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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 03/30/2026. Presently, claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are pending.
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 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a multifunction peripheral” (i.e. a machine), claim 11 is directed to “a control method” (i.e. a process), and claim 20 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program” (i.e. a product), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of generating sheet pattern data based on the received answer sheet information and the received score information either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are 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
Independent Claim 1: A multifunction peripheral comprising:
one or more user interfaces that are configured to receive answer sheet information that indicates respective setting values of a plurality of free-form answer fields and respective score information for each of the plurality of free-form answer fields, the score information including a highest point, a lowest point, and a point pitch,
a controller that generates sheet pattern data based on the received answer sheet information and the received score information and that causes a printer to print, based on the sheet pattern data, an answer sheet including the plurality of free-form answer fields and a plurality of score filling fields, each score filling field of the plurality of score filling fields being configured to accept scores for answers written in a respective free-form answer field of the plurality of free-form answer fields and including respective partial score filling fields, wherein a number of the respective partial score filling fields corresponds to a number of partial marks scores that can be accepted for the respective free-form answer field; and
a scanner that scans the answer sheet,
wherein the controller reads, from the answer sheet scanned by the scanner, the scores in the plurality of score filling fields based at least on the sheet pattern data.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “one or more interfaces,” “a controller,” “a printer” and “a scanner,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed generating sheet pattern data based on the received answer sheet information and the received score information is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “one or more interfaces,” “a controller,” “a printer” and “a scanner,” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more interfaces,” “a controller,” “a printer” and “a scanner,” are described in the following paragraphs:
“[0043] A printer 106 is a device that performs fixing temperature control to fix image data to a recording sheet, and outputs the recording sheet.”
“[0042] A scanner 105 is a device for reading image data and converting the image data into binary data. The scanner 105 is used to read documents as a part of an image transmission function.”
“[0138] In step S605, the CPU 101 obtains image data from the scanner 105.”
This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations of “one or more interfaces,” “a controller,” “a printer” and “a scanner,” are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. The one or more interfaces is not defined in the instant application Specification; however, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably know that a one or more interface would work like other UI.
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, and 11.
Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 5, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotaro Harada (JP 2015167001 A; hereinafter Harada) in view of Kunihiko Mutoh (JP 2013015692 A; hereinafter Mutoh).
Regarding claim 1, Harada discloses a multifunction peripheral (“The image processing apparatus 1 is an MFP (Multi-Function Peripheral: MFP)” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0010])) comprising: one or more user interfaces that are configured to receive answer sheet information that indicates respective setting values of a plurality of free-form answer fields and respective score information for each of the plurality of free-form answer fields (“The display control unit 203 causes the LCD 60 to display the status of the answer sheet creation device 2 such as a graphical user interface (GUI) of the answer sheet data generation application 204” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0032])), a controller that generates sheet pattern data based on the received answer sheet information and the received score information and that causes a printer to print, based on the sheet pattern data, an answer sheet including the plurality of free-form answer fields and a plurality of score filling fields, each score filling field of the plurality of score filling fields being configured to accept scores for answers written in a respective free-form answer field of the plurality of free-form answer fields (“The answer sheet data generation application 204 is a software program installed and operated in the answer sheet creating device 2 and is an application for generating and editing data of the answer sheet. The answer drafter starts the answer sheet data generation application 204 and generates / edits answer sheet data via the operation unit 70 while confirming the layout of the answer sheet on the LCD 60” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0033])); and a scanner that scans the answer sheet (“the answer sheet with the answer sheet of the examinee number “1-2-34” entered in the answer sheet of the social study sheet is read by the scanner function of the image processing apparatus 1 Is generated” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0048])) wherein the controller reads, from the answer sheet scanned by the scanner, the scores in the plurality of score filling fields based at least on the sheet pattern data (“The scoring screen generation unit 331 which adds the answer identification information to the image of the scoring target area creates a scoring screen including the images of the plurality of scoring target areas acquired from the read images of the plurality of answered answers (S1206)). The scoring screen generation unit 331 causes the LCD 60 of the scoring device 3 to display the scoring image generated as described above, as shown in FIG” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0062])).
Harada does not explicitly teach the score information including a highest point, a lowest point, and a point pitch, and including respective partial score filling fields, wherein a number of the respective partial score filling fields corresponds to a number of partial marks scores that can be accepted for the respective free-form answer field.
Mutoh teaches the score information including a highest point, a lowest point, and a point pitch, and including respective partial score filling fields, wherein a number of the respective partial score filling fields corresponds to a number of partial marks scores that can be accepted for the respective free-form answer field (“Further, according to the present invention, the numerical value of the point allocation is added to the correct answer data of the description format, and the numerical value of the point allocation is displayed on the scoring screen” (recited in at least: Mutoh paragraph [0005]); “The test grader makes judgments in a state where the correct answer data (model answer) 52 input at the time of creating the question displayed on the screen 54 and the description portion 46 'of the description form answer field 46 of the answer sheet 32 are aligned. Do. At this time, the adjustment point is determined in consideration of an addition point by weighting by the keyword 30 and the like (processing S14). When the computer shifts to the tabulation result display mode, the description scoring result and the selection formula scoring result are called (processing S15, 16), these are combined (processing S17), and the result tabulation screen displays the sum of the selection formula and the description formula. The score is displayed (processing S18).” (recited in at least: Mutoh paragraph [0021])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included point variation and partial score for the filled responses as taught by Mutoh into the multifunction peripheral of Harada for the added benefit of Educators being able to further add into the computer system the way of giving points for students trying and rewarding partial credits or extra credits for the level of work a student does when taking an exam.
Regarding claim 2, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Harada further teaches wherein the one or more user interfaces are further configured to accepts a number that indicates a quantity of the plurality of free-form answer fields, wherein the answer sheet includes as many free-form answer fields as the number accepted by the user interface (“The display control unit 203 causes the LCD 60 to display the status of the answer sheet creation device 2 such as a graphical user interface (GUI) of the answer sheet data generation application 204” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0032])).
Regarding claim 5, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Harada further teaches wherein the pattern data identifies positions and dimensions of the plurality of score filling fields included in the answer sheet (“as shown in FIG. 14, the read image information is associated with an ID for identifying a read image, a read image file, positional deviation x, positional deviation y, and inclination. Each piece of read image information is associated with answer sheet data. For example, as shown in FIG. 14, read images of a plurality of answered answer sheets in which answers are entered are associated with answer sheets on which answer sheet data having an answer sheet image file name of “aaa.jpg” is printed. . For example, the read image illustrated in FIG. 10 is stored in the read image information storage unit 403 as a read image (for example, “aaa_001.jpg”) included in one of the read image information” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0055])).
Regarding claim 7, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Harada further teaches wherein the one or more user interfaces are further configured to receive point information about each of a plurality of free-form questions corresponding to the plurality of free-form answer fields, wherein the scores for the answers are read based on the sheet pattern data and the point information (“For example, as shown in FIG. 16, when the grader inputs a graded image (flower circle in FIG. 16) for Mr. A's answer, the graded image information acquisition unit 332 is surrounded by, for example, a dotted line shown in FIG. The image of the extracted rectangular area is acquired as the input scored image. In addition, a portion other than the input line (a line for drawing the flower circle mark shown in FIG. 17) in the graded image is subjected to the transmission process” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0068])).
Regarding claim 9, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Harada further teaches wherein the controller rearranges the plurality of free-form answer fields based on a user's instruction (“The image information generated by the image processing unit 103 is stored as it is in the HDD 40 or the like according to a user's instruction or is transmitted to an external device by the network control unit 102 via the network” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0026])).
Regarding claim 10, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Harada further teaches wherein the controller changes each of the plurality of free-form answer fields in size based on a user's instruction (“The answer sheet preparation device 2 sets the size of the examination entry column for entering the examination number for identifying the answerer, the size of the answer entry column for entering the answer of each question, and the layout of each entry column. It is an information processing apparatus such as a PC (Personal Computer) for creating an answer sheet according to a test” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0010])).
Regarding claim 11, Harada disclose a control method for a multifunction peripheral, the method (“The image processing apparatus 1 is an MFP (Multi-Function Peripheral: MFP)” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0010])) comprising: receiving, via one or more user interfaces, answer sheet information that indicates respective setting values of a plurality of free-form answer fields and respective score information for each of the plurality of free-form answer fields (“The display control unit 203 causes the LCD 60 to display the status of the answer sheet creation device 2 such as a graphical user interface (GUI) of the answer sheet data generation application 204” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0032])); generating sheet pattern data based on the received answer sheet information and the received score information; printing, based on the sheet pattern data, an answer sheet including the plurality of free-form answer fields and a plurality of score filling fields, each score filling field of the plurality of score filling fields being configured to accept scores for answers written in a respective free-form answer field of the plurality of free-form answer fields and including respective partial score filling fields (“The answer sheet data generation application 204 is a software program installed and operated in the answer sheet creating device 2 and is an application for generating and editing data of the answer sheet. The answer drafter starts the answer sheet data generation application 204 and generates / edits answer sheet data via the operation unit 70 while confirming the layout of the answer sheet on the LCD 60” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0033])); scanning by a scanner, the answer sheet (“the answer sheet with the answer sheet of the examinee number “1-2-34” entered in the answer sheet of the social study sheet is read by the scanner function of the image processing apparatus 1 Is generated” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0048])); and by a controller, reading, from the scanned answer sheet, the scores in the plurality of score filling fields based at least on the sheet pattern data (“The scoring screen generation unit 331 which adds the answer identification information to the image of the scoring target area creates a scoring screen including the images of the plurality of scoring target areas acquired from the read images of the plurality of answered answers (S1206)). The scoring screen generation unit 331 causes the LCD 60 of the scoring device 3 to display the scoring image generated as described above, as shown in FIG” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0062])).
Harada does not explicitly teach the score information including a highest point, a lowest point, and a point pitch, and including respective partial score filling fields, wherein a number of the respective partial score filling fields corresponds to a number of partial marks scores that can be accepted for the respective free-form answer field.
Mutoh teaches the score information including a highest point, a lowest point, and a point pitch, and including respective partial score filling fields, wherein a number of the respective partial score filling fields corresponds to a number of partial marks scores that can be accepted for the respective free-form answer field (“Further, according to the present invention, the numerical value of the point allocation is added to the correct answer data of the description format, and the numerical value of the point allocation is displayed on the scoring screen” (recited in at least: Mutoh paragraph [0005]); “The test grader makes judgments in a state where the correct answer data (model answer) 52 input at the time of creating the question displayed on the screen 54 and the description portion 46 'of the description form answer field 46 of the answer sheet 32 are aligned. Do. At this time, the adjustment point is determined in consideration of an addition point by weighting by the keyword 30 and the like (processing S14). When the computer shifts to the tabulation result display mode, the description scoring result and the selection formula scoring result are called (processing S15, 16), these are combined (processing S17), and the result tabulation screen displays the sum of the selection formula and the description formula. The score is displayed (processing S18).” (recited in at least: Mutoh paragraph [0021])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included point variation and partial score for the filled responses as taught by Mutoh into the multifunction peripheral of Harada for the added benefit of Educators being able to further add into the computer system the way of giving points for students trying and rewarding partial credits or extra credits for the level of work a student does when taking an exam.
Regarding claim 12, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Harada further teaches further comprising accepting, via the one or more user interfaces, a number that indicates a quantity of the plurality of free-form answer fields, wherein the printed answer sheet includes as many free-form answer fields as the number accepted via the user interface (“The display control unit 203 causes the LCD 60 to display the status of the answer sheet creation device 2 such as a graphical user interface (GUI) of the answer sheet data generation application 204” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0032])).
Regarding claim 15, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Harada further teaches wherein the pattern data identifies positions and dimensions of the plurality of score filling fields included in the read answer sheet (“as shown in FIG. 14, the read image information is associated with an ID for identifying a read image, a read image file, positional deviation x, positional deviation y, and inclination. Each piece of read image information is associated with answer sheet data. For example, as shown in FIG. 14, read images of a plurality of answered answer sheets in which answers are entered are associated with answer sheets on which answer sheet data having an answer sheet image file name of “aaa.jpg” is printed. . For example, the read image illustrated in FIG. 10 is stored in the read image information storage unit 403 as a read image (for example, “aaa_001.jpg”) included in one of the read image information” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0055])).
Regarding claim 17, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Harada further teaches further comprising(“For example, as shown in FIG. 16, when the grader inputs a graded image (flower circle in FIG. 16) for Mr. A's answer, the graded image information acquisition unit 332 is surrounded by, for example, a dotted line shown in FIG. The image of the extracted rectangular area is acquired as the input scored image. In addition, a portion other than the input line (a line for drawing the flower circle mark shown in FIG. 17) in the graded image is subjected to the transmission process” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0068])).
Regarding claim 19, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Harada further teaches further comprising rearranging the plurality of free-form answer fields based on a user's instruction (“The image information generated by the image processing unit 103 is stored as it is in the HDD 40 or the like according to a user's instruction or is transmitted to an external device by the network control unit 102 via the network” (recited in at least: Harada paragraph [0026])).
Regarding claim 20, Harada discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer (The computer-readable storage medium (recited in Harada claim 5) to perform a control method for a multifunction peripheral, the control method comprising: steps similar in scope to claim 1 and 11.
Claims 3-4, 6, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Mutoh in further view of Sharma Mukesh (US 20180018893 A1; hereinafter Mukesh).
Regarding claim 3, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the answer sheet further includes a multiple-choice answer field, and wherein the controller reads, from the answer sheet scanned by the scanner, the multiple-choice answer field based at least on the sheet pattern data
Mukesh teaches wherein the answer sheet further includes a multiple-choice answer field, and wherein the controller reads, from the answer sheet scanned by the scanner, the multiple-choice answer field based at least on the sheet pattern data (“FIG. 3a is an exemplary depiction of a structured form. The structured form 300 includes a header portion 301, a response area 303 and a barcode 305 The header portion 301 is optional. The response area 303 as depicted includes response areas such that each response area has bubbles arranged in a defined layout provided by the response area identification system 200. Defined layout includes defined margins, bubble size, spacing between bubbles, etc. Response areas may be presented in formats other than rows and columns or bubbles” (recited in at least: Mukesh paragraph [0043])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a multiple-choice answer field like the one shown in Mukesh to the MFP of Harada for the added benefit of teachers being able to test students with some questions having multiple choice answers as well as free-formed answers.
Regarding claim 4, Harada in view of Mutoh in further view of Mukesh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above; and Mukesh further teaches wherein the one or more user interfaces are further configured to receive a number that indicates a quantity of multiple-choice questions, wherein the answer sheet includes as many multiple-choice answer fields as the number received by the user interface (“the metadata may contain form name, page number, unique form identifier, questions, question text, question possible answers, correct answers, coordinates of question area and response area, etc. The database may also store user specific information such as organization name to which the form belongs, unique identifier of a user who filled the form, unique identifier of the organization with whom the form and the user are registered, etc.” (recited in at least: Mukesh paragraph [0033])).
Regarding claim 6, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the controller aggregates scores based on results of score filling fields, of the plurality of score filling fields, that have been read from the answer sheet, and wherein the controller provides an aggregated result.
Mukesh teaches wherein the controller aggregates scores based on results of score filling fields, of the plurality of score filling fields, that have been read from the answer sheet, and wherein the controller provides an aggregated result (The analyzer module 211 aggregates all the marked responses of all the users. The analysis may then be provided on the aggregated data such as number of user who cleared a given set of questions, number of users who incorrectly attempted a question, etc. (recited in at least: Mukesh paragraph [0042])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the aggregated scoring as taught by Mukesh in the MFP of Harada for the added benefit of educators knowing how the class did overall and to know which topics would benefit the students with additional lessons.
Regarding claim 13, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the answer sheet further includes a multiple-choice answer field, and wherein the multiple-choice answer field is read, from the scanned answer sheet, based at least on the sheet pattern data.
Mukesh teaches wherein the answer sheet further includes a multiple-choice answer field, and wherein the multiple-choice answer field is read, from the scanned answer sheet, based at least on the sheet pattern data (“FIG. 3a is an exemplary depiction of a structured form. The structured form 300 includes a header portion 301, a response area 303 and a barcode 305 The header portion 301 is optional. The response area 303 as depicted includes response areas such that each response area has bubbles arranged in a defined layout provided by the response area identification system 200. Defined layout includes defined margins, bubble size, spacing between bubbles, etc. Response areas may be presented in formats other than rows and columns or bubbles” (recited in at least: Mukesh paragraph [0043])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a multiple-choice answer field like the one shown in Booth to the MFP of Harada for the added benefit of teachers being able to test students with some questions having multiple choice answers as well as free-formed answers.
Regarding claim 14, Harada in view of Mutoh in further view of Mukesh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above; and Mukesh further teaches receiving, via the one or more user interfaces, a number that indicates a quantity of multiple-choice questions, wherein the answer sheet includes as many multiple-choice answer fields as the received number (“the metadata may contain form name, page number, unique form identifier, questions, question text, question possible answers, correct answers, coordinates of question area and response area, etc. The database may also store user specific information such as organization name to which the form belongs, unique identifier of a user who filled the form, unique identifier of the organization with whom the form and the user are registered, etc.” (recited in at least: Mukesh paragraph [0033])).
Regarding claim 16, Harada in view of Mutoh teach the claimed subject matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly disclose aggregating, by the controller, scores based on results of score filling fields, of the plurality of score filling fields, that have been read from the scanned answer sheet; and providing an aggregated result.
Mukesh teaches aggregating, by the controller, scores based on results of score filling fields, of the plurality of score filling fields, that have been read from the scanned answer sheet; and providing an aggregated result (“The analyzer module 211 aggregates all the marked responses of all the users. The analysis may then be provided on the aggregated data such as number of user who cleared a given set of questions, number of users who incorrectly attempted a question, etc.” (recited in at least: Mukesh paragraph [0042])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the aggregated scoring as taught by Mukesh in the MFP of Harada for the added benefit of educators knowing how the class did overall and to know which topics would benefit the students with additional lessons.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 overcomes the new matter written description rejection set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant states “These features are not certain methods of organizing human activity and cannot be practically performed in the human mind” on page 1 of the remarks regarding the claim limitations in lines 2-8 of independent claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has not provided any rationale, reasoning or evidence explaining why the particular claim language cannot be a method of organizing human activity or cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Furthermore, a human could, and many Educators have been grading and analyzing student answer sheets with a pen and paper for centuries. The addition of a computer to speed up the process is not enough to bring the abstract idea into a practical application. Merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of one or more interfaces and a controller does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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 at (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 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights