Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/725,817

METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY CREATING QUESTION-AND-ANSWER COLLECTION, PROGRAM THEREFOR, AND RECORDING MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Jul 01, 2024
Examiner
HOQUE, NAFIZ E
Art Unit
2693
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Interactive Solutions Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
456 granted / 608 resolved
+13.0% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
628
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.5%
-28.5% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 608 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103
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. Claim 6 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention and 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 claim 9 recites “[a] program for implementing…” and is not limited to the statutory categories of invention and therefore rejected as being software per se. In other words, “a program” is neither a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. A non-limiting example of acceptable language would be: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program executable by using at least one processor”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beranek et al. (US Pub 2005/0283475) in view of Kantor et al. (US Pub 2016/0117314). Regarding claim 1, Beranek discloses method, the method comprising, by the computer: a voice analyzing step of analyzing a voice about a conversation to obtain a voice word, the voice word being a word included in the conversation (see para 0039-0041); a word group analyzing step of analyzing which of a plurality of keywords matches the voice word (see abstract; para 0009-0012, 0041); Beranek does not disclose a question answer creating step of creating a question and an answer to the question, using the voice word; and a question-and-answer set obtaining step of obtaining, using a keyword that is determined to match the question being classified and an answer to the question, a question and an answer about the keyword, the question and the answer being to be recorded in a question-and-answer collection. Kantor discloses a question answer creating step of creating a question and an answer to the question, using the voice word (see abstract; para 0003, para 0033-0045; 0057-0062, 0066-0068); and a question-and-answer set obtaining step of obtaining, using a keyword that is determined to match the question being classified and an answer to the question, a question and an answer about the keyword (para 0033-0045; 0057-0062, 0066-0068), the question and the answer being to be recorded in a question-and-answer collection (para 0073 - question/answer corpora database 510; para 0088, 0093); Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beranek with the teachings of Kantor in order to use resource-efficient method for automatic question generation for automated testing systems (Kantor, para 0002, 0005). Regarding claim 2, Beranek discloses further comprising: a keyword candidate extracting step of obtaining a candidate for a keyword from the voice word (see para 0041, 0043); and a keyword updating step of updating, using the candidate for the keyword extracted in the keyword candidate extracting step, a keyword registered in a keyword dictionary, to update a plurality of registered keywords (para 0021,0043, 0049), wherein the plurality of keywords in the word group analyzing step are the plurality of registered keywords that are obtained by the keyword updating step (para 0021 – “rules may be invoked which associates newly monitored keywords with the context of the new topic area. A rule may be triggered by an utterance of one or more keywords and may cause new keywords or phrases to be activated for monitoring”,0043, 0049). Regarding claim 3, Kantor discloses further comprising a category analyzing step of analyzing a category of the question and the answer (para 0055, 0056), wherein the question-and-answer collection stores the question and the answer in the category analyzed in the category analyzing step, the question and the answer being to be recorded in the question-and-answer collection (para 0066-069, 0082). Regarding claim 4, Kantor discloses further comprising: a content related word reading step of reading, by the computer, a content related word that is related to content included in a presentation material about the conversation (para 0050-0055); a content related word determining step of determining whether the keyword is the content related word (para 0054-0055 – target phrase); and a content obtaining step of, when the keyword is the content related word, storing the content in the question-and-answer collection in association with the question and the answer to be recorded in the question-and-answer collection (para 0057; 0069; see fig. 6). Regarding claim 6, see rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 7, see rejection of claim 1 (see para 0020 of Kantor disclosing non-transitory storage). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beranek et al. (US Pub 2005/0283475) in view of Kantor et al. (US Pub 2016/0117314) and in further view of Lavery et al. (US Pub 2023/0106058). Regarding claim 5, Beranek in view of Kantor discloses the method of claim 1. Beranek in view of Kantor does not disclose wherein the question-and-answer collection stores a page of a presentation material related to the content in association with the content. Lavery discloses wherein the question-and-answer collection stores a page of a presentation material related to the content in association with the content (see para 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beranek in view of Kantor with the teachings of Lavery in order to have a single document for presentation for easier readability. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at (571)272-7488. 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. /NAFIZ E HOQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 01, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581017
COMMUNICATION ROUTING FOR CONTACT CENTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579363
Incentive Aware-Aggregation Of Generative Models
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573372
TEXT-TO-SPEECH SYSTEM WITH VARIABLE FRAME RATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574459
VOICE-SYNCHRONIZED VISUAL INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547848
One-Shot Visual Language Reasoning Over Graphical Depictions of Data
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 608 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month