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 an abstract idea without significantly more. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses a method (i.e., process) in claims 1-10, a system (i.e., machine) in claims 11-19, and a product in claim 20 for generating questions for students in a learning experience using artificial intelligence. Claims 1-19 are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of Step 1.
Claim 20, however, is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “a product…comprising a computer-readable storage medium”, as claimed in claim 20, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and thus is not patent eligible. A claim drawn to a computer-readable storage device, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, typically covers forms of transitory, propagating signals per se. Signals per se do not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention and are therefore not eligible for patent protection. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.2.
This rejection may be obviated by amending the claim to read on a “non-transitory” computer readable device, or other appropriate language.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant invention is broadly directed to a system and method for utilizing lecture material from a learning environment to generate questions for students.
Claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis added):
A method, comprising:
receiving, at a question generating system, input from a user,
wherein the input comprises content generated during a learning session;
generating, utilizing an artificial intelligence model of the question generating system, at least one question based upon the content discussed during the learning session,
wherein the generating comprises generating the at least one question in view of education requirements; and
providing the at least one question to at least one student present during the learning session.
Claim 1 encompasses the abstract idea and has substantially similar features as claim 11, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, respectively.
Claims 1-19 recite the steps for documenting learning material and generating questions based on learning requirements using artificial intelligence. The system and method are directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. A human – using pen and paper – is capable of taking notes in a classroom, generating at least one question based on learning requirements, and presenting the question(s) to at least one student. This is the same system/method students perform by taking notes, creating practice quizzes/tests/flashcards for upcoming quizzes/tests, then quizzing themselves to prepare for the upcoming quizzes/tests. These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite collecting, analyzing, and sending data pertaining to teaching a user. Thus, the steps are directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implemented on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include no additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computer and artificial intelligence. The conventional computers over a generic network as presented are directed to the components of a system that amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for creating test material for users.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires ‘more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words ‘apply it.’’" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims do not include the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any potentially technical aspects of the claims are well-known, generic computational components performing conventional functions (e.g., Specification, [0032], “The question generating system may be accessible using any type of computing device, for example, personal computer, laptop computer, smartphone, tablet, smartwatch, head-mounted display, smart television or other smart appliance, augmented reality device, virtual reality device, and/or the like.”). The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination and, the instant claims do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Thus, the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a computer using artificial intelligence. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nisar [US12165539B2].
Regarding claim 1, Nisar discloses:
A method, comprising:
receiving, at a question generating system, input from a user (Nisar, Fig 1, “Receiving audio interaction of a presenter through an audio input device and uploading course content into a knowledge database 102.”),
wherein the input comprises content generated during a learning session (Nisar, Fig 1, “Capturing the audio interaction of the presenter 104.”);
generating, utilizing an artificial intelligence model of the question generating system, at least one question based upon the content discussed during the learning session (Nisar, col 18, lines 37-38, “Furthermore, the system also employs AI or Artificial Intelligence to categorize the content into topics and to generate quiz-based questions from speech.”),
wherein the generating comprises generating the at least one question in view of education requirements (Nisar, col 4, lines 51-53, “The theoretical questions include those questions that contains an important piece of information, including significant keywords.”); and
providing the at least one question to at least one student present during the learning session (Nisar, col 18, lines 39-41, “The questions are then sent to all the participants of that session during the meeting.”).
Regarding claim 2, Nisar discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the input comprises transcribing audio content provided by the user during the learning session (Nisar, Fig 1, “Transcribing the audio interaction along with the optionally flagged significant keywords by the presenter into a plurality of text by and saving the transcribed plurality of text and course content 160.”).
Regarding claim 3, Nisar discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving input comprises the user providing an objective related to the class session prior to the learning session (Nisar, col 12, lines 10-13, “For instance, if the presenter is teaching a topic relating to physics subject and the presenter mentions the following detail. “Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity” and flags this detail as important.”).
Regarding claim 4, Nisar discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein the generating the at least one question is performed in view of the objective (Nisar, col 12, lines 13-16, “Then the method will highlight the elements such as: Sir Isaac Newton; Discovered and Gravity. Then the method uses AI to generate the following question…”).
Regarding claim 5, Nisar discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the generating the at least one question in view of the education requirements comprises weighting the education requirements (Nisar, col 4, lines 17-18, “The method allows the presenter to optionally flag the significant keywords”) and
the generating the at least one question having a focus on the content corresponding to the education requirements based upon the weighting (Nisar, col 13, lines 23-29, “For instance, if the presenter is talking about the history of the world and mentions an important detail while talking, they (students) may click on the clicker, press a designated key on the keyboard, a click on the interface or say out a verbal que such as “flag this” and the system will be able to generate a question or quiz from the recently communicated information to send to the participants.”).
Regarding claim 6, Nisar discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the generating comprises generating a plurality of questions and wherein the providing comprises providing the plurality of questions in a quiz-type format (Nisar, col 9, lines 48-50, “then using the extracted key information to intelligently generate assessments such as quiz questions, multiple-choice questions and mathematical questions.”).
Regarding claim 7, Nisar discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises providing the at least one question to the user before providing the at least one question to the at least one student (Nisar, col 15, lines 57-59, “Followed by reviewing and seeking approval of the presenter for the question generated by the question generation module.”).
Regarding claim 8, Nisar discloses:
The method of claim 7, wherein the providing the at least one question to the at least one student is responsive to the user approving the at least one question (Nisar, col 15, lines 60-62, “On reviewing the question, the presenter either approves or disapproves the question and publishes the question to a plurality of participants the approved questions at step 114.”).
Regarding claim 9, Nisar discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the providing comprises transmitting the at least one question to a device of the at least one student (Nisar, col 15, lines 61-62, “publishes the question to a plurality of participants the approved questions.”).
Regarding claim 10, Nisar discloses:
The method of claim 1, comprising providing, responsive to completion of the at least one question by the at least one student, answers provided by the at least one student to the user (Nisar, Fig 1, “Generating analytics, auto-checking the response of the plurality of participants, and displaying the analytics to the presenter 118.”).
Regarding claims 11-20, the claims share similar limitations to claims 1-10. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1-10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715