DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 2 recites a method comprising:
obtaining a freeform answer,
converting the answer into tokens,
formatting the tokens into vectors,
evaluating the vectors, and
calculating a score.
Independent claim 15 recites a method comprising:
converting an answer into tokens,
creating a directed graph, and
formatting the graph.
Independent claim 19 recites a method comprising:
converting an answer into tokens,
creating a parsing tree, and
formatting the parsing tree.
The limitations of obtaining an answer, converting, formatting, evaluating, and calculating, in claim 2, converting, creating and formatting, in claim 15, and converting, creating and formatting, in claim 19, as drafted, each constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these processes as drafted could be performed entirely be a person for example using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 2 only recites one additional element –training an AI model to evaluate freeform answers. The AI model is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than use of a computer programmed to evaluate the answers. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the use of the AI model constitutes no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an AI model to evaluate freeform answers amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-14, 16-18 and 20-22 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional abstract details of the evaluation of freeform answers in a manner that could be performed by a person, or use of generic AI to perform the evaluation. Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more, for the reasons detailed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 2-22 distinguish patentably from the prior art. The closest prior art of record, Burstein et al. (US 2004/0175687 A1) discloses evaluating freeform answers utilizing tokens and vectors (see e.g. Par’s. 80-81), but does not explicitly disclose the answer comprises three sections, converting each section into tokens, formatting the tokens into vectors, evaluating the vectors, and calculating a score, in the manner claimed. Similarly, Burstein and the other prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest the combinations of elements in claims 15 and 19, including converting the answer, and creating and formatting a directed graph as in claim 15, and converting the answer, and converting and formatting a parsing tree as in claim 19.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715