DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim objections.
2. Claim 2 is objected to for the following informality: the term “large Language Model”, appears to be a typographical error for --Large Language Model--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1 and 10 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
receive a user data including at least one topic of interest of the user; and
collect an ongoing session data while the user is [taking] tutorial, wherein the ongoing session data is utilized to understand context of the session;
[analyze] the received user data and session data to extract one or more session events, context related to the ongoing session, and interests of the user;
compare the one or more session events to a plurality of pre-defined rules; and
detect the session event matching with at least one of the pre-defined rules;
[create] a prompt including contextual explanation related to the ongoing session and an analogy based upon the interests of the user;
send the prompt; and
[show] the prompt to the user.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior (e.g., teaching), wherein a user is presented with relevant prompt—namely, prompt that includes contextual explanation related to an ongoing tutorial session and an analogy based on the interests of the user; and such prompt is created based on collected data—such as, data regarding topic of interest of the user and data regarding the ongoing tutoring session, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process of: parsing the collected user data and session data to extract one or more session events, context related to the ongoing session, and interests of the user; comparing the one or more session events to a plurality of pre-defined rules; detecting the session event matching with at least one of the predefined rules, etc., the current claims also correspond to mental processes; such as, an observation, an evaluation, and/or a judgement process.
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two:
The claim(s) recite additional element(s), wherein a computer-based system that executes artificial intelligence is utilized as a tool to facilitate the recited steps/functions regarding: collection information (e.g., “receive a user data including at least one topic of interest of the user; and collect an ongoing session data while the user is logged into the online tutoring platform, wherein the ongoing session data is utilized to understand context of the session”); analyzing the collected information using an algorithm/rule (e.g., “parse the received user data and session data to extract one or more session events, context related to the ongoing session, and interests of the user; compare the one or more session events to a plurality of pre-defined rules; and detect the session event matching with at least one of the pre-defined rules”); and generating and/or displaying relevant information based on the analysis above (e.g., “generate a prompt including contextual explanation related to the ongoing session and an analogy based upon the interests of the user; sending the generated prompt to the online tutoring platform; and displaying the prompt to the user via a chatbot window on a user interface of the online tutoring platform”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions.
Accordingly, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (e.g., see the discussion under Prong Two above regarding such consideration of the claim as a whole), none of the claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth noting—per the original disclosure—that the claimed invention is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the specification is describing a system/method that implements the features of the existing/conventional computer/network technology ([0021] to [0024]) in order to facilitate the presentation assistance (e.g., insightful explanations, clarifications, etc.) to the user, based on the analysis of data collected regarding the user, during an online learning activity (e.g., see [0025] to [0031]). In this regard, the original specification does not appear to have any new/advanced technological feature(s) developed per the current disclosed system/method.
In addition, the use of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the presentation of pertinent information to a user(s), including the implementation of an AI-based chatbot that provides assistance to the user based on the analysis of data gathered regarding the user and/or the user’s lesson/course, etc., is already directed a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2018/0130156; US 2018/0131645; US 2017/0206797, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-9 and 11-18). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 3, 7 and 10-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Each of claims 7 and 16 recite the feature, “a specialized education tool”; however, the above renders each of claims 7 and 16 above ambiguous or indefinite since it is unclear what the term “specialized” is signifying. For instance, it is unclear what structural feature (if any) and/or functional feature (if any) that term is encompassing.
(b) Each of claims 3 and 10 recites the term “LLM”, which appears to be an abbreviation; however, none of these claims initially defines the term. Consequently, claims 3 and 10-18 are ambiguous or indefinite at least for the reason above.
Note that such abbreviation should be defined (i) once per each independent claim if it is recited as a feature in each independent claim (e.g., see claims 1 and 10, each defining “AI”), or (ii) once per each dependent claim if the abbreviation is originally recited in that dependent claim.
Applicant is further advised to evaluate each of the current claims and make appropriate corrections if additional discrepancies are discovered.
5. 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.
● Claims 1-18 invoke 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph for the following reasons.
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 at least one claim limitation that does not use the word “means,” but is 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 is the “enhanced communication module”; accordingly, per the specification, the claimed “enhanced communication module” appears to correspond to a software program—namely, a web browser extension or plug-in (see [0024] of the specification).
Prior Art
6. Considering each of claims 1 and 10 as a whole (including the respective dependent claims), the prior art does not teach or suggest the current claims.
(a) Solomon (US 2017/0206797) appears to be the closest reference relevant to the current claims. Solomon discloses a computer-based system/method for providing individualized learning ([0003]). Thus, besides implementing artificial intelligence software to generate relevant learning materials ([0023]), Solomon also implements a chatbot—namely an Expert Avatar—that provides the student with assistance based on tracking the student’s progress; and such assistance includes providing answers to the student’s questions, etc. ([0033]; [0042]).
In this regard, the process of generating/identifying an anticipated question(s), which matches one or more queries that the student presented ([0046], [0047]), is considered to suggest the process of collecting an ongoing session data in order to understand the context of the session. Similarly, per the scheme that Solomon is implementing, the system initially attempts to find a match—e.g., an exact match—to the student’s query ([0046]); however, when this fails, the system proceeds to a second option where it executes a search engine to find look for possible matches between the student queries and the anticipated queries and responses; and furthermore, if this second option fails, the system proceeds to a third option, wherein the system reverts to the search of the general knowledge base ([0047]). This suggests that Solomon already implements a plurality of predefined rules, which the system uses to determine whether there is a session event that matches one of the predefined rules.
Nevertheless, Solomon fails to teach or suggest the process of generating a prompt that includes contextual explanation related to the ongoing session and an analogy based upon the interests of the user.
(b) Leong (US 2022/0366896) is also one of the references relevant to the current claims. Leong teaches an AI-based system/method for training a trainee (e.g., [0167], [0171]); wherein the system implements a chatbot interface that provides interactive training to the user ([0174], [0175]). Although Leong appears to consider the trainee’s topic of interest since the system allows the trainee to upload information, which the system uses to enhance the training ([0187]), Leong does not appear to teach or suggest the parsing of the user data and the session data to extract multiple parameters, including: a session event(s), context related to the ongoing session, interests of the user.
Leong also appears to have a plurality of predefined rules, which the system uses to generate relevant training to the trainee. This is because the system considers various parameters (e.g., communication inputs received from the user during the training session, research information regarding a subject area, etc.), which the system utilizes to implement the relevant training to the trainee ([0178]). However, Leong still fails to teach or suggest the generation of an analogy based upon the interests of the user, which constitutes one of the parts of the prompt being sent to the trainee.
(c) Allen (US 2019/0237083) also appears to be a reference relevant to the current claims. Allen discloses a computer-based system/method that provides real-time interactions-related assistance to a user ([0021]). The system implements an artificial intelligence in order to provide the user with relevant assistance based on the analysis of gathered contextual data and/or user data ([0037] to [0040]); and such assistance is presented to the user in the form of audio, video and/or text ([0094]).
However, Allen appears to consider contextual data specific to an ongoing event in the user’s environment, as opposed to contextual data that relates to an ongoing training session. Of course, given the above missing feature, Allen does not appear to generate a prompt or assistance that includes a contextual explanation related to an ongoing online tutoring and an analogy based upon the interests of the user, etc.
In addition, given one or more of the common features that the references above are missing, the combined teaching (if any) also fails to teach or suggest the current claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights