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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 25, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 are noted as amended and claims 8 and 17 are noted as cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all previous objections and 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 25, 2025 and all objections and rejections therein have been withdrawn.
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 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite a process, a computer system for performing the process, and a computer program product/manufacture including the process, the process including the steps of analyzing the one or more features of the plurality of questions for students associated with the online course; predicting a difficulty level of the plurality of questions for students, wherein the prediction is based on the analysis of the one or more features of the plurality of questions for the students, and wherein the predicted difficulty level is based on an average of difficulty levels associated with the words of the plurality of questions; and generating a custom quiz for a subset of the students that includes at least a subset of the plurality of questions. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are analyzing features of the plurality of questions, predicting a difficulty level of each of the questions based on the analysis and average difficulty levels of the words, and generating a custom quiz for students including the subset of questions. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (analyzing the features of the questions; predicting a difficulty level), judgement (generating a custom quiz)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (generating a custom quiz). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are a communication interface that communicates over a communication network [claim 10]; one or more processors [claim 10]; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by the processors [claims 10 and 19]; receiving online quiz data associated with an online course sent over a communication network from a teacher device, wherein the online quiz data includes a plurality of questions and one or more correct answers; generating a difficulty scoring machine-learning model, wherein the difficulty scoring machine-learning model is generated based on a knowledge graph model that includes graph- structured data correlating words of the plurality of questions to an associated difficulty level; training the difficulty scoring machine-learning model in accordance with training data correlating the difficulty level for students associated with the online course to one or more features of the plurality of questions; the analysis being perform by using the difficulty scoring machine-learning model; the predicting a difficulty level being by the difficulty scoring machine-learning model; and wherein the custom quiz is accessible by a student device over the communication network in association with the online course. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are mere data gathering (receiving online quiz data) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and transmitting data over a network (wherein the custom quiz is accessible over the network) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The other additional elements of a communication interface, one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and application of a machine-learning model trained with training data are generic computer components/software for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraph 0031 of the specification states the computing devices may be a personal computer, laptop, or smartphone which are generic computing devices. With regard to the application of a machine-learning model, generating said model based on a knowledge graph model, and training the model, due to the high-level of generality of the recitation of the model, the limitation is interpreted as mere computer code for performing the computer functions and falls under the instructions for applying the judicial exception. Further, the generating and training of the model is insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional per Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025) as all ML models must be generated and trained and training a model for a specific task is WURC. Applicant’s claims do not detail a specific training or implementation that amounts to a practical application, improvement to the technology, or significantly more. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) of receiving online quiz data, wherein the online quiz data includes questions and correct answers, generating a machine learning model, training the model, and wherein the online quiz is accessible over the network is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of a communication interface, one or more processors, a NTCRM, and application of a machine-learning model trained with training data used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 19 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, and 18 are dependent from claims 1 and 10, respectively, and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18 recite further abstract ideas including judgment (identifying steps, combining, generating activities), observation (querying a database, extracting), and evaluation (assigning levels) mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities including storing the list of terms and retraining the model. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 6 and 15 recite further insignificant extra-solution activities and instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device including defining the type of data manipulated (training data) and using a neural network. Due to the high-level of generality of the recitation of the model using a neural network or a knowledge graph model, the limitations are interpreted as mere computer code for performing the computer functions and fall under the instructions for applying an abstract idea. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, and 18 recite abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed November 25, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Examiner has overlooked the machine-learning model being generated and trained and mean the operations of the process cannot be practically performed using a human mind. Applicant’s arguments are merely summarizing the rejection and the claim amendments and conclusory statements. With regard to the operations being incapable of being performed in the human mind, the recitation of a computing device and/or machine learning does not render the steps incapable of being performed in the human mind under their broadest reasonable interpretation per MPEP 2106.05(f). The steps under their broadest reasonable interpretation recite abstract ideas and the recitation of generic computing components and instructions for applying the exceptions with the computing device do not amount to a practical application or significantly more. Generating and training the machine learning model were treated as additional elements as discussed above and do not impact the Step 1 analysis of determining the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. As the claims are directed to judicial exceptions without a practical application or significantly more, as discussed above, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed November 25, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 are rejected.
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 CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715