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 1–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category determination.
Claims 1-8 are process (method). Claims 9–16 are a machine/system comprising a processor and memory with functional modules. All claims fall within statutory categories under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP 2106.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Identify judicial exception(s) with citations to PEG groupings; quote offending clauses.
The claims “recite” abstract ideas in the following PEG groupings:
Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) (2019 PEG, Section I(A)(3)):
“analyzing course material for the course related to the question generation request;”
“generating questions based on the analysis and predetermined parameters.”
Dependent claims further provides:
Claim 2: “generating answers to the generated questions.”
Claim 5: “evaluating the answers;” and “providing feedback based on the evaluation of the answers.”
Claim 8: “determining the concepts and topics to be covered by the generated questions.” These steps describe evaluations and content creation that can be performed by a human instructor mentally or with pen and paper, even if automated.
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships; education/assessment workflows, content authoring and evaluation) (2019 PEG, Section I(A)(2)):
claim 1:
“receiving a question generation request …;”
“analyzing course material …;”
“generating questions based on the analysis and predetermined parameters.”
dependent claims:
Claim 3: “determining if … semi-automatic … requesting parameters for question generation.”
Claim 4: “accessing information on the student.”
Claim 5: “monitoring for answers …; evaluating …; providing feedback …”
Claims 6–7: “adjusted after question generation and new questions will be generated;” and parameter specification. These steps collectively recite an educational content-authoring and assessment workflow—an archetypal method of organizing human activity.
System claims (claim 9 et seq.) implement the same abstract workflow via generic computer components and functional “modules”:
“a processor; a memory … generate the following modules: a question generation system …; a question configuration module …; an automatic question setting module …” Functional module labels without specific technical implementation do not remove the abstract nature of the recited operations.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Analyze integration into a practical application; discuss any claimed technological improvement; address whether extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations are present.
The claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
No improvement to computer functioning or to another technology/technical field is recited. The claims lack any specific data structures, storage schemes, model architectures, algorithms, or system-level mechanisms that improve computer performance (e.g., latency, memory footprint, throughput, determinism). See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208; Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. GE, 916 F.3d 1363 (automation of manual process using generic computer not a technical improvement).
No particular machine beyond a generic “learning management system,” “processor,” “memory,” and purely functional “modules” is recited in a way that imposes meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
No transformation of an article is recited; the steps manipulate intangible information (course material, questions, answers). See MPEP 2106.05©.
The additional elements amount at most to:
Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer: “implemented in a learning management system,” “modules configured to [receive/analyze/generate]” (MPEP 2106.05(f), (h));
Insignificant extra-solution activity or data gathering/processing: “receiving a question generation request,” “monitoring for answers,” “accessing information on the student,” “requesting parameters.”
Limiting the abstract workflow to the educational field is a non-meaningful field-of-use limitation. Accordingly, the claims fail Step 2A, Prong 2 because they use generic computer components to perform an abstract educational content-authoring and assessment workflow without reciting a specific technological improvement or other meaningful limitation that integrates the exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: Assess whether additional elements are significantly more;
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(d); Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
The recited “processor,” “memory,” and functional “modules” performing “receiving,” “analyzing,” “generating,” “evaluating,” and “providing feedback” are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) computer components and operations for implementing information processing workflows in LMS contexts. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343; In re TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607 (generic classification/storage with functional components).
The claims lack any non-conventional arrangement of components or a specific algorithmic technique that improves computer functionality (contrast Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327 (specific self-referential table); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco, 837 F.3d 1299 (specific rules improving animation)).
Under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, in the absence of evidence in the specification or on the record indicating that the claimed operations or module configurations are not WURC, generic computing components and routine data processing are properly treated as conventional.
Accordingly claims 1–16 are ineligible under § 101. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity related to educational content authoring and assessment) and do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application, nor do they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exceptions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gal et al. (US 2011/0065082)
Re Claim 1 and 9, Gal discloses a method for automated question generation in a learning management system, the
method comprising:
receiving a question generation request, wherein the question generation request relates to
a course (para.166 present student a set of questions);
analyzing course material for the course related to the question generation request ; and
generating questions based on the analysis and predetermined parameters (para. 39, learning management system; para. 77, lesson plan and learning activities; para. 171 and 172, generating questions).
Gal further disloses:
Re claims 2 and 10, a method for automated question generation according to claim 1, further comprising:
generating answers to the generated questions (para. 8, producing possible answers).
Re claims 3 and 11, a method for automated question generation according to claim 1, further comprising:
prior to analyzing course material, determining if the question generation request is to be
semi-automatic, and, if so, requesting parameters for question generation (para. 96, automatic assessment of pedagogic parameters; para. 245, teacher input for parameters for the questions).
Re claims 4 and 12, a method for automated question generation according to claim 1, wherein the question
generation request comprises a student name, further comprising accessing information on
the student (para.225, automatically modifying educational learning content based on each student’s characteristic and record of progress; para. 258, student name or unique identifier).
Re claims 5 and 13, a method for automated question generation according to claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring for answers to the generated questions;
evaluating the answers; and
providing feedback based on the evaluation of the answers (para 8 and 327).
Re claims 6 and 14, a method for automated question generation according to claim 1, wherein the
predetermined parameters can be adjusted after question generation and new questions
will be generated (para. 304-307).
Re claims 7 and 15, a method for automated question generation according to claim 1, wherein the
predetermined parameters include at least one of question types, number of questions,
level of questions, and number or level of each type of question (para 309, difficulty level).
Re claims 8 and 16, a method for automated question generation according to claim 1, wherein the analyzing
the course material comprises determining the concepts and topics to be covered by the
generated questions (para. 319)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANG HU whose telephone number is (571)270-1344. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 6:30-4:30.
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.
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.
KANG HU
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715