DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Remarks and Amendments filed on 12/31/2025.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 14-17, and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 21-23 have been added.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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, see Page 10, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claims 4, 6, and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 10-11, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Page 11: “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 represents an improvement in a technical field… Previous solutions included in the technical field of education artificial intelligence systems were unable "to expand and apply to an environment where problems and correct answers are not present, such as content like articles, videos, etc." Spec. at [0006]. The claimed invention integrates knowledge tracing models with multiple different types of content by "dividing the content into a plurality of unit contents based on at least one criterion that varies depending on a content type; [and] determining an understanding of the user with respect to each of the plurality of unit contents based on the reaction of the user," as recited by amended claim 1 (emphasis added).”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because dividing step is considered to be part of the abstract idea (“Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people such as following rules and instructions) and determining step is considered to be part of the abstract idea (“Mental Processes” for concepts performed in the human mind such as observation and evaluation). Particularly, the steps of dividing and determining, as currently written, can be broadly interpreted to encompass reviewing a test result for a student or reviewing a live performance for a student athlete where test (or performance) is divided based on section and student’s understanding is updated. Therefore, the claim does not provide improvement in a technical field. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 16-17, filed 06/13/2022, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of Claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-23 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for tracing a knowledge level of a user consuming content and recommending content based on knowledge level of the user), “a machine” (a computing device for tracing a knowledge level of a user consuming content and recommending content based on knowledge level of the user), and “an article of manufacture” (a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for tracing a knowledge level of a user consuming content and recommending content based on knowledge level of the user) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-23, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A method of tracing a knowledge level of a user, the method comprising:
sensing a reaction of the user consuming content;
dividing the content into a plurality of unit contents based on at least one criterion that varies depending on a content type;
determining an understanding of the user with respect to each of the plurality of unit contents based on the reaction of the user;
inputting the understanding and information about the content into a … model; and
updating the knowledge level of the user based on an output from the … model.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and cover performance of the limitation in the human mind. The limitations of sensing a reaction of the user and determining an understanding of the user are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind. The other limitations of dividing, inputting, and updating the knowledge level of the user cover concepts that involve a managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people such as following rules or instructions. Therefore, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and steps from practically being performed in the human mind that falls within “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites one additional element – “knowledge tracing model”. This additional element represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 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 represents mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4-7, 10-12, and 21-23 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the knowledge level of the user denotes a probability that the user understands certain content” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein the determining the understanding of each of the plurality of unit contents comprises: based on a plurality of reactions with respect to the content being sensed, selecting at least one reaction of the plurality of reactions according to a type of the content; and determining the understanding with respect to a unit content of the plurality of unit contents based on the selected at least one reaction” in Claim 4, by defining “wherein the determining the understanding comprises: comparing a number of unit contents in which the understanding is determined to be a success with a number of unit contents in which the understanding is determined to be a failure; and determining the understanding with respect to the content based on a result of the comparing” in Claim 5, by defining “wherein the comparing comprises: assigning a weight to each unit content of the plurality of unit contents according to at least one of importance or amount; and applying the weight to the number of unit contents in which the understanding is determined to be a success and the number of unit contents in which the understanding is determined to be a failure and comparing weighted results” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein the information about the content comprises at least one of information for identifying the content, a field of the content, or a level of the content” in Claim 7, by defining “further comprising: monitoring the knowledge level of the user; and recommending content to the user based on an interest of the user and the knowledge level of the user” in Claim 10, by defining “wherein the recommending the content comprises: identifying a meaning of at least one part of the content for which the reaction of the user is sensed; determining whether the user shows empathy to the at least one part of the content based on the reaction of the user; identifying the interest of the user based on the meaning and the empathy; and recommending the content based on the interest and the knowledge level” in Claim 11, by defining “wherein the recommending the content comprises: predicting a probability that the user understands new content based on a current knowledge level of the user; and recommending content by which the knowledge level of the user is improved to a maximum when consuming the content, by using an optimization model” in Claim 12, by defining “wherein dividing the content into the plurality of unit contents according to the content type comprises: based on a determination that the content is text data, dividing the content into the plurality of unit contents based on phrases, paragraphs, chapters, or themes” in Claim 21, by defining “wherein dividing the content into the plurality of unit contents according to the content type comprises: based on a determination that the content is voice data, dividing the content into the plurality of unit contents based on a magnitude or a frequency of the voice data” in Claim 22, and by defining “wherein dividing the content into the plurality of unit contents according to the content type comprises: based on a determination that the content is image data, dividing the content into the plurality of unit contents based on a theme of the image data, an object included in the image data, or sound included in the image data” in Claim 23.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 8 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the determining the understanding with respect to each of the plurality of unit contents comprises determining the understanding corresponding to the reaction of the user by using at least one of a … model trained by using training data, in which the understanding of the user is labeled with a combination of one or more reactions, or a … model that is trained to cluster combinations of one or more reactions” in Claim 3 and by defining “wherein the inputting the understanding and the information about the content into the … model comprises: generating … corresponding to a combination of the understanding and the information about the content; and inputting … into the … model” in Claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 3 and 8 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 3 recites an additional element – “neural network” and Claim 8 recites additional elements – “an embedding vector” and “the knowledge tracing model”. The additional element “an embedding vector” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “neural network” and “the knowledge tracing model” represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B: Claims 3 and 8 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3 and 8 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, these additional elements represent mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) and amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sensing the reaction of the user comprises sensing at least one of a position where a gaze of the user is focused, a speed or pattern of changes in the gaze, a change in a pupil size of eyes of the user, a change in a facial expression of the user, a speed of consumption of the content by the user, a number of times that the user stops watching or goes backward while consuming the content, a time taken by the user to consume the content, whether the user completely consumes the content, a change in a heart rate of the user, or a change in brain waves of the user.
Claim 9 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea. Examiner notes that a person can mentally judge where a gaze of the user is focused.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This dependent claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: This dependent claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not recite additional elements. Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program, which when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the method of claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as Claim 1. Step 2A, Prong 2: Additionally, Claim 13 recites additional elements – “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program, which when executed by a computer, causes the computer”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a knowledge tracing process (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 13 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 elements of using a computer system to perform a tracing knowledge process amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites the following limitations:
… for tracing a knowledge level of a user and recommending content …; and … to:
sense a reaction of the user consuming content,
divide the content into a plurality of unit contents based on at least one criterion that varies depending on a content type,
determine an understanding of the user with respect to each of the plurality of unit contents based on the reaction of the user,
input the understanding and information about the content into a … model, and
update the knowledge level of the user based on an output from the … model.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 14 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and cover performance of the limitation in the human mind. The limitations of sensing a reaction of the user and determining an understanding of the user are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind. The other limitations of dividing, inputting, and updating the knowledge level of the user cover concepts that involve a managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people such as following rules or instructions. Therefore, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and steps from practically being performed in the human mind that falls within “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 14 recites additional elements – “a computing device comprising: a communication interface configured to communicate with an external electronic device; a memory storing a program …; and at least one processor operatively connected to the communication interface and the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the program” and “knowledge tracing model”. The additional element of “knowledge tracing model” represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a knowledge tracing process (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 14 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 elements of using a computer system to perform a tracing knowledge process amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the additional element of “knowledge tracing model” represents mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 14 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 14 such as by defining “wherein, for determining the understanding with respect to each of the plurality of unit contents, … to determine the understanding corresponding to the reaction of the user by using at least one of a … model trained by using training data, in which the understanding of the user is labeled with a combination of one or more reactions, or a … model that is trained to cluster combinations of one or more reactions” in Claim 15, by defining “wherein, for determining the understanding with respect to each of the plurality of unit contents, … to: based on a plurality of reactions with respect to the content being sensed, select at least one reaction of the plurality of reactions according to a type of the content, and determine the understanding with respect to a unit content of the plurality of unit contents based on the selected at least one reaction” in Claim 16, by defining “wherein, for determining the understanding, … to: compare a number of unit contents in which the understanding is determined to be a success with a number of unit contents in which the understanding is determined to be a failure, and determine the understanding with respect to the content based on a result of comparison” in Claim 17, by defining “wherein, for inputting the understanding and information about the content into the … model, … to: generate … corresponding to a combination of the understanding and the information about the content; and input … into the … model” in Claim 19, and by defining “wherein … to: monitor the knowledge level of the user, and recommend content to the user based on an interest of the user and the knowledge level of the user” in Claim 20.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 15-17 and 19-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 15 recites additional elements – “the at least one processor is further configured to execute the program” and “neural network”, Claims 16, 17, and 20 recite additional elements – “the at least one processor is further configured to execute the program”, and Claim 19 recites additional elements – “the at least one processor is further configured to execute the program”, “an embedding vector”, and “the knowledge tracing model”. The additional elements “the at least one processor is further configured to execute the program” and “an embedding vector” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “neural network” and “the knowledge tracing model” represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B: Claims 15-17 and 19-20 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 15-17 and 19-20 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, these additional elements represent mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) and amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 14 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. This dependent claim further narrows the abstract idea of Claim 14 such as by defining “wherein the information about the content comprises at least one of information for identifying the content, a field of the content, or a level of the content”.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This dependent claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: This dependent claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not recite additional elements. Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-23 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed an updated search of prior art, including all feature limitations of amended independent claims 1, 13, and 14, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 1, 13, and 14 in their entirety; and in particular, “dividing the content into a plurality of unit contents based on at least one criterion that varies depending on a content type” and “determining an understanding of the user with respect to each of the plurality of unit contents based on the reaction of the user” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1, similarly in Claims 13 and 14.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art was found to be Childress in view of SHIN. Childress teaches mechanisms for performing automated technical content conversion based on user understanding level. SHIN teaches a user knowledge tracking device, a system, and a method thereof based on artificial intelligence learning. In light of the claim amendments, Examiner updated the search and found that the next closet prior art is Childress in view of SHIN and Tillette de Clermont-Tonnerre et al. (US 2020/0213649 A1; hereinafter, “Tillette”). Tillette teaches an approach that provides a dynamic live feed recommendation to a user on the basis of the user's real-time reaction to a live feed content. Tillette also teaches the content that includes segments that correspond to one or more metadata tags that describe the segments (e.g., type of action/material in the segment, etc.). However, Childress in view of SHIN and Tillette fails to disclose “dividing the content into a plurality of unit contents based on at least one criterion that varies depending on a content type” and “determining an understanding of the user with respect to each of the plurality of unit contents based on the reaction of the user” as recited in Claims 1, 13, and 14. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the amended limitations described above.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claims 1, 13, and 14, in their entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claims 1 and 14, claims (2-12 and 21-23) and (15-20) are novel/non-obvious, respectively.
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 TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights