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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step (claim 1) or structures (claims 7-8). Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 recite(s):
By the one or more processor, acquiring a first learning problem, and acquiring at least one of a clue associated with the first learning problem and a user’s learning level;
By the one or more processor, generating a first solution explanation for the first learning problem using a first language artificial intelligence model by prompting or inputting the first learning problem, the at least one the clue associated with the first learning problems and the user’s learning level into the first language artificial intelligence model,
By the one more processor, extracting at least one concept associated with at least one element included in the first solutions explanations
By the one or more processor, generating an association between the at least one element and the at least one concept is by prompting or inputting the at least one element and the at least one concept into an inference artificial intelligence model for inferring associations between elements and concepts included in solution explanations, and
By the one or more processor, using the association between the at least one element and the at least one concept to generate as second learning problem
wherein the inference artificial intelligence model is derived by learning associations between two or more of a predetermined solution explanation, at least one predetermined element corresponding to the solution explanation, at least one predetermined concept corresponding to the at least one element, and a predetermined tag corresponding to the at least one predetermined concept.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “By the one or more processor “,“a non-transitory computer readable recording medium”, “inference artificial intelligence” a nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people or in the mind of the user. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher observing students’ behaviors and adjusting its instruction/lecture level accordingly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “By the one or more processor “,“non-transitory computer readable recording medium “.
The “non-transitory computer readable recording medium” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see page 7 paragraph 1-2 or page 8 paragraph 3 and page 13 paragraph 3-4 showing generic generative artificial intelligence model).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does 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 a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, page 7 paragraph 1-2 or page 8 paragraph 3 and page 13 paragraph 3-4 showing generic generative artificial intelligence model).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-6, 9-13 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. 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. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The application argued that the limitation of the “wherein the inference model is derived by learning associations between two or more of a predetermined solution explanation, at least one predetermined element corresponding to the solution explanation, at least one predetermined concept corresponding to the at least one element, and a predetermined tag corresponding to the at least one predetermined concept” and the “generating a first unit explanation with reference to at least one of the clue associated with the first learning problem and the user’s learning level using a first language model” would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear what the applicant believes to be integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. As both the language model and inference model can be interpreted as a mental model that would place in the abstract grouping. A review of the specification shows that these models only show the claimed results without the necessary step to perform the claimed subject matter (see page 13 paragraph 4; page 14 paragraph 14; page 19 paragraph 1). It has been previously held that a recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued that the current claim limitation no longer directed to an abstract idea since they are directed to a generative artificial intelligence inference model. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes while the claims limitation include limitation directed to “language artificial intelligence model” or “inference artificial intelligence model”. The examiner takes the position that these limitations are still directed to an abstract idea. The examiner notes that the MPEP recognizes that a claim can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. In this particular case, a review of the specification shows that the inference artificial intelligence model are nothing more than generic artificial intelligence model (see Applicant’s specification page 13 paragraph 3-4). Accordingly, these claim limitations can either be interpreted as performing a mental process in computer environment or is using the computer as tool to perform said mental process. As such, these claim limitations are not sufficient to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
The applicant also argued that the specification provided specific solution and it is not directed to a claim limitation that attempt to cover every solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (MPEP 2106.05(f)). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Specifically, the applicant argued that specification page 16 line 13-22 contain a specific solution. Said specification can be seen below:
“In other words, the solution explanation generation unit 220 according to one embodiment of the invention may classify diverse learning levels of two or more users into two or more reference learning levels, and generate the first solution explanation to have difficulty levels corresponding to the reference learning levels, such that the first solution explanation may correspond to diverse difficulty levels (e.g., the number of generated solution explanations may correspond to the number of reference learning levels) while being contextually consistent (or accurate).”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A reading of the specification provided by Applicant shows a description of the desired results while using solution explanation generation engine. While the solution explanation generation engine itself appears to be either a generic artificial intelligence engine (see page 23 the last two paragraph and page 24 last paragraph). As such, the examiner takes the position that such limitation is not sufficient to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715