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 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, 12-17 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):
providing a user device, a first language artificial intelligence model based on a first training data, a second language artificial intelligence model based on a second training data that is not the same as the first training data, an inference artificial intelligence model 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 one or more processors communicably coupled to the user device, the first language artificial intelligence model, the second language artificial intelligence model and the inference artificial intelligence model;
By the one or more processor, acquiring a first learning problem from an administrator, a database or the user device, and acquiring at least one of a clue associated with the first learning problem and a user’s learning level from the administrator, the database, or the user device;
By the one or more processors, communicating the first learning problem to the user device;
By the one or more processor, generating a first solution explanation for the first learning problem using the 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 or more processor, communicating the first solution explanation for the first learning problem to the user device;
By the one or more processor, generating a second solution explanation for the first learning problem using the second language artificial intelligence model;
By the one or more processor, communicating the second solution explanation for the first learning problem to the user device,
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; and
By the one or more processor, using the association between the at least one element and the at least one concept to generate a second learning problem, with reference to the at least one of the first solution explanation and second solution explanation; and
By the one or more processor, communicating the second learning problem to the user device.
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. For example, the claims 14-17 are directed to limitation that links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, these claims recite 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 filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the current claim amendment is directed to the use of three different artificial intelligence engine and is directed to a practical application because it imposes meaningful limit on the practice of the alleged 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 models 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights