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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on September 18, 2025 amending claims 1-10 has been entered. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 recite the newly added limitation “the first type being a type other than multiple choice”. It is noted that the limitation “multiple choice” is not found in the specification and is considered new matter. Applicant’s specification describes various types of tests including “description type tests” and “selection type tests”. While “selection type tests”, may include “multiple choice” tests, the limitation is not clearly established in the specification. Furthermore, the newly added limitation is a negative limitation and applicant does not have support for all types of tests “other than multiple choice”. It is suggested that applicant amend the claim language to positively recite the types of tests described in the specification rather than using a negative limitation.
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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, Independent Claims 1, 9, and 10 are analyzed as representative of the claimed subject matter and are reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are shown in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s} determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined. Additional comments are in parenthesis.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 and 10 are drawn to a system (i.e. manufacture) and a computer readable storage medium (i.e. a manufacture).
Claim 9 is drawn to a method (i.e. process).
(Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites to that of a system, a manufacture.
Claim 9 recites to that of a marker evaluation method, a process.
Claim 10 recites to that of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a manufacture.
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1, recites:
A marker evaluation system comprising:
a server; and
a plurality of terminal devices operably connected to the server via a network,
each of the plurality of terminal devices being operated by a respective one of a plurality of markers;
wherein the server comprises:
a memory configured to store which stores (i) a program and (ii) answer
data obtained by digitizing an answer input by an answerer taking a test of a first type, the first type being a type other than multiple choice; and
at least one processor which, under control of the program stored in the memory, executes processes comprising:
transmitting, via the network to the plurality of terminal devices, at
least one item of the answer data stored in the memory;
receiving, from the plurality of terminal devices via the network,
marking results from the plurality of markers with respect to the at least one item of the answer data transmitted thereto;
deriving at least one of (i) a comparison result obtained by
comparing a decided marking result decided based on marking results by the plurality of markers for an identical answer of an identical answerer with a marking result by each of the plurality of markers for the identical answer, and (ii) a marking time required for each of the plurality of markers to mark the identical answer; evaluating each of the plurality of markers based on the at least one of the comparison result and the marking time derived in the deriving, and associating each of the plurality of markers with a respective evaluation result; and
in response to determining that the evaluation result associated
with one of the plurality of markers is below a predetermined threshold value, controlling the one of the plurality of terminal devices operated by the one of the plurality of markers to output information conveying the evaluation result.
Claim 9, recites:
A computer-implemented marker evaluation method in a system comprising a server and a plurality of terminal devices operably connected to the server via a network, each of the plurality of terminal devices being operated by a respective one of a plurality of markers, the server comprising a memory which stores (i) a program and (ii) answer data obtained by digitizing an answer input by an answerer taking a test of a first type, the first type being a type other than multiple choice, and the method comprising, under control of a hardware processor of the server:
transmitting, via the network to the plurality of terminal devices, at least one item of the answer data stored in the memory;
receiving, from the plurality of terminal devices via the network, marking results from the plurality of markers with respect to the at least one item of the answer data transmitted thereto;
deriving at least one of (i) a comparison result obtained by comparing a decided marking result decided based on marking results by the plurality of markers for an identical answer of an identical answerer with a marking result by each of the plurality of markers for the identical answer, and (ii) a marking time required for each of the plurality of markers to mark the identical answer;
evaluating each of the plurality of markers based on the at least one of the comparison result and the marking time that has been derived in the deriving, and associating each of the plurality of markers with a respective evaluation result; and
in response to determining that the evaluation result associated with one of the plurality of markers is below a predetermined threshold value, controlling the one of the plurality of terminal devices operated by the one of the plurality of markers to output information conveying the evaluation result.
Claim 10, recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for controlling a hardware processor of a server provided in a system comprising the server and a plurality of terminal devices operably connected to the server via a network, each of the plurality of terminal devices being operated by a respective one of a plurality of markers, the server comprising a memory which stores (i) a program and (ii) answer data obtained by digitizing an answer input by an answerer taking a test of a first type, the first type being a type other than multiple choice, and the program being executable by the hardware processor to control the hardware processor to execute processes comprising:
transmitting, via the network to the plurality of terminal devices, at least one item of the answer data stored in the memory;
receiving, from the plurality of terminal devices via the network, marking results from the plurality of markers with respect to the at least one item of the answer data transmitted thereto;
deriving at least one of (i) a comparison result obtained by comparing a decided marking result decided based on marking results by the plurality of markers for an identical answer of an identical answerer with a marking result by each of the plurality of markers for the identical answer, and (ii) a marking time required for each of the plurality of markers to mark the identical answer;
evaluating each of the plurality of markers based on the at least one of the comparison result and the marking time derived in the deriving, and associating each of the plurality of markers with a respective evaluation result; and
in response to determining that the evaluation result associated with one of the plurality of markers is below a predetermined threshold value, controlling the one of the plurality of terminal devices operated by the one of the plurality of markers to output information conveying the evaluation result.
(Examiner notes: The above abstract claim limitations that involve the evaluation of markers, are italicized, and the extra-solution activity limitations that include computer elements are underlined and fall under Step 2A - Prong One and Two analysis section detailed below)
These steps amount to a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and therefore fall within the scope of a (certain) method for organizing human activity i.e. abstract ideas. Fundamentally, the process is that of managing human behavior through evaluation of response accuracy and timing. In addition, these steps amount to a form of mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Fundamentally, the process is that of a mental process that can be done mentally and with pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-8 recite wherein clauses further reciting limitations of the abstract ideas as mentioned in claims 1, 9, and 10 (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, 9, and 10 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using, a computer, a server, a plurality of terminal devices, a memory, and a processor (Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 and dependent claims 2-8) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer/server network and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer/server network.
Similarly, the limitations of a memory which stores a program; and at least one processor which, under control of the program stored in memory executing processing, (claims 1, 9, and 10 and dependent claims 2-8) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to execute, evaluate, derive, or compare data) or simply adding a general purpose computer/server network or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g. manage, display, receive, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). These limitation(s) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of identified above (Claims 1-10), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea) (i.e. digitizing an answer input, transmitting answer data and receiving marking results from the plurality of markers, outputting information conveying the evaluation result) These limitation(s) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-8 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
The evaluation of markers is a well understood concept, according to applicant’s own disclosure, “it is necessary to consider a difference in nuances and the like in the described answer when marking, and it is difficult to mark mechanically as in the
selection type”. Evaluation of plurality of markers of an assessment is something that is sufficiently well known and has been practiced in educational and assessment system. The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term) or 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). The claims do not add any level of an “inventive concept” as they don’t contribute to anything more than the abstract idea of the evaluation of markers.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 9, and 10 and dependent claims 2-8 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer/server or network, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) identified above in independent claims 1, 9, and 10 dependent claims 2-8, additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. digitizing an answer input, transmitting answer data and receiving marking results from the plurality of markers, outputting information conveying the evaluation result
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-8 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-10 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo Hiroshi et al. (JP 2006-277086 hereinafter “Hiroshi”) in view of Oleson et al. (US 8,554,605 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroshi discloses a marker, i.e. grader, evaluation system (Abstract) comprising:
a server; and a plurality of terminal devices operably connected to the server via a network, each of the plurality of terminal devices being operated by a respective one of a plurality of markers (Hiroshi ¶0054);
wherein the server comprises:
a memory which stores (i) a program and (Hiroshi ¶0056) (ii) answer data obtained by digitizing an answer input by an answerer taking a test of a first type, the first type being a type other than multiple choice (Hiroshi ¶0001, ¶0054, ¶0064); and
at least one processor which, under control of the program stored in the memory executes processes comprising:
transmitting via the network to the plurality of terminal devices, at least one item of the answer data stored in memory;
receiving, from the plurality of terminal devices via the network, marking results from the plurality of markers with respect to the at least one item of the answer data transmitted thereto (Hiroshi ¶0064, ¶0071)
deriving at least one of a comparison result obtained by comparing a decided marking result decided based on marking results by a plurality of markers for an identical answer of an identical answerer with a marking result by each of the plurality of markers for the identical answer (Hiroshi ¶0071)
evaluating each of the plurality of markers based on the at least one of the comparison result derived in the deriving, and associating each of the plurality of markers with a respective evaluation result (Hiroshi ¶0071); and
in response to determining that the evaluation result associated with one of the plurality of markers is below a predetermined threshold value, controlling the one of the plurality of terminal devices operated by the one of the plurality of markers to output information conveying the evaluation result (Hiroshi ¶0086-0088,¶ 0095).
Hirosihi lacks in disclosing determining a marking time required for each of the plurality of markers to mark the identical answer and evaluating the markers based on the marking time. Oleson et al. teaches of a system to evaluate workers on their tasks. A time to complete a required task is derived and then used in the evaluation of the workers (Oleson col. 10 lines 52-67, col. 14 lines 12-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to monitor the time it takes for a marker/grader to perform their task of marking/grading an assignment and then evaluating that marker/grader based on how efficient they were with the time the task took as described in Oleson. The rate of time in which a worker completes a task is an indication of how efficient the worker is and can be used for their evaluation.
Regarding claim 3, Hiroshi discloses wherein the processor performs an evaluation such that an evaluation of a marker who has performed marking that does not match the decided marking result for the identical answer is relatively lower than an evaluation of a marker who has performed marking that matches the decided marking result (Hiroshi ¶0091-¶0095).
Regarding claim 4, Hiroshi lacks in disclosing wherein the processor performs the evaluating such that an evaluation of a first marker whose marking time is longer than marking times of others of the plurality of markers for the identical answer is lower than an evaluation of the others of the plurality of markers. Oleson teaches of evaluating workers based on the time it takes to complete a task and for giving workers who take longer on tasks a lower evaluation (Oleson col. 10 lines 52-67, col. 11 lines 31-45, col. 13 lines 42-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to lower the evaluation rating of those individuals who take longer on tasks such as marking time than others performing the same task. Oleson, tracks the time it takes for workers to complete tasks and then assigns new jobs/tasks to workers based on historical performance data. It is well known throughout the art to lower workers evaluations based on time it takes them to perform a task as taught by Oleson so that the best workers are assigned to new tasks/jobs that need completion thereby having the most competent fastest workers assigned to a new task/job to be efficient.
Regarding claim 5, Hiroshi discloses wherein the processes further comprise outputting an instruction of break required, standby, or end to a marker among the plurality of markers whose evaluation is lower than others of the plurality of markers or to a marker among the
plurality of markers whose evaluation reaches a threshold (Hiroshi ¶0095-¶0096, i.e. a scorer may be flagged and excluded/end to a marker, from scoring various items).
Regarding claim 6, Hiroshi discloses wherein the processor performs the evaluating of each of the plurality of markers based on a comparison of all the markers for an identical question (Hiroshi ¶0071). However, Hiroshi lacks in disclosing the comparison being based on the average marking times of all the markers. Oleson teaches of comparing workers based on the average time it takes them to complete a task (Oleson col. 14 lines 12-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to compare markers based on the average marking times of all the markers so that one can appropriately assign a worker to a specific job based on the time it would take.
Regarding claim 7, Hiroshi discloses marking actions by each of the plurality of markers being performed using the server and transmitting the identical answer to be marked to the terminal devices of each of the plurality of markers. Hiroshi lacks in disclosing deriving a marking time within the system. Oleson teaches of a plurality of workers completing tasks and deriving the time at which the server identifies that a worker has completed a task through transmission of work product to the server device (Oleson Fig 1, 2B, col. 14 lines 12-36). It is implicit in Oleson that all time tracking is done via the network/server system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to derive the marking time by acquiring a time at which the server transmits the identical answer to be marked by the plurality of markers to the terminal devices and a time at which the server device receives marking results of each of the plurality of markers from the terminal devices. As shown in Oleson it is known to track how long it takes a worker to complete a task and is obvious to start tracking the time based on when the worker receives the task from the server device and transmits back the completed task so an accurate timing of how long it took the worker to complete the task is measured. By measuring accurate timing, workers can be evaluated fairly.
Regarding claim 8, Hiroshi lacks in discloses wherein the processes further comprise changing the evaluation criteria according to an attribute of each of the plurality of markers. Oleson teaches of changing various evaluation criteria, i.e. gold standard metric module or peer review metric module, in accordance to an attribute of each of the plurality of workers (Oleson col. 14 lines 35-53). Various evaluation criteria may be used based on worker characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to change the evaluation criteria of Hiroshi based on an attribute of the markers. It is well known in the art to evaluate newer employees under a different criteria than more experienced employees, thereby enabling a fair evaluation of performance based on knowledge level.
Regarding claim 9, Hiroshi discloses a computer-implemented marker evaluation method in a system comprising by a computer a server and a plurality of terminal devices operably connected to the server via a network (Hiroshi ¶0054), each of the plurality of terminal devices being operated by a respective one of a plurality of markers, the server comprising a memory which stores (i) a program (Hiroshi ¶0056) and (ii) answer data obtained by digitizing an answer input by an answerer taking a test of a first type, the first type being a type other than multiple choice (Hiroshi ¶0001, ¶0054, ¶0064), and the method comprising, under control of a hardware processor of the server:
transmitting, via the network to the plurality of terminal devices, at least one item of the answer data stored in the memory;
receiving, from the plurality of terminal devices via the network, marking results from the plurality of markers with respect to the at least one item of the answer data transmitted thereto (Hiroshi ¶0064, ¶0071);
deriving at least one of (i) a comparison result obtained by comparing a decided marking result decided based on marking results by the plurality of markers for an identical answer of an identical answerer with a marking result by each of the plurality of markers for the identical answer (Hiroshi ¶0071),
evaluating each of the plurality of markers based on the at least one of the comparison result that has been derived in the deriving, and associating each of the plurality of markers with a respective evaluation result (Hiroshi ¶0071); and
in response to determining that the evaluation result associated with one of the plurality of markers is below a predetermined threshold value, controlling the one of the plurality of terminal devices operated by the one of the plurality of markers to output information conveying the evaluation result (Hiroshi ¶0086-0088, ¶ 0095).
Hirosihi lacks in disclosing determining a marking time required for each of the plurality of markers to mark the identical answer and evaluating the markers based on the marking time. Oleson et al. teaches of a system to evaluate workers on their tasks. A time to complete a required task is derived and then used in the evaluation of the workers (Oleson col. 10 lines 52-67, col. 14 lines 12-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to monitor the time it takes for a marker/grader to perform their task of marking/grading an assignment and then evaluating that marker/grader based on how efficient they were with the time the task took as described in Oleson. The rate of time in which a worker completes a task is an indication of how efficient the worker is and can be used for their evaluation.
Regarding claim 10, Hiroshi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute for controlling a hardware processor of a server provided in a system comprising the server and a plurality of terminal devices operably connected to the server via a network (Hiroshi ¶0054), each of the plurality of terminal devices being operated by a respective one of a plurality of markers, the server comprising a memory which stores (i) a program (Hiroshi ¶0056) and (ii) answer data obtained by digitizing an answer input by an answerer taking a test of a first type, the first type being a type other than multiple choice (Hiroshi ¶0001, ¶0054, ¶0064), and the program being executable by the hardware processor to control the hardware processor to execute processes comprising:
transmitting, via the network to the plurality of terminal devices, at least one item of the answer data stored in the memory;
receiving, from the plurality of terminal devices via the network, marking results from the plurality of markers with respect to the at least one item of the answer data transmitted thereto (Hiroshi ¶0064, ¶0071);
deriving at least one of (i) a comparison result obtained by comparing a decided marking result decided based on marking results by the plurality of markers for an identical answer of an identical answerer with a marking result by each of the plurality of markers for the identical answer (Hiroshi ¶0071)
evaluating each of the plurality of markers based on the at least one of the comparison result that has been derived in the deriving, and associating each of the plurality of markers with a respective evaluation result (Hiroshi ¶0071); and
in response to determining that the evaluation result associated with one of the plurality of markers is below a predetermined threshold value, controlling the one of the plurality of terminal devices operated by the one of the plurality of markers to output information conveying the evaluation result (Hiroshi ¶0086-0088, ¶ 0095).
Hirosihi lacks in disclosing determining a marking time required for each of the plurality of markers to mark the identical answer and evaluating the markers based on the marking time. Oleson et al. teaches of a system to evaluate workers on their tasks. A time to complete a required task is derived and then used in the evaluation of the workers (Oleson col. 10 lines 52-67, col. 14 lines 12-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to monitor the time it takes for a marker/grader to perform their task of marking/grading an assignment and then evaluating that marker/grader based on how efficient they were with the time the task took as described in Oleson. The rate of time in which a worker completes a task is an indication of how efficient the worker is and can be used for their evaluation.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo Hiroshi et al. (JP 2006-277086 hereinafter “Hiroshi”) in view of Oleson et al. (US 8,554,605 B2) in further view of Enomoto (US 20210118316 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hiroshi in view of Oleson disclose the marker evaluation system according to claim 1, but are silent wherein the decided marking result is decided by a majority decision of the marking result by the plurality of markers.
Enomoto teaches of a grading system wherein the decided marking result is decided by a majority decision of the marking result by the plurality of markers (Enomoto ¶3: plural graders grade a test. In this example, measures are taken to reduce the bias and variation in grading results and grading criteria among the graders; ¶10: determine a check result and register the determined check result in the database; and when the check information does not satisfy the condition, notify an administrator of the check result, determine the check result based on a determination result made by the administrator and register the determined check result in the database).
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Hiroshi to incorporate the teachings of Enomoto because when plural checkers check content of a document, it is required to reduce bias and variation in the checked content and judgment among the checkers (¶3 of Enomoto).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, i.e. marking time.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been considered but is not persuasive. The claims still do not disclose a particular machine and disclose computer devices including a server, terminal memory and processor at a high level of generality and are used merely as a tool. It is also noted that merely outputting information to a display is post solution activity and does not constitute a practical application. Consequently, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is upheld.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure all related to various scoring/marking systems.
JP 3,579,599
JP 2006-277006 Hideki
JP 2004-029107 Kenichi
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 JULIE K BROCKETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-0206. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/JULIE K BROCKETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700
Prosecution Insights