paragraph 38 and 54). As such, the examiner takes the position that these limitation are directed to either performing a mental process using a generic computer or the using the computer as a tool to perform the mental process. As such, these limitations are not sufficient to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 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