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 Objections
Claims 2-5, 7, 11-14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 6, “the learning problem generation step” should read “the second learning problem generation step”. Similar correction should be made in claims 3, 4, 5, and 7.
In claim 11, line 2, “generation unit is configured to” should read “generation unit is further configured to”. Similar correction should be made in claims 12-14 and 16 as the limitations are being further modified from their recitation in claim 11 and still include the limitations of claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an information acquisition unit” first recited in claim 10, line 3; “a solution explanation generation unit” first recited in claim 10, line 5; and “a learning problem generation unit” first recited in claim 10, line 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“an information acquisition unit” – Interpreted as a software module stored on the memory and executed by the device via a microprocessor, configured to acquire a first learning problem and/or a user’s learning level from a database or specified by a user, per page 9, paragraph 4; and page 10, paragraph 3 – page 11, paragraph 3.
“a solution explanation generation unit” – Interpreted as a software module stored on the memory and executed by the device via a microprocessor, configured to use a first and second language model to generate a solution explanation, per page 9, paragraph 4; and page 13, paragraph 2 – page 16, paragraph 2.
“a learning problem generation unit” – Interpreted as a software module stored on the memory and executed by the device via a microprocessor, configured to generate a second problem based on the generated solution explanations, per page 9, paragraph 4; and page 26, paragraph 2 – page 28, paragraph 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein in the learning problem generation step, the second learning problem is generated with reference to the analogous solution explanation”. The limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the second learning problem generated is the same learning problem generated in claim 1 or a different question, and if it is the same question, if the problem is generated with reference to the first or second solution explanation and the analogous solution or just the analogous solution in place of the first or second solution explanation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein in the learning problem generation step, the first analogous learning problem is generated with reference to the first analogous solution explanation, and the second analogous learning problem is generated with reference to the second analogous solution explanation.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the analogous learning problems generated are the same learning problems generated in claim 3 or a different question, and if it is the same question, if the problem is generated with reference to the first or second solution explanation and the analogous solution explanations or just the analogous solution explanations in place of the first or second solution explanation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “referring to which of the first solution explanation and the second solution explanation the second learning problem is generated is determined with reference to a result of the verification” (emphasis added). Due to the wording of the limitation, it is unclear what is the intended meaning of the limitation. Specifically, it is unclear what “referring is generated is determined” is meant to entail. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “determining which of the first solution explanation and the second solution explanation the second learning problem is generated with reference to, based on a result of the verification”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to generate the second learning problem with reference to the analogous solution explanation”. The limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the second learning problem generated is the same learning problem generated in claim 10 or a different question, and if it is the same question, if the problem is generated with reference to the first or second solution explanation and the analogous solution or just the analogous solution in place of the first or second solution explanation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to generate the first analogous learning problem with reference to the first analogous solution explanation, and generate the second analogous learning problem with reference to the second analogous solution explanation.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the analogous learning problems generated are the same learning problems generated in claim 12 or a different question, and if it is the same question, if the problem is generated with reference to the first or second solution explanation and the analogous solution explanations or just the analogous solution explanations in place of the first or second solution explanation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 13.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “to determine referring to which of the first solution explanation and the second solution explanation the second learning problem is generated with reference to a result of the verification” (emphasis added). Due to the wording of the limitation, it is unclear what is the intended meaning of the limitation. Specifically, it is unclear what “referring is generated is determined” is meant to entail. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as “to determine which of the first solution explanation and the second solution explanation the second learning problem is generated with reference to, based on a result of the verification”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As discussed above, claims 2 and 11 are indefinite as it is unclear if the generation is based on the limitations of claims 2 and 11 in addition to the limitations of claims 1 and 10 or in place of the limitations. As the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 2 and 11 include generating the second learning problem with reference to the analogous solution explanation in place of the reference to at least one of the first and second solution explanations, the claims fail to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Similarly, as discussed above, claims 4 and 13 are indefinite as it is unclear if the generation is based on the limitations of claims 4 and 13 in addition to the limitations of claims 3 and 12 or in place of the limitations. As the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 4 and 13 include generating the analogous learning problems with reference to the analogous solution explanations in place of the reference to at least one of the first and second solution explanations, the claims fail to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 10 recite a process and a computer system for performing the process, the process including the steps of acquiring a first learning problem; generating a first solution explanation with reference to the first learning problem, and generating a second solution explanation with reference to the first learning problem using a second language model; and generating a second learning problem with reference to at least one of the first solution explanation and the second solution explanation. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are acquiring a learning problem, generation a first and second solution explanation with reference to the problem, and generating a second learning problem with reference to at least one of the first and second solution explanation. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (generating a first and second solution explanation), judgement (generating a second learning problem), observation (acquiring a first learning problem)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (acquiring a learning problem; generating a first and second solution explanation; generating a second learning problem). 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 and 10 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 an information acquisition unit [claim 10]; a solution explanation generation unit [claim 10]; a learning problem generation unit [claim 10]; using a first language model; and using a second language model. The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation. The additional elements of various units are generic computer components/software modules for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components/instructions of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraph 3 of page 8 of the specification states the device is “any type of digital equipment having a memory means and a microprocessor for computing capabilities, such as a smart phone, a table, a smart watch…” and other generic computing devices. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. With regard to the usage of a first and second language model for generating the first and second solution explanations, the language models are recited at a high level of generality amounting to computer code/instructions for performing the abstract ideas as the recited steps are mental processes and/or CMOHA except for the recitation of using language models. Therefore, the use of a first and second language models are mere instructions for applying the judicial exceptions and merely generally linking the judicial exceptions with AI/ML technologies. 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 elements of various units and using a first and second language model used to perform the process are generic computing components/instructions 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 and 10 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 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 2-7 and 11-16 recite further abstract ideas including generating analogous solution explanations (evaluation MP; CMOHA); generating one of a first or second analogous learning problem (judgement MP; CMOHA); generating the second learning problem to have a difficulty level higher or lower than a predetermined difficulty level in response to a user’s learning level (judgement MP; CMOHA); verifying on the basis of information inputted by at least one administrator (judgement MP; CMOHA); and determining which solution explanation or analogous learning problem is the second learning problem based on a result of the verification (judgement MP; CMOHA). 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 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 8 and 17 recite insignificant extra-solution activity by merely defining the differences/type of data manipulated by the first and second language models. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitation of claim 9 recites the method of claim 1 is implemented as a NTCRRM having a computer program stored thereon. The recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program is a generic computing component for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-9 and 11-17 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vleugels et al. (US PGPub 20240274025), hereinafter referred to as Vleugels, in view of Ikenaga et al. (US PGPub 20170316710), hereinafter referred to as Ikenaga.
With regard to claims 1 and 10, Vleugels teaches a method [claim 1] (Abstract; Paragraph 0044; “method”) and a system [claim 10] (Abstract; Paragraph 0044; “system”) for generating learning problems (Abstract; Paragraphs 0044, 0080, 0126 teach the system can generate and present questions (problems)), comprising:
an information acquisition unit configured to acquire a first learning problem (Paragraphs 0106, 0126, 0132-0133 teach the system can receive a prompt with regard to a question/problem that has been created (acquired) by the assessment generator); and
a solution explanation generation unit configured to generate a first solution explanation with reference to the first learning problem using a first language model, and generate a second solution explanation with reference to the first learning problem using a second language model (Paragraphs 0127-0128, 0132-0134, 0142 teach the system can generate answer (solution) explanations using an AI model wherein the system can generate additional (second) explanations using the same or a different (second) AI model).
Vleugels may not explicitly teach a learning problem generation unit configured to generate a second learning problem with reference to at least one of the first solution explanation and the second solution explanation. However, Ikenaga teaches a system and method for generating and assessing educational questions including generating explanations of the questions and answer and generates similar questions based on the generated first question and explanation (Paragraphs 0036, 0049, 0051, 0067, 0069).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vleugels to incorporate the teachings of Ikenaga by incorporating the step of generating a similar (second) question based on the first question and explanation of Ikenaga for the assessment of Vleugels, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems including generating questions and explanations of the questions and answers. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vleugels by coding the system to receive a prompt and/or continue an assessment by generating and presenting a similar question to the first question based on the first question and the generated explanations including the first and additional (second) explanations. Upon such modification, the method and system of Vleugels would include a learning problem generation unit configured to generate a second learning problem with reference to at least one of the first solution explanation and the second solution explanation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ikenaga with Vleugels’s system and method in order to improve user comprehension and performance by reinforcing learning concepts and material.
With regard to claims 2 and 11, Vleugels further teaches wherein the solution explanation generation unit is configured to generate an analogous solution explanation with reference to at least one of the first solution explanation and the second solution explanation (Paragraphs 0128, 0145, 0147 teach the system can provide additional clarification or explanation (analogous solution explanation) based on a follow-on question with regard to the first or additional (second) explanations), but may not explicitly teach wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to generate the second learning problem with reference to the analogous solution explanation. However, as discussed above, Ikenaga teaches a system and method for generating and assessing educational questions including generating explanations of the questions and answer and generates similar questions based on the generated first question and explanation (Paragraphs 0036, 0049, 0051, 0067, 0069).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vleugels to incorporate the teachings of Ikenaga by incorporating the step of generating a similar (second) question based on the first question and an explanation of Ikenaga for the assessment of Vleugels, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems including generating questions and explanations of the questions and answers. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vleugels by coding the system to receive a prompt and/or continue an assessment by generating and presenting a similar question to the first question based on the first question and the generated explanations including an additional clarification or additional explanation (analogous solution explanation). Upon such modification, the method and system of Vleugels would include wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to generate the second learning problem with reference to the analogous solution explanation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ikenaga with Vleugels’s system and method in order to improve user comprehension and performance by reinforcing learning concepts and material.
With regard to claims 3 and 12, Vleugels may not explicitly wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to determine one of a first analogous learning problem generated with reference to the first solution explanation using the first language model and a second analogous learning problem generated with reference to the second solution explanation using the second language model. However, as discussed above, Ikenaga teaches a system and method for generating and assessing educational questions including generating explanations of the questions and answer and generates similar questions based on the generated first question and explanation (Paragraphs 0036, 0049, 0051, 0067, 0069).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vleugels to incorporate the teachings of Ikenaga by incorporating the step of generating a similar (second) question based on the first question and an explanation of Ikenaga for the assessment of Vleugels, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems including generating questions and explanations of the questions and answers. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vleugels by coding the system to receive a prompt and/or continue an assessment by generating and presenting a similar question to the first question based on the first question and the generated first or additional (second) explanations wherein generating a second similar question would be a mere duplication of the step and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate more options for questions to improve learner comprehension, see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art would further modify Vleugels by generating additional similar questions based on each additional explanation. Upon such modification, the method and system of Vleugels would include wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to generate the first analogous learning problem with reference to the first analogous solution explanation, and generate the second analogous learning problem with reference to the second analogous solution explanation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ikenaga with Vleugels’s system and method in order to improve user comprehension and performance by reinforcing learning concepts and material.
With regard to claims 4 and 13, Vleugels may not explicitly teach wherein the solution explanation generation unit is configured to generate a first analogous solution explanation with reference to the first solution explanation using the first language model, and generate a second analogous solution explanation with reference to the second solution explanation using the second language model, and wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to generate the first analogous learning problem with reference to the first analogous solution explanation, and generate the second analogous learning problem with reference to the second analogous solution explanation, but as discussed above, Vleugels teaches the system can provide additional clarification or explanation (analogous solution explanation) based on a follow-on question with regard to the first or additional (second) explanations and wherein the system can use different AI models to generate the explanations (Paragraphs 0128, 0145, 0147). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Vleugels by duplicating the step of generating explanations and further clarifications such that a clarification (analogous solution) can be generated based on a first explanation and an additional/second explanation thereby generating a first and second clarification or supplemental explanation (analogous solution) using the same or a different AI model, see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide alternative explanations to improve user comprehension and performance. Upon such modification, Vleugels would include wherein the solution explanation generation unit is configured to generate a first analogous solution explanation with reference to the first solution explanation using the first language model, and generate a second analogous solution explanation with reference to the second solution explanation using the second language model. As discussed above, Ikenaga teaches a system and method for generating and assessing educational questions including generating explanations of the questions and answer and generates similar questions based on the generated first question and explanation (Paragraphs 0036, 0049, 0051, 0067, 0069).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vleugels to incorporate the teachings of Ikenaga by incorporating the step of generating a similar (second) question based on the first question and an explanation of Ikenaga for the assessment of Vleugels, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems including generating questions and explanations of the questions and answers. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vleugels by coding the system to receive a prompt and/or continue an assessment by generating and presenting a similar question to the first question based on the first question and the generated explanations including additional clarifications or additional explanations (first and second analogous solution explanations). Upon such modification, the method and system of Vleugels would include wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to generate the first analogous learning problem with reference to the first analogous solution explanation, and generate the second analogous learning problem with reference to the second analogous solution explanation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ikenaga with Vleugels’s system and method in order to improve user comprehension and performance by reinforcing learning concepts and material.
With regard to claims 5 and 14, Vleugels may not explicitly teach wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to generate the second learning problem to have a difficulty level higher than a predetermined difficulty level in response to a user's learning level being not lower than a predetermined learning level, and to have a difficulty level lower than the predetermined difficulty level in response to the user's learning level being lower than the predetermined learning level. However, Ikenaga further teaches generating the questions with set parameters including a degree of difficulty wherein the degree of difficulty is calculated from the correct answer rate of the user such that the question will have a high degree of difficulty if the degree of learning of the user is high and will have a low degree of difficulty if the degree of learning of the user is low wherein the determination of high or low is based on a predetermined threshold (Paragraphs 0081-0082, 0088).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vleugels to incorporate the teachings of Ikenaga by incorporating the step of generating a similar (second) question based on the first question and an explanation wherein the question has a degree of difficulty of Ikenaga for the assessment of Vleugels, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems including generating questions and explanations of the questions and answers. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vleugels by coding the system to receive a prompt and/or continue an assessment by generating and presenting a similar question to the first question based on the first question and the generated explanations including additional clarifications or additional explanations wherein the similar second question has a degree of difficulty being high or low based on the user’s degree of learning (learning level) is higher or lower than a predetermined threshold. Upon such modification, the method and system of Vleugels would include wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to generate the second learning problem to have a difficulty level higher than a predetermined difficulty level in response to a user's learning level being not lower than a predetermined learning level, and to have a difficulty level lower than the predetermined difficulty level in response to the user's learning level being lower than the predetermined learning level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ikenaga with Vleugels’s system and method in order to improve user comprehension and performance by reinforcing learning concepts and material.
With regard to claims 8 and 17, Vleugels further teaches wherein the second language model differs from the first language model in terms of at least one of a model operation method (Paragraphs 0043, 0058, 0150 teaches the models can be computational or generative).
With regard to claim 9, Vleugels, as modified, further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program for executing (Paragraphs 0059, 0062 teach the methods and systems may be implemented as a set of program instructions stored in a memory and executed by a processor) the method of claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vleugels in view of Ikenaga as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Romney et al. (US PGPub 20140017653), hereinafter referred to as Romney.
With regard to claims 6 and 15, Vleugels in view of Ikenaga may not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first solution explanation, the second solution explanation, the first analogous solution explanation, the second analogous solution explanation, the first analogous learning problem, and the second analogous learning problem is verified on the basis of information inputted by at least one administrator. However, Romney teaches a system and method for providing educational content including generating content and allowing administrator users to vet and verify the educational content before the content is used or disseminated (Paragraphs 0067, 0069, 0075, 0088).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vleugels in view of Ikenaga to incorporate the teachings of Romney by incorporating the step of vetting the generated educational content to ensure it complies with standards set by an administrator of Romney for the generated questions and explanations of Vleugels in view of Ikenaga, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems including generating questions and providing content to learners. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vleugels in view of Ikenaga by coding the system to vet the generated questions, explanations, and clarifications to be compliant with standards and requirements set by an administrator in order to allow the administrator to verify and vet the content for quality and consistency. Upon such modification, the method and system of Vleugels in view of Ikenaga would include wherein at least one of the first solution explanation, the second solution explanation, the first analogous solution explanation, the second analogous solution explanation, the first analogous learning problem, and the second analogous learning problem is verified on the basis of information inputted by at least one administrator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Romney with Vleugels in view of Ikenaga’s system and method in order to improve content quality and ensure the generated content meets academic and accreditation standards.
With regard to claims 7 and 16, Vleugels in view of Ikenaga may not explicitly teach wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to determine referring to which of the first solution explanation and the second solution explanation the second learning problem is generated with reference to a result of the verification, or determine one of the first analogous learning problem and the second analogous learning problem as the second learning problem with reference to the result of the verification. However, as discussed above, Romney teaches a system and method for providing educational content including generating content and allowing administrator users to vet and verify the educational content before the content is used or disseminated such that the system only adds and provides content after it is vetted/verified (Paragraphs 0067, 0069, 0075, 0088).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vleugels in view of Ikenaga to incorporate the teachings of Romney by incorporating the step of vetting the generated educational content to ensure it complies with standards set by an administrator of Romney for the generated questions and explanations of Vleugels in view of Ikenaga, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems including generating questions and providing content to learners. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vleugels in view of Ikenaga by coding the system to vet the generated questions, explanations, and clarifications to be compliant with standards and requirements set by an administrator in order to allow the administrator to verify and vet the content for quality and consistency such that the generated explanations and/or problems are only provided/determined if they meet the vetting requirements (result of the verification). Upon such modification, the method and system of Vleugels in view of Ikenaga would include wherein the learning problem generation unit is configured to determine referring to which of the first solution explanation and the second solution explanation the second learning problem is generated with reference to a result of the verification, or determine one of the first analogous learning problem and the second analogous learning problem as the second learning problem with reference to the result of the verification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Romney with Vleugels in view of Ikenaga’s system and method in order to improve content quality and ensure the generated content meets academic and accreditation standards.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are rejected.
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
Prosecution Insights