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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/25/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The aforementioned rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/25/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the following: “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action's concern regarding mathematical operations has been addressed by the present amendments. Even assuming arguendo that amended claim 1 recites a mathematical concept, the claim as a whole integrates that concept into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. In the alternative, the ordered combination of claim elements provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B (Remarks, filed 5/25/2026, pg. 21-31).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing multi-dimensional calculations based on a spatial coverage function to output a type of question, and updating said calculation based on user input to refine the output recites mathematical concepts. Incorporating these mathematical concepts into a server-interface workflow does not rise to the level of integration of the concept into a practical application. Rather, the additional limitations are considered to be extra solution activity. The server and the user device are considered to be generic computing. As such, amended claim 1 does not satisfy Step 2A, Prong 2. The combination of the limitations of amended claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. As such, amended claim 1 does not satisfy Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant does not, in the provided specification (including [0011], [0056]-[0061], [0065]-[0066], and FIGS. 4-7), disclose pre-establishing a spatial coverage function by a computer server. The claimed limitation contains new matter, and, for that reason, is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim(s) 1-8 are drawn to statutory categories of invention of machine or method.
[Step 2A — Prong 1] Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mathematical concepts, and/or mental process (i.e. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III). See underlined portions below.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented set based recommendation method, comprising:
pre-establishing, by a computing server, a spatial coverage function defining respective spatial coverage rates for a plurality of candidate question types, each of the respective spatial coverage rates indicating a number of knowledge points covered by a respective one of the plurality of candidate question types in a multi-dimensional ability space based on a multi-dimensional space information;
receiving a user information comprising an answer submitted by a user through a set based recommendation operation interface displayed on a user device;
transmitting, by the user device, the user information to the computing server;
updating, by the computing server, a characteristic value of the user based on the answer submitted by the user;
computing, by the computing server, respective coverage expected values for the plurality of candidate question types based on the spatial coverage function and the user information, wherein each of the respective coverage expected values is computed based on one of the respective spatial coverage rates defined for the same respective one of the plurality of candidate question types and the characteristic value;
selecting, by the computing server, a first candidate question type having a maximum one of the respective coverage expected values as a recommended question type;
instantly outputting the recommended question type to the set based recommendation operation interface displayed on the user device for the user to submit a further answer in response to the recommended question type: and
updating, by the computing server, at least one of the characteristic value and the respective coverage expected values based on the further answer in response to the recommended question type.
As indicated above, the “pre-establishing”, “computing”, and “selecting” limitations encompass, under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can practically be mathematical concepts, and/or mental process. For example, a teacher could merely perform multidimensional calculations in regards to a spatial coverage function (for example, vector and volume-based calculations) to recommend the next question that most closely matches with the student’s needs. In other words, the underlined portions could have been done by a teacher utilizing mathematical concepts, and/or mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing human activity through the establishment of instructions, then it falls within the mathematical concepts, and/or mental process” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, a computer server, display, and user devices are a generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). The additional claim limitations are NOT indicative of integration into a practical application as they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The Specification demonstrates that the computer server, display, and user devices are recited for its well- understood, routine, and conventional functionality (i.e., software/application), referring to the additional element in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy enablement (See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A)). Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology and/or implements the use of a particular machine. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 4 and 7 are rejected for similar reasoning. The additional limitations of “touch display unit” and “a processor unit” recite generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. Claims 4 and 7 fail to include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claims 4 and 7 are also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 are dependent on claims 1, 4, and 7 respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Particularly, the additional limitations further define the insignificant extra-solution of evaluation of the mathematical concepts, and/or mental process and additional iterations on the existing abstract concepts. Furthermore, these additional limitations encompass the use of generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The dependent claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea.
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 ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights