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 Arguments
The objections to the Specification are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the Specification, filed 10/30/25.
The objections to the claims are withdrawn and/or moot in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 10/30/25. However, new objections to claims 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 have been presented in light of the amendments.
The rejections of claims 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn and/or moot light of the amendments. However, a new rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been presented in light of the amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is moot, as claim 2 has been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-2 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn. However, the pending claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as presented in detail below.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach “select a teaching material related to the lesson based on an answer to the questionnaire of the lesson corresponding to a comprehensibility degree written in the comprehensibility field for each question item”, as required by the amended independent claims (Remarks, filed 10/30/25, p. 18). Specifically, Applicant argues that Ernst “merely teaches that the system adapts future assessment questions and remediation responses based on prior responses”, and the assessment questions of Ernst differ from the claimed “teaching material” (Remarks, filed 10/30/25, pp. 21-22). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, examiner notes that “teaching material” is a broad term which may comprise assessment questions that measure student understanding and inform instruction. Second, while Ernst teaches adapting future assessment questions based on prior responses, Ernst also teaches providing remedial materials based on the prior responses, as noted by Applicant (Remarks, filed 10/30/25, pp. 21-22), wherein the remedial materials (e.g., learning resources) are provided to the learner based on their responses including confidence level/comprehensibility degree and may comprise explanations or additional learning including learning materials such as text, animations, images, audio, video, web pages, and similar sources of training materials ([0074-0075]; [0081]; [0349], wherein learning materials are related to questions so that the learner may only have to concentrate on the material pertaining to those areas that require attention or reeducation). As noted by Applicant, and explicitly stated in Ernst, [0348], Ernst teaches “resources for learning are allocated based on the quantifiable needs of the learner as reflected in the knowledge assessment profile or by other performances measures presented herein. Thus, aspects of the present invention provide a means for the allocation of learning resources according to the extent of true knowledge possessed by the learner.” (Remarks, filed 10/30/25, p. 20; see further Ernst, [0041]; [0348], noting that the personalized knowledge profile is a summary of the learner’s responses including feedback as to unknowns, doubts, and mastery). Ernst addresses the problem of standard multiple choice questions which do not give insight to the true extent or state of knowledge of the learner (e.g., as they could guess and be correct on standard multiple choice questions) by providing a questionnaire wherein a learner’s answer generates two metrics with regards to the learner’s confidence and correctness ([0003]; [0035]). As further noted by Applicant, the content of Ernst is personalized to each learner’s demonstrated knowledge, skill, and confidence level (equivalent to “comprehensibility degree”) (Remarks, filed 10/30/25, pp. 19 & 21; see further Ernst, [0006-0007]; [0034]), wherein the content includes explanations and additional learning information (Ernst, [0006-0007]; [0074-0075]; [0081]; [0348]). Accordingly, Ernst teaches the limitation “select a teaching material related to the lesson based on an answer to the questionnaire of the lesson corresponding to a comprehensibility degree written in the comprehensibility field for each question item”, as required by the amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“claim 1, the processor is further configured to” recited in claim 3, ln. 1-2 should likely read “claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to”;
“claim 3, the processor is further configured to” recited in claim 7, ln. 1-2 should likely read “claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to”;
“claim 5, the processor is further configured to” recited in claim 9, ln. 1-2 should likely read “claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to”;
“from a text” recited in claim 11, ln. 3, claim 13, ln. 3, and claim 15, ln. 3 should likely read “from [[a]]the text”; and
“each of one or more headings” recited in claim 11, ln. 5, claim 13, ln. 5, and claim 15, ln. 5 should likely read “each of the one or more headings”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “The information processing apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to: create a text used in the lesson from the teaching material stored in the database, and create the report associated with the selected teaching material different from the teaching material from which the text is created.” It is indefinite as to whether, and if so how, “a text used in the lesson” differs from the text used in the lesson recited in claim 1 (see claim 1, ln. 3). Second, it is indefinite as to how the created report is associated with the selected teaching material different from the teaching material from which the text is created, wherein the selected teaching material includes the teaching material stored in the database from which the text is created.
No prior art is currently provided for claim 18.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (U.S. Pub. 2021/0281697 A1) in view of Ernst et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0214147 A1) (hereinafter “Ernst”).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1; [0030]; [0034]) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1, #105; [0034]) configured to:
receive a text and a questionnaire used in a lesson (Figs. 3A-4B; [0087-0092], an answer sheet is provided comprising a question column providing a question and an answer column to be filled in with an answer to the question);
create a two-dimensional code for identifying the questionnaire of the lesson (Figs. 3B-4A, 13A, 14A, 15B-16A; [0051]; [0092]; [0098-0106]; [0160]; [0169]; [0171]);
wherein the questionnaire includes one or a plurality of question items ([0054]; [0063], wherein the questionnaire includes one or more questions).
While Suzuki may not explicitly disclose the processor further configured to assign the two-dimensional code to the text used in the lesson, Suzuki does disclose associating the two-dimensional code to a document ([0100-0106]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assign the two-dimensional barcode to a relevant document/area of a document (e.g., text), as taught by Suzuki, to quickly connect information (e.g., a questionnaire) to the document/area of the document.
Suzuki may not further explicitly disclose wherein the questionnaire further includes a comprehensibility field for writing a comprehensibility degree for each question item. However, Ernst, directed to a confidence-based assessment ([0002]), teaches this limitation (Figs. 5-6; [0073]; [0093]; [0099-0100]; [0347-0348], wherein a questionnaire is provided to a learner and includes level of confidence categories for the user to select a level of confidence (comprehensibility)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in the questionnaire a comprehensibility field, as taught by Ernst, in order to better gauge user knowledge/comprehensibility and to better determine and provide teaching material(s) that may aid in advancing the user knowledge/comprehensibility (Ernst, [0035]; [0347-0348]).
Suzuki further discloses wherein following the provision of a written user answer to the questionnaire, providing an explanation (teaching material) of the correct answer ([0051]; [0088-0092]) and creating a report associated with the selected (provided) teaching material (Fig. 4B; [0092], wherein a document (report) containing a scoring result for the answer sheet and also containing the explanation of the correct answer (teaching material) is provided). However, Suzuki may not further explicitly disclose selecting the explanation (teaching material) related to the lesson based on an answer to the questionnaire of the lesson corresponding to a comprehensibility degree written in the comprehensibility field for each question item. Nevertheless, Ernst teaches this limitation ([0074-0075]; [0081]; [0348], wherein resources for learning (e.g., explanations and/or additional learning) (teaching materials) are allocated based on the quantifiable needs of the learner). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in the questionnaire a comprehensibility field, and to select the teaching material(s) based on the comprehensibility degree indicated by the learner, as taught by Ernst, in order to better gauge user knowledge/comprehensibility and to better determine and provide teaching material(s) that may aid in advancing the user knowledge/comprehensibility (Ernst, [0035]; [0347-0348]).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki further discloses the processor is further configured to: create the report associated with the teaching material for each question item (Figs. 4B, 13B, & 14B; [0092]; [0161]; [0166], wherein the document containing the scoring result is displayed for each question and answer).
Suzuki further discloses wherein the explanation (teaching material) includes a word embedded in the answer (Figs. 13A-14B; [0088-0089]; [0092]; [0160-0166], wherein, using character recognition, a word of the answer is used to search the explanation to determine if the answer is correct). However, Suzuki may not explicitly further disclose the teaching material based on a word included in the one or plurality of question items. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the explanation (teaching material) to include a word included in the question item (e.g., “president”), wherein the question, answer, and explanation are used together to encode the two-dimensional barcode (Fig. 5; [0103], wherein the content of the question column, the answer column, and the explanation column are used to encode a two-dimensional barcode), as the teaching material (explanation) is related to the question item.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki further discloses wherein the questionnaire further includes a comment field for writing a comment for each question item (Fig. 4A; [0051], wherein the questionnaire includes a comment field (answer column) for writing a comment (answer) for each question item), and
the processor is further configured to: select the teaching material based on a word extracted from the comment written in the comment field (Figs. 4A-4B & 13A-14B; [0088-0089]; [0092]; [0160-0166]), and
create the report associated with the teaching material and the comment for each question (Figs. 4B, 13B, & 14B; [0092]; [0161]; [0166]).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki may not further explicitly disclose the processor is further configured to: select more teaching materials for a question item having a low comprehensibility degree written in the comprehensibility field than for a question item having a high comprehensibility degree. However, Ernst teaches this limitation ([0348], wherein resources for learning (teaching materials) are allocated based on the quantifiable needs of the learner as reflected). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allocate more resources for learning based a lower confidence score for the user than for a higher confidence score (i.e., wherein if confident, no resources may need to be allocated). Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in the questionnaire a comprehensibility field, and to select teaching material(s) based on the comprehensibility degree indicated by the learner, as taught by Ernst, in order to better gauge user knowledge/comprehensibility and to better determine and provide teaching material(s) that may aid in advancing the user knowledge/comprehensibility (Ernst, [0347-0348]).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki may not further explicitly disclose the processor is further configured to: select more teaching materials for a question item having a low comprehensibility degree written in the comprehensibility field than for a question item having a high comprehensibility degree. However, Ernst teaches this limitation ([0348], wherein resources for learning (teaching materials) are allocated based on the quantifiable needs of the learner as reflected). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allocate more resources for learning based a lower confidence score for the user than for a higher confidence score (i.e., wherein if confident, no resources may need to be allocated). Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in the questionnaire a comprehensibility field, and to select teaching material(s) based on the comprehensibility degree indicated by the learner, as taught by Ernst, in order to better gauge user knowledge/comprehensibility and to better determine and provide teaching material(s) that may aid in advancing the user knowledge/comprehensibility (Ernst, [0347-0348]).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to create the questionnaire including the one or plurality of question items [] in accordance with a predetermined template (Figs. 3A-4B; [0054]; [0063]; [0088-0089], wherein the predetermined template comprises a question column, an answer column, and an explanation column). Suzuki may not further explicitly disclose the processor further configured to associate one or more headings extracted from a text used in the lesson with the one or plurality of question items. However, Ernst teaches wherein questions can be hyperlinked to informational references ([0349]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that hyperlinking a question to an informational reference may comprise hyperlinking (associating) the question with one or more headings (title) of the informational reference (text). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate one or more headings from a text used in the lesson with the one or plurality of question items of the questionnaire in order to provide content concentrated on material of a certain area (Ernst, [0349]).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to create the questionnaire including the one or plurality of question items [] in accordance with a predetermined template (Figs. 3A-4B; [0054]; [0063]; [0088-0089], wherein the predetermined template comprises a question column, an answer column, and an explanation column). Suzuki may not further explicitly disclose the processor further configured to associate one or more headings extracted from a text used in the lesson with the one or plurality of question items. However, Ernst teaches wherein questions can be hyperlinked to informational references ([0349]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that hyperlinking a question to an informational reference may comprise hyperlinking (associating) the question with one or more headings (title) of the informational reference (text). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate one or more headings from a text used in the lesson with the one or plurality of question items of the questionnaire in order to provide content concentrated on material of a certain area (Ernst, [0349]).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to create the questionnaire including the one or plurality of question items [] in accordance with a predetermined template (Figs. 3A-4B; [0054]; [0063]; [0088-0089], wherein the predetermined template comprises a question column, an answer column, and an explanation column). Suzuki may not further explicitly disclose the processor further configured to associate one or more headings extracted from a text used in the lesson with the one or plurality of question items. However, Ernst teaches wherein questions can be hyperlinked to informational references ([0349]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that hyperlinking a question to an informational reference may comprise hyperlinking (associating) the question with one or more headings (title) of the informational reference (text). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate one or more headings from a text used in the lesson with the one or plurality of question items of the questionnaire in order to provide content concentrated on material of a certain area (Ernst, [0349]).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is a non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is an information processing method of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Ernst, as applied to claim 11, and in further view of Sherman (U.S. Pub. 2020/0302820 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: select, [] in association with content information including a content of the teaching material, the teaching material having the content information including a search term by searching for a word included in the answer as the search term (Fig. 4B; [0051]; [0054]; [0092], wherein the questionnaire and its associated content is stored in a storage location and wherein the explanation (teaching material) having the content information of the questionnaire includes a word included in the answer), and create the report associated with [] the selected teaching material (Fig. 4B; [0092], where the document containing the scoring result for the answer sheet (report) and also containing the explanation of the correct answer (teaching material) is provided).
Suzuki may not explicitly disclose storing in a database meta-information of the teaching material including a title of the teaching material in association with content information of the teaching material. However, Sherman teaches these limitations (Fig. 10, [0050]; [0101]; [0108], wherein explanations (teaching materials) are stored in a database and each have a title and corresponding content). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the questionnaire content including the explanation (teaching materials) and a corresponding title in association with the content information of the teaching material, in order to further organize the content for easier access to specific content based on the question/answer items (Sherman, [0101], wherein the explanations are organized in the database in order for the system to provide a well-suited explanation for the identified concept).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. 2015/0325133 A1 – This reference teaches presenting a plurality of questions to a user, wherein each question receives a user answer to the respective question, as well as a user selection of a confidence level for the respective question.
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 ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715