DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on April 13, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 are pending with claims 5 and 15 canceled, claims 1, 11, and 20 currently amended, and claims 21-22 newly presented.
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 Objections
Claims 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite, “the weighing”, whereas the claims at which claims 21-22 depend on (i.e., claims 1 and 11) recite, “weighting” (Emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-22 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 1-4, 6-10 and 21, a system and product (i.e., machine) in claims 11-14 and 16-20 and 22 for generating questions for students in a learning experience using artificial intelligence. All claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of Step 1.
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 (Currently Amended) 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,
wherein the generating the at least one question in view of the education requirements comprises weighting the education requirements and generating the at least one question having a focus on the content corresponding to the education requirements based upon the weighting; 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 claims 11 and 20, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 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.
Specifically, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claim 1 are as follows:
“receiving … input from a user, wherein the input comprises content generated during a learning session” encompasses human observation (e.g., a teacher or student observing a student’s answer on a test, wherein the answer comprises notes created during a past lecture);
“generating … at least one question based upon the content discussed during the learning session” encompasses human evaluation and judgement (e.g., a teacher or student writing down a question based on lecture material);
“wherein the generating comprises generating the at least one question in view of education requirements” encompasses human evaluation and judgement (e.g., the teacher or student writing down the question while considering the syllabus for the course, which typically outlines what a student can expect to learn throughout a course and the various weights of some assignments relative to their overall grade);
“wherein the generating the at least one question in view of the education requirements comprises weighting the education requirements and generating the at least one question having a focus on the content corresponding to the education requirements based upon the weighting” encompasses human evaluation and judgement (e.g., the teacher or student writing down the questions most pertinent to the information detailed in the syllabus); and
“providing the at least one question to at least one student present during the learning session” encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., a teacher or student providing questions to a student based on the presence of the student during a lecture).
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 or artificial intelligence model 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 model. The conventional computers over a generic network configured to utilize artificial intelligence models 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. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
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 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. For further information, see the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility AI Examples 47 through 49 (effective July 17, 2024).
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 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nisar [US12165539B2].
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), 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.”),
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” This shows the presenter providing weight to specific keywords based on their significance.) and 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.” This shows the generation having a focus on the content flagged by the users.); 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 (Original), 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 (Original), 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 (Original), 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, the Applicant has elected to cancel the claim and amend claim 1 to contain the limitations previously within claim 5.
Regarding claim 6 (Original), 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 (Original), 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 (Original), 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 (Original), 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 (Original), 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 claim 21 (New), the claim is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claims 11-20 and 22, the claims share similar limitations to claims 1-10 and 21. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1-10 and 21 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, filed April 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for containing non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for containing non-statutory subject matter has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, in the Remarks filed April 13, 2026 on pages 8-23, the Applicant argues the claims do not recite any abstract idea as presented in the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 13, 2026 (i.e., mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument. For specific information on the patent ineligibility of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, see the corresponding section above.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), in the Remarks filed April 13, 2026 on pages 23-28, the Applicant argues that, “Nisar fails to teach at least the claimed limitation “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.” Claim 1 (as previously presented)”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “parsing the received input from a user into content topics, and comparing the parsed received input against a plurality of known content topics.” (Remarks, page 25), “compare the received input against education requirements established by a state” (Remarks, page 26-27), and the autonomy of the required of the artificial intelligence model within the instant application’s system (Remarks, page 27)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding any arguments stating specific features are not present in Nisar as recited by the instant application, see the corresponding section above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights