DETAILED ACTION
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 3-7 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Regarding independent claims 3 and 4, both claims are directed to apparatuses, which is a valid statutory category. However, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. One such identified and enumerated judicial exception is claims directed to purely mathematical calculations.
Claims 3 and 4 are directed to an apparatus (i.e. a computer as described in applicant’s spec in paragraph 0069). The computer runs a question selection process, which comprises setting input information to a state of positive, negative, or unknown, setting an input vector obtained from k pieces of information using two bit of positive information, representing the afore-mentioned input states, setting p(x) as a probability that the information is in a positive state, setting an output vector as a vector with probabilities for the K pieces of information, using a neural network to record parameters and an encoder which calculates a latent variable vector, learned by repeating parameter updates with the encoder and decoder, using a loss function including a loss term that has a larger value of the probability p(x) for the input information x for a positive state, smaller value for information in a positive or negative state, and no value for an unknown state, setting k pieces of input information as test results of K questions, and setting the states respectively, and calculating an output vector from the results, from an input vector obtained from test results, and calculating probability vectors that are predicted correct answer rates.
Examiner apologizes if the above description is not exactly correct, as the claim is rather complex, but the point is that all of the steps of these claims are mathematical procedures, with the exception of the use of AI for analysis. These mathematical steps could effectively be carried out with pen and paper, and using AI to perform analysis and calculations and so forth would just be a using a tool to perform the calculations and analysis. Thus, essentially, the mathematical steps are disembodied from any particular technology. Although a computer is claimed, it is not essential, as it is used for normal computer functions (e.g. I/O, storage, calculations, display, etc.). Thus the computer is not considered to add significantly more to the claimed invention, and it is not considered to be limited to a practical application. As such, these claims are not considered eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 13-15, these claims just further define the mathematical process, such as selection history, probability ranges and answer rates, etc. These are rejected as described above with regard to claims 3 and 4.
Clams 12 and 16 claim a different version of the apparatuses of claims 3 and 4 respectively, and are rejected as described above with regard to those claims.
Remarks
There are no prior-art rejections pending against the claims. There are numerous systems and algorithms for question generation and selection. For example, consider the systems of Boyer et al. (US 2016/0098937), Nguyen (US 2014/0080110), Bofurav et al. (US 2014/0072948), and McNutt et al. (US 2013/0252221). However, none teach or suggest the precise combination of claims elements found in applicant’s independent claims 3 and 4. The claims will be allowed if the rejection described above under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached at 571-570-7625. 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.
TIMOTHY A. MUSSELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights