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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12 and 14-15 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 9 (lines 17-18), should recite “… generate a personalized response, and provide the personalized response” to avoid claim ambiguity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In regard to independent Claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
Step 1: Statutory Category?
The preamble of independent Claim 1 recites “A personalized question-and-answer (Q&A) apparatus based on dual retrieval-augmented knowledge fusion, the apparatus comprising:”. Independent Claim 1 falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The Revised 2019 Memorandum is applied as shown in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table below to identify in italics the specific claim limitations found to recite an abstract idea and in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations.
Independent Claim 1
Revised 2019 Guidance
A personalized question-and-answer (Q&A) apparatus based on dual retrieval-augmented knowledge fusion, the apparatus comprising:
An apparatus falls under the statutory subject matter class of a machine. See
35 U.S.C. § 101 (“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.”).
[L1] a hardware memory that store a set of commands for executing operations of the personalized question-and-answer apparatus; and a hardware processor electrically connected with the memory and configured to: perform dual retrieval by concurrently performing an instructor knowledge retrieval and a student knowledge retrieval regarding a query topic;
Retrieving data – “dual retrieval by concurrently performing an instructor knowledge retrieval and a student knowledge retrieval regarding a query topic” is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Alternatively, “dual retrieval by concurrently performing an instructor knowledge retrieval and a student knowledge retrieval regarding a query topic” is an abstract idea, mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The hardware memory and hardware processor are generic computer components.
[L2] wherein the instructor knowledge retrieval is performed using a sparse retriever that evaluates relevance based on matching between words included in the instructor knowledge and words used in the query topic or
Evaluating data: “evaluates relevance based on matching between words included in the instructor knowledge and words used in the query topic” is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The sparse retriever is a generic computer component.
[L3] using a dense retriever that evaluates relevance based on a semantic similarity between the instructor knowledge and the query topic
Evaluating data: “evaluates relevance based on a semantic similarity between the instructor knowledge and the query topic” is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The dense retriever is a generic computer component.
[L4] the student knowledge retrieval is performed based on a search of a student's academic performance, major subjects, and past query records
Retrieving data: “student knowledge retrieval is performed based on a search of a student's academic performance, major subjects, and past query records” is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Alternatively, “student knowledge retrieval is performed based on a search of a student's academic performance, major subjects, and past query records” is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[L5] obtain a selected response based on instructor knowledge retrieved through a large language model (LLM) reasoner,
Obtaining data: “obtain a selected response based on instructor knowledge retrieved” is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Alternatively, “obtain a selected response based on instructor knowledge retrieved” is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The large language model (LLM) reasoner is a generic computer component.
[L6] establish a plan based on student knowledge retrieved through student knowledge retrieval,
“Establish a plan based on student knowledge…” is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[L7] reconstruct the selected response based on a Dual Retrieval- augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework and by connecting the selected response to a content, which a student already knows, according to the established plan,
“Reconstruct the selected response by connecting the selected response to a content, which a student already knows, according to the established plan, to generate the personalized response” is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The Dual Retrieval- augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework is a generic computer component.
[L8] to generate the personalized response
“Reconstruct the selected response by connecting the selected response to a content, which a student already knows, according to the established plan, to generate the personalized response” is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[L9] provide a personalized response
“Provide a personalized response” is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data transmission and presentation). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) and activities that can be performed in the human mind, such as making observations, evaluations, judgements, or forming opinions. For example, as shown above in the Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table, a human could readily concurrently retrieve instructor and student knowledge data (by observation, evaluation and opinion), evaluate relevance based on matching between words (by evaluation and opinion), and evaluate relevance based on a semantic similarity between the instructor knowledge and the query topic (by evaluation and opinion), retrieve instructor knowledge and student knowledge data (by evaluation and opinion), obtain a selected response based on instructor knowledge (by evaluation and opinion), establish a plan based on student knowledge (by evaluation and opinion) and reconstruct the selected response by connecting the selected response to a content, which a student already knows, according to the established plan, to generate the personalized response (by evaluation and opinion). These steps are generally part of person-to-person teacher/student visual/verbal interactions, and/or carried out on paper. It is apparent that, other than reciting the additional non-abstract limitations of the hardware memory, hardware processor, sparse retriever, dense retriever, large language model (LLM) reasoner and Dual Retrieval- augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework noted in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human, in the mind, and/or using pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of the computer components does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The body of the claim, as noted in bold in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, recites the additional limitations of the hardware memory, hardware processor, sparse retriever, dense retriever, large language model (LLM) reasoner and Dual Retrieval- augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework which are recited at a high level of generality. The instant specification, as published, provides supporting exemplary descriptions of generic computer components: at least ¶ 36: “present disclosure can be implemented as a computer-readable code on a computer-readable recording medium and the computer-readable recording medium includes 2 5 all types of recording devices for storing data that can be read by a computer system … Further, the computer readable recording media may be stored and executed as codes which may be distributed in the computer system connected through a network and read by a computer in a distribution method”; ¶ 39: “Referring to FIG. 1, a personalized question-and-answer (Q&A) apparatus 100 may include a data setup unit 110, a dual retrieval unit 120, and a knowledge fusion unit 130”; ¶ 40: “The personalized Q&A apparatus 100 may generate personalized responses by integrating the knowledge of instructors and students based on the Dual Retrieval-augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework”; ¶ 47: “An English course for computer science (CS50 from Harvard University) is selected as a testbed. Then, potential questions are extracted from the lecture using GPT-3.5-Turbo. One of the authors, who is a CS expert, has filtered 10 high-quality questions from those potential questions extracted by GPT-3.5-Turbo”; ¶ 57: “the sparse retriever may be a technique that assesses relevance based on matching between text words in a document and words used in a question”; ¶ 58: “the dense retriever may be a technique that derives search results based on the semantic similarity between words”; ¶ 66: “FIG. 3, the personalized Q&A apparatus 100 may include a processor 310, a memory 330, a user input/output unit 350, a network input/output unit 370, and a communication port unit 390”; ¶ 67: “The processor 310 may be implemented as a central processing unit (CPU) or graphics processing unit (GPU) of the personalized Q&A apparatus 100”; ¶ 69: “user input/output unit 350 may include an input device with adapters such as a touch pad, touch screen, virtual keyboard, or pointing device, and an output device with adapters such as a monitor or touch screen. In one embodiment, the user input/output unit 350 may correspond to a computing device connected via remote access, and in this case, the personalized Q&A apparatus 100 may be performed as an independent server”; ¶ 74: “The personalized Q&A apparatus 100 may obtain a selected response based on the instructor knowledge acquired through instructor knowledge retrieval using an LLM reasoner by the knowledge fusion unit 130, establish a plan based on the student knowledge acquired through student knowledge retrieval, and provide a personalized response by performing knowledge fusion that reconstructs the selected response according to the established plan through a response generator (S430)” ... The lack of details about the claimed computer components indicates that these additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer components performing or being used in performing the generic functions to retrieve, evaluate, obtain, establish, reconstruct and provide data. Any improvement provided by the claim lies in
the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement, and is, as such insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. Also see also Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”) (Emphasis omitted). 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 judicial exception (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)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claimed invention merely implements the abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer components, as shown in bold type in Table One, and as supported in the above noted pertinent portions of the Specification, as published. Thus, the instant claim merely uses a programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Steps [L1] “dual retrieval by concurrently performing an instructor knowledge retrieval and a student knowledge retrieval regarding a query topic”, [L4] “student knowledge retrieval is performed based on a search of a student's academic performance, major subjects, and past query records” (data gathering), [L5] “obtain a selected response based on instructor knowledge retrieved”, and [L9] “provide a personalized response” (data transmission and presentation) as shown in Table One, reflects the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”). The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Hence, the claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Hence, as per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), the additional elements in representative claim 1, namely the hardware memory, hardware processor, sparse retriever, dense retriever, large language model (LLM) reasoner and Dual Retrieval- augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the instant specification, as published, describes the hardware memory, hardware processor, sparse retriever, dense retriever, large language model (LLM) reasoner and Dual Retrieval- augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework in general terms (¶¶ 36, 39, 40, 47, 57, 58, 66, 67, 69, 74), without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the original Specification sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Furthermore, the Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.” The generic description of the hardware memory, hardware processor, sparse retriever, dense retriever, large language model (LLM) reasoner and Dual Retrieval- augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework indicates the steps are well-known enough that no further description is required for a skilled artisan to understand the process. That is, taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for retrieving, evaluating, evaluating, retrieving, obtaining, establishing, reconstructing, reconstructing and providing data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming.”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Applicant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of representative claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of retrieving, evaluating, evaluating, retrieving, obtaining, establishing, reconstructing, reconstructing and providing data is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring), Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, 107 F.4th 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (sequence of receiving, storing, transmitting, determining, selecting, and generating information). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
Hence, the additional elements are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. The use of the additional elements either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent Claim 9:
Independent claim 9 is a personalized question-and-answer (Q&A) method based on dual retrieval- augmented knowledge fusion, performed in a personalized question-and-answer (Q&A) apparatus based on dual retrieval-augmented knowledge fusion, comprising: steps comparable to those of representative claim 1 performed by generic computer components comparable to those of representative claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 9 is rejected similarly to representative claim 1.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2, 6-7, 11-12 and 14-15 include all the limitations of corresponding independent claims 1 and 9 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for corresponding independent claims 1 and 9. Any additional claim element is recited as being used according to its conventional purpose in a conventional manner. The Examiner fails to see any claim activity used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. An invocation to use known technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and conventional. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2, 6-7, 11-12 and 14-15 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. While dependent claims 2, 6-7, 11-12 and 14-15 may have a narrower scope than the representative claims, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2, 6-7, 11-12 and 14-15 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Examiner’s Note
No art rejections are currently presented for the claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that “first, … amended independent claim 1 recites the features that provide improved efficiency in providing the enhanced overall learning experience by using the LLM reasoner and the DRAKE framework, by providing the established plan and the reconstructed response, in a non-conventional way” and that “second, … the above features recited in amended independent claim 1 should be considered as an ordered combination, which are indicative of integrating the judicial exception or abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the ordered combination of the additional elements and how the claimed features describe performing the dual retrieval, obtaining the response, establishing the plan, and reconstructing the response integrate the method steps into a practical application that improves the technology or technical field of providing educational information by using the computer technology, like in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2016 WL 3514158, (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016)”. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as shown below.
As noted in the rejections above, the recited computer components, namely the
hardware memory, hardware processor, sparse retriever, dense retriever, large language model (LLM) reasoner and Dual Retrieval- augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework, are recited at a high level of generality (¶¶ 36, 39, 40, 47, 57, 58, 66, 67, 69, 74). The lack of details about these computer components in the instant specification, as published supports the finding that these computer components generic, or part of generic computer components performing or being used in performing the generic functions to perform the claimed steps. The claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the original Specification sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Furthermore, the Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.”
The generic description of the hardware memory, hardware processor, sparse retriever, dense retriever, large language model (LLM) reasoner and Dual Retrieval- augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework indicates the steps are well-known enough that no further description is required for a skilled artisan to understand the process. That is, taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for retrieving, evaluating, evaluating, retrieving, obtaining, establishing, reconstructing, reconstructing and providing data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. None of these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Applicant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of representative claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of retrieving, evaluating, evaluating, retrieving, obtaining, establishing, reconstructing, reconstructing and providing data is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring), Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, 107 F.4th 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (sequence of receiving, storing, transmitting, determining, selecting, and generating information). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
The Examiner fails to see how the instant representative claim 1 could parallel the claims in BASCOM, which recited a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” within a network, the arrangement of elements being “a technical improvement over [the] prior art ways of filtering.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit determined that “its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” Id. The patent at issue “claim[ed] a technology based solution (not an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way) to filter content on the Internet that overcomes existing problems with other Internet filtering systems.” Id. at 1351. The court determined that “[b]y taking a prior art filter solution (one-size-fits-all filter at the ISP server) and making it more dynamic and efficient (providing individualized filtering at the ISP server), the claimed invention represents a ‘software-based invention[ ] that improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself.’” Id. In the instant case, there is no such improvement to the claimed computer components themselves. Applicant fails to indicate and the Examiner fails to find in the instant specification, as published, any indication of improvement. In fact, the closest indications of improvement appear to be directed to the abstract realm. See 3: “When students receive individualized feedback, their understanding of the learning material improves, and self-directed learning is promoted”; see also 76: “In FIG. 5, the personalized Q&A apparatus 100 may provide a Q&A board and a self-practice tool that allows a student to perform self-practice to improve the student's the student's learning outcomes”. Hence, there is no indication in the record that any of the hardware memory, hardware processor, sparse retriever, dense retriever, large language model (LLM) reasoner and Dual Retrieval- augmented Knowledge Fusion (DRAKE) framework require any specialized computer hardware or that it requires any programming atypical from conventional programming. Instead, the Specification discloses utilizing a conventional computer arrangement (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 36, 39, 40, 47, 57, 58, 66, 67, 69, 74). See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). The key fact in BASCOM was the presence of a structural change in “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. The instant claims have no analogous structural benefit.
Applicant further argues “in the court case, Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the court held that "[a]lthough the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices." Similarly, in determining patent-eligibility of the claim 1, Applicant respectfully requests considering that the claimed features are directed to a particular manner of providing educational information by using the computer technology” and that “The particular manner is recited in claim 1” followed by the verbatim recitation all remaining claim language starting from “the instructor knowledge retrieval is performed using a sparse retriever …”. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as shown below.
The mere restatement of the claim language does not constitute an argument on the merits, much less constitute evidence that supports an argument on the merits. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“[a] statement [that] merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). Additionally, in Core Wireless, the court held that claims which recited an interface were patent eligible as the claims recited specific limitations of the interface such as: an application summary that can be reached through a menu, the data being in a list and being selectable to launch an application, and additional limitations directed to the actual user interface displayed and how it functions. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. The court found that the claims were directed to an improved user interface and not the abstract concept of an index as the claim “limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.” Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int’l Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential) (holding that a user interface with a prescribed functionality directly related the interface’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a problem in the art is patent eligible). Applicant has not shown similarity of the instant claims to such a summary window. Here, the claim limitation of “provide a personalized response” is not a recitation of a graphical user interface, let alone any specific manner of displaying the data or functionality of the graphical user interface. Any implied interface amounts to no more than generic, routine and conventional user interface methods to display information.
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner maintains that each of Applicant’s pending claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12 and 14-15 considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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 VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights