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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 19/070,546, filed on 4/18/2025.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: The claims are directed to a method, non-transitory computer readable medium and a system which falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim(s) 1 & 8, recite(s) requesting, comparing, collecting and adjusting. The claims and background of the application do not put any limits on the plain meanings of requesting, comparing, collecting and adjusting. Independent claim 8 recites a database and processing unit and is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as a generic processor and memory performing generic functions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall with the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, selection by a human and/or can be presented using a piece of paper, including acquiring, estimating and determining. In fact, in the originally filed specification states that the database includes information which is the standard function of a database and the processing unit speaks of nothing extraordinary that it does. Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite a processing unit and database. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. Again, the processing unit and database perform their generic functions and is recited at a high level of generality. With these limitations, the processing unit and database are used as a tool to perform the generic function of processing and storing data. Therefore, in these limitations the processing unit and database are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step, 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor and memory. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practice application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Step 2B: As explained in the Step 2A, Prong Two, these are two additional elements. The additional elements of a “processing” and “database” in the limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data processing or storing. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “a processing unit and database” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to processing information and storing information and are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception with a processor and memory and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Further, these claims do not make an improvement in the function of the structural elements. These elements are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. So, these claims are in eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gurgu et al. (U.S. Publication Number 2023/0297887).
Referring to claims 1 & 8, Gurgu et al. discloses recognizing data of a resource database with a few-shot learning (FSL) method to determine at least one learning topic (14); comparing a specified topic with the at least one learning topic to determine a comparison result; collecting learning data based on the comparison result; and adjusting a difficulty level of the learning content within the learning data according to a user's learning level (paragraph 0029).
Referring to claims 2 & 9, Gurgu et al. discloses wherein the learning topic is determined by the user (14).
Referring to claims 3 & 10, Gurgu et al. discloses wherein data of the resource database includes education standard data (14).
Referring to claims 4 & 11, Gurgu et al. discloses further comprising: determining the user's learning level according to a conversation between a Chatbot and the user; and adjusting the difficulty level of the learning content based on the learning data according to the user's learning level (10 & 12).
Referring to claims 5 & 12, Gurgu et al. discloses wherein the learning content includes multimedia data, and the multimedia data includes at least one video, article, image or broadcast (14).
Referring to claims 6 & 13, Gurgu et al. discloses wherein the learning content of the learning data is determined according to the few-shot learning method (paragraphs 0029, 0039, 0058, 0082 & 0125).
Referring to claims 7 & 14, Gurgu et al. discloses further comprising: generating a learning report according to a result of the learning
content of the learning data learned by the user; and adjusting the learning content of the learning data according to at least a suggestion of the learning report (606).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHA FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)272-8774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 730AM-4PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
/KESHA FRISBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights