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 1-5, 7-11, 20-28 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 or structure. 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, 18, 20 and 21 recite(s):
An artificial intelligence-based (AI-based) method for identifying error cause, the method comprising:
responding to a user's upload operation of at least one draft paper file for at least one target question, wherein the draft paper file comprises one or more problem-solving ideas or problem-solving steps generated by the user for the target question;
acquiring at least one current user error cause generated by an error cause analysis model based on the at least one of the problem-solving idea or the problem-solving step, wherein the error cause analysis model is a trained error cause analysis model that encodes image information and text information in the electronic draft paper into tokens, derives a logical chain of a problem-solving process based on the tokens, and locates the current user error cause by comparing content of the electronic draft paper with a standard answer obtained from an exercise database; and
determining an error cause analysis result of the draft paper file according to the current user error cause, and displaying the error cause analysis result on an answer page of the target question.
wherein the responding to the user's upload operation of the at least one draft paper file for the at least one target question comprises:
responding to the user's answer operation for the at least one target question on an answer page, to take an electronic draft paper as the at least one draft paper file when the electronic draft paper is detected, wherein the electronic draft paper is content written by the user using a draft paper function on a current answer page of the at least one target question and comprises the one or more problem-solving ideas or problem-solving steps; and
responding to the user's upload operation of the electronic draft paper.
18. An electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory communicatively connected with the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the at least one processor, and the computer program are executed by the at least one processor to enable the at least one processor to perform acts comprising:
responding to a user's upload operation of at least one draft paper file for at least one target question, wherein the draft paper file comprises one or more problem-solving ideas or problem-solving steps generated by the user for the target question;
acquiring at least one current user error cause generated by an error cause analysis model based on the at least one of the problem-solving idea or the problem-solving step wherein the error cause analysis model is a trained error cause analysis model that encodes image information and text information in the electronic draft paper into tokens, derives a logical chain of a problem-solving process based on the tokens, and locates the current user error cause by comparing content of the electronic draft paper with a standard answer obtained from an exercise database
determining an error cause analysis result of the draft paper file according to the current user error cause,; and
wherein the responding to the user's upload operation of the at least one draft paper file for
the at least one target question comprises:
responding to the user's answer operation for the at least one target question on an answer page, to take an electronic draft paper as the at least one draft paper file when the electronic draft paper is detected, wherein the electronic draft paper is content written by the user using a draft paper function on a current answer page of the at least one target question and comprises the one or more problem-solving ideas or problem-solving steps; and
responding to the user's upload operation of the electronic draft paper.
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 “electronic device”, “memory” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher observing students’ essay submission, determining an error on at least one of the problem-solving idea or step and displaying to the user the cause of the error.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In this particular case, the claims limitation is akin to the activities a teacher would perform when they received a draft paper from a student, analyzing the paper, determining what error is contained in the draft paper and providing feedback to the student.
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) – “artificial intelligence”, “electronic device”, “processor”, “memory”.
The “artificial intelligence”, “electronic device”, “processor”, “memory” .in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular a particular technological environment or field of use.
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, see paragraph 71-72 evidence of generic computing element, 94 the use of commercially available ChatGPT4 or open-source models such as Llama).
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) 2-5, 7-11 and 21-28 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, claims 2-4, 8-11, 13-15, 21-28 are abstract idea directed to the treatment of the error cause; claims 5-7 and 19-20 are abstract ideas directed to providing display to the user’s upload operation or displaying knowledge analysis. 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 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the current claim amendment provides an improvement to the technical process of identifying a specific student error causes from the electronic draft information and generating answer-page feedback. The applicant also argued that this type of improvement is recognized in several precedential cases such as Enfish v. Mircrosoft, McRO v. Bandai and Data Engine Technologies v. Google. However, none of precedential cases in the applicant argument is applicable in this particular case. The current application is directed to the use of artificial intelligence to identify error cause in a student’s essay. As such, the examiner takes the position these argument are not commensurate to the fact pattern of the precedential cases and are not sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claim limitation is directed to a specific ordered combination as described in the precedential case Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc v. At&T Mobility. However, the search of inventive concepts are already incorporated in the rejection rationale above. Furthermore, the current argument does not show the fact pattern of Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc v. At&T Mobility should be applied to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101. For these reasons, the examiner takes the position that the current argument are not sufficient to overcome the 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