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 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 input unit, question generation unit, evaluation unit, filtering unit in claims 1 and 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.
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 § 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 1-10 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, 9 and 10 recite(s):
A question generation apparatus, comprising:
a processor and a memory,
wherein the memory includes processing instructions for causing the processor to function as:
an input unit that acquires context data including text information;
a question generation unit that generates a first set of multiple-choice questions for the context data by processing the context data using a first large language model;
an evaluation unit that determines difficulty level evaluation values indicating cognitive difficulty levels for the first set of multiple-choice questions by evaluating the first set of multiple-choice questions based on a predetermined cognitive difficulty level evaluation criterion; and
a filtering unit that selects a first subset of multiple-choice questions of which the difficulty level evaluation values satisfy a predetermined cognitive difficulty level threshold from among the first set of multiple-choice questions, and
outputs the selected first subset of multiple-choice questions.
A question generation method performed in a question generation apparatus including a processor and a memory, the question generation method comprising:
by processing instructions stored in the memory, acquiring context data including text information;
generating a first set of multiple-choice questions for the context data by processing the context data using a first large language model;
determining difficulty level evaluation values indicating cognitive difficulty levels for the first set of multiple-choice questions by evaluating the first set of multiple-choice questions based on a predetermined cognitive difficulty level evaluation criterion; and
selecting a first subset of multiple-choice questions of which the difficulty level evaluation values satisfy a predetermined cognitive difficulty level threshold from among the first set of multiple-choice questions, and
outputting the selected first subset of multiple-choice questions.
A question generation system to which a question generation apparatus and a user terminal are connected via a communication network, the question generation apparatus including a processor and a memory,
wherein the memory includes processing instructions for causing the processor to function as:
an input unit that acquires context data including text information from the user terminal;
a question generation unit that generates a first set of multiple-choice questions for the context data by processing the context data using a first large language model;
an evaluation unit that determines difficulty level evaluation values indicating cognitive difficulty levels for the first set of multiple-choice questions by evaluating the first set of multiple-choice questions based on a predetermined cognitive difficulty level evaluation criterion; and
a filtering unit that selects a first subset of multiple-choice questions of which the difficulty level evaluation values satisfy a predetermined cognitive difficulty level threshold from among the first set of multiple-choice questions, and outputs the selected first subset of multiple-choice questions to the user terminal.
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 “processor”, “memory” and “large language model”, 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 generating multiple choice questions, evaluating the generated multiple-choice question based on some difficulty level and filtering the multiple-choice question based on the threshold difficulty level.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people or performed in the mind of the user, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “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) – “processor”, “memory” and “large language model”.
The “processor”, “memory” and “large language model”, 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.
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 13, 17, 69).
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) 2-8 is/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 and 5 are directed to the ration of difficulty threshold (an abstract idea); claim 3 is directed to the generation of a summary (an abstract idea); claims 4 is directed to generation of the difficulty level questions (an abstract idea); claims 6 are directed to the generation context data and using such data to generate further questions (an abstract idea); claims 7 is directed to the calculation of performance of the correct answer (an abstract idea); claim 8 is directed to the evaluation difficulty level based on the type of difficulty criteria ( an abstract idea). Thus, the dependent 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-8 and 10 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. The limitation of claims 1 and 10 requires question generation unit, evaluation unit and filtering unit that are interpreted under the means plus function but do not have the necessary specification that discloses the corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor that performs the recited claim limitations. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38, 86 USPQ2d at 1242. In this particular case, specification paragraph 68-69 only provides a description of the results of the question generation unit without providing the corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor that performs the recited claim limitations. Similarly, paragraph 45-47 and 72 only provides a description of the results of the evaluation unit without providing the corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor that performs the recited claim limitations. Paragraph 48-49 and 74-75 only provide a description of the results of the filtering unit without providing the corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor that performs the recited claim limitations. Since these descriptions of the specification do not rise to the required disclosure of providing sufficient disclosure of providing the required algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor that performs the recited claim limitations, the limitations of claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b).
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI and 2181 subsection IV. Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 10 are also rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) for failing to provide adequate written description to support claim limitation under 35 U.S.C 112(f).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation of claim 9 requires the generation of a multiple-choice question using large language model, the determination of the difficulty level for
The limitation of claim 9 is directed toward a computer implemented functional claim limitation. However, the specification is silent on the teaching of “determining difficulty level evaluation value …” and selection a first subset of multiple choice questions …”. . In this particular case, specification paragraph 68-69 only provides a description of the results of the question generation unit without providing the corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor that performs the recited claim limitations. Similarly, paragraph 45-47 and 72 only provides a description of the results of the evaluation unit without providing the corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor that performs the recited claim limitations. Paragraph 48-49 and 74-75 only provide a description of the results of the filtering unit without providing the corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor that performs the recited claim limitations
The MPEP requires that the specification must discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may “express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) [see MPEP 2161.01].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazutkin US 20250037599 and in view of the Licato US 20240339042
Claims 1 and 9: The Lazutkin reference provides a teaching of a question generation apparatus (see abstract generate questions, the answer to said questions and multiple incorrect answers)), comprising:
a processor and a memory (see paragraph 23 processor and memory),
wherein the memory includes processing instructions for causing the processor to function as:
an input unit that acquires context data including text information (see paragraph 48);
a question generation unit that generates a first set of multiple-choice questions for the context data by processing the context data using a first large language model (see paragraph 46 question generator 218);
The Lazutkin reference is silent on the teaching of:
an evaluation unit that determines difficulty level evaluation values indicating cognitive difficulty levels for the first set of multiple-choice questions by evaluating the first set of multiple-choice questions based on a predetermined cognitive difficulty level evaluation criterion; and
a filtering unit that selects a first subset of multiple-choice questions of which the difficulty level evaluation values satisfy a predetermined cognitive difficulty level threshold from among the first set of multiple-choice questions, and outputs the selected first subset of multiple-choice questions.
However, the Licato reference provides a teaching of
an evaluation unit that determines difficulty level evaluation values indicating cognitive difficulty levels for the first set of multiple-choice questions by evaluating the first set of multiple-choice questions based on a predetermined cognitive difficulty level evaluation criterion (see paragraph 39-40); and
a filtering unit that selects a first subset of multiple-choice questions of which the difficulty level evaluation values satisfy a predetermined cognitive difficulty level threshold from among the first set of multiple-choice questions, and outputs the selected first subset of multiple-choice questions (see paragraph 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lazutkin reference with the feature of an evaluation unit that determines difficulty level evaluation values indicating cognitive difficulty levels for the first set of multiple-choice questions by evaluating the first set of multiple-choice questions based on a predetermined cognitive difficulty level evaluation criterion; and a filtering unit that selects a first subset of multiple-choice questions of which the difficulty level evaluation values satisfy a predetermined cognitive difficulty level threshold from among the first set of multiple-choice questions, and outputs the selected first subset of multiple-choice questions; as taught by the Licato reference, in order to provide an efficient way of generating the test materials at the appropriate level (see paragraph 2).
Claims 10: The Lazutkin reference provides a teaching of a question generation system to which a question generation apparatus (see abstract generate questions, the answer to said questions and multiple incorrect answers) and a user terminal are connected via a communication network (see FIG. 1 the question generation apparatus 100 is connected to the student computer 104-1…n via network 102), comprising:
a processor and a memory (see paragraph 23 processor and memory),
wherein the memory includes processing instructions for causing the processor to function as:
an input unit that acquires context data including text information (see paragraph 48);
a question generation unit that generates a first set of multiple-choice questions for the context data by processing the context data using a first large language model (see paragraph 46 question generator 218);
The Lazutkin reference is silent on the teaching of:
an evaluation unit that determines difficulty level evaluation values indicating cognitive difficulty levels for the first set of multiple-choice questions by evaluating the first set of multiple-choice questions based on a predetermined cognitive difficulty level evaluation criterion; and
a filtering unit that selects a first subset of multiple-choice questions of which the difficulty level evaluation values satisfy a predetermined cognitive difficulty level threshold from among the first set of multiple-choice questions, and outputs the selected first subset of multiple-choice questions.
However, the Licato reference provides a teaching of
an evaluation unit that determines difficulty level evaluation values indicating cognitive difficulty levels for the first set of multiple-choice questions by evaluating the first set of multiple-choice questions based on a predetermined cognitive difficulty level evaluation criterion (see paragraph 39-40); and
a filtering unit that selects a first subset of multiple-choice questions of which the difficulty level evaluation values satisfy a predetermined cognitive difficulty level threshold from among the first set of multiple-choice questions, and outputs the selected first subset of multiple-choice questions (see paragraph 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lazutkin reference with the feature of an evaluation unit that determines difficulty level evaluation values indicating cognitive difficulty levels for the first set of multiple-choice questions by evaluating the first set of multiple-choice questions based on a predetermined cognitive difficulty level evaluation criterion; and a filtering unit that selects a first subset of multiple-choice questions of which the difficulty level evaluation values satisfy a predetermined cognitive difficulty level threshold from among the first set of multiple-choice questions, and outputs the selected first subset of multiple-choice questions; as taught by the Licato reference, in order to provide an efficient way of generating the test materials at the appropriate level (see paragraph 2).
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
