DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Response to Amendment 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3
Conclusion 12
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
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 1/22/26. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13, 14 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.
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 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al (US 2014/0240507 A1) in view of Carmi (US 2014/0189576 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches Hsu discloses a computer system of detecting user cheating in an online test, the system comprising a processing circuitry configured to:
a) obtain, from a user computer, via a network (see 0039-0041);
c) perform, at least, at least one of:
i. extracting, using image analysis techniques, one or more text strings from, at least, one or more non-examination application windows of the at least one userscreen image,
obtaining, via the network, at least part of an examination question text that has been presented in an application window on the user computer, and for at least one of the one or more extracted text strings, determining a degree of relevance to the examination question text, thereby facilitating assessment of a likelihood of cheating, based on the determined degree of relevance, and
ii. with a suspicious application, thereby facilitating assessment of a likelihood of cheating (see 0032-0037, 0049; All of the data collected by these systems are used to collectively assess whether there is a possibility of cheating taking place at any given time. The face detection and tracking system 24 performs several functions to assess the possibility of cheating. For example, to detect whether an impostor is taking the test on behalf of the registered subject, the face detection and tracking system 24 includes a face authentication processor 34 that uses a computer-implemented facial authentication algorithm to compare the face of the test taker with a previously stored image of the registered subject. In one embodiment, the facial authentication is performed using a trained model of the registered subject against which the detected video image is compared according to a plurality of predefined model parameters. The facial authentication algorithm performs a stochastic process or computational process to generate a probability score that the test taker is the registered subject. This score is tested at 35 to determine if the test taker is an impostor. [0033] In addition to face detection, the tracking system 24 also performs body tracking as at 36 in order to answer the simple question of whether the subject has stepped away from the examination-taking or test-taking site. Stepping away from the examination or test-taking site at unapproved times also represent a possibility of cheating. [0034] Further, the face detection system 24 also performs specific analysis of the subject's gaze, by monitoring the direction of gaze of the subject's eyes, as depicted at 38. During the test, it is expected that the subject will focus his or her eyes on the computer device screen where the test is displayed or, perhaps, on the keyboard of the computer device. Frequent gazing in other directions could also represent a possibility of cheating. [0035] The data from first camera 10, supplied to the monitor tracking system 22, provides additional information regarding the possibility of cheating. During the test taking, it is expected that the subject will be viewing the text of the test being displayed on the computer device 16. However, if the subject is instead looking elsewhere at textual notes, the computer-implemented system analyzes the text captured by camera 10 and compares it with the text being displayed on the computer device screen. This is shown at 40. Optical character recognition may form part of the test detection process, to allow the test displayed on the screen to be compared with optically-captured text from the first camera 10. If the respective texts do not match to a high probability level, the possibility of cheating is present. Thus, for example, if the subject were to look down at handwritten or printed notes brought to the test, the text detection system 40 will detect this as soon as the subject looks at the notes. [0036] The utterance detection system 30 monitors the sounds picked up by microphone 26 to detect if speech utterances are present. During an examination or test, it is normally expected that no one will be speaking in the room, unless the test itself utilizes speech, in which case the nature of content of that speech is known by the system. Of course, during the test there could be extraneous noises caused by the test taker shifting in his or her seat or caused by outside street noise, which would not be necessarily indicative of cheating. Thus, the system is specifically configured to detect speech utterances and discriminate those from extraneous noise and also from speech that is known to be part of the examination or test. If utterances are detected which to a high probability should not be occurring, the system detects this at 42 and such detection also constitutes the possibility of cheating. Detection of speech utterances may be performed using a trained model with speech recognizer designed to recognize continuous speech. By comparing the output of the recognizer against a dictionary of words, the system can detect if speech is present, and even generate a word-searchable, text-based output reflecting what was said. Alternatively speech utterances may be detected by other means such as by utilizing signal processing to extract parameters known to exist in speech and then using trained models or other artificial intelligence techniques to identify if the sounds correlate strongly to human speech. [0037] Finally, the active window detection system 32 can also function as an indication of the possibility of cheating. For example, if the text being displayed on the computer device 16 comprises a known window with known text, and if an additional window is also displayed on the computer screen (which is not expected or part of the test), the presence of this extraneous window could likewise indicate the possibility of cheating. Thus, for example, if the subject opens an Internet web browser while taking the test in order to look up an answer to one of the questions of the test, this would be instantly detected by the active window detection system 32.). Hsu does not teach expressly capability of performing screen capture of a user computer; obtain at least one userscreen image, based on performing a network-based remote screen capture of the user computer; determining, using image analysis techniques, a degree of matching between at least part of the at least one userscreen image, and data associated; based on the determined degree of matching.
Carmi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches capability of performing screen capture of a user computer (see 0198-0200, 0207); obtain at least one userscreen image, based on performing a network-based remote screen capture of the user computer (see 0198-0200, 0207, abstract); determining, using image analysis techniques, a degree of matching between at least part of the at least one userscreen image, and data associated (see 0198-0200, 0207-0213, 0236-0237); based on the determined degree of matching (see 0207-0213, 0236-0237).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsu to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Carmi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to serve real-time speed of operation and reduce data load (see 0067). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Hsu, while the teaching of Carmi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 13, Hsu teaches a method that implements the limitations of claim 1 (seev
rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Hsu teaches a computer program product comprising a computer readable non-transitory storage medium (see 0041; server) containing program instructions, the program instructions when read by a processing circuitry (see 0041; the face detection and tracking, monitoring tracking, utterance detection and active window detection systems may be implemented entirely on computer device 16, or entirely on proctor server 50), causing the processing circuitry to perform a method of detecting user cheating in an online test, the method comprising the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al (US 2014/0240507 A1) with Carmi (US 2014/0189576 A1), and further in view of Bartik et al (US 2019/0068638 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu with Carmi teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Hsu with Carmi does not teach expressly determining the degree of matching between an image of a browsed uniform resource locator (URL) comprised in the at least one userscreen image, and a given suspicious URL.
Bartik, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the degree of matching between an image of a browsed uniform resource locator (URL) comprised in the at least one userscreen image, and a given suspicious URL (see 0004, 0020, 0028, 0032, 0045-0047, 0025).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsu with Carmi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Bartik. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to protect from phishing attacks (see 0027). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Hsu with Carmi, while the teaching of Bartik continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 3-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al (US 2014/0240507 A1) with Carmi (US 2014/0189576 A1), and further in view of Medvet et al (ACM: “Visual-Similarity-Based Phishing Detection”).
Regarding claims 3-4, Hsu with Carmi teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Hsu with Carmi does not teach expressly perform determining the degree of matching between an at least partial image of a browsed website comprised in the at least one userscreen image, and a given at least partial image of a suspicious website; perform determining the degree of matching between an at least partial image of a browsed website comprised in the at least one userscreen image, and one or more given text strings of a suspicious website.
Medvet, in the same field of endeavor, teaches perform determining the degree of matching between an at least partial image of a browsed website comprised in the at least one userscreen image, and a given at least partial image of a suspicious website (see abstract, section 3.2-3.3, section 4); perform determining the degree of matching between an at least partial image of a browsed website comprised in the at least one userscreen image, and one or more given text strings of a suspicious website (see abstract, section 3.2-3.3, section 4).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsu with Carmi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Medvet. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to detecting phishing attempts (see conclusion). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Hsu with Carmi, while the teaching of Medvet continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al (US 2014/0240507 A1) with Carmi (US 2014/0189576 A1), and further in view of Zou et al (CLEF: “A Cluster-Based Plagiarism Detection Method”).
Regarding claims 5-6, Hsu with Carmi teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Hsu with Carmi does not teach expressly determining a longest common substring between at least part of at least one of the one or more text strings and the at least part of the examination question text; comparing the longest common substring result to a substring matching threshold, thereby giving rise to a boolean assessment of suspicion of user cheating.
Zou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a longest common substring between at least part of at least one of the one or more text strings and the at least part of the examination question text (see section 4.2); comparing the longest common substring result to a substring matching threshold, thereby giving rise to a boolean assessment of suspicion of user cheating (see section 4.1-4.3).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsu with Carmi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Zou. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to detecting plagiarism (see introduction). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Hsu, while the teaching of Zou continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al (US 2014/0240507 A1) with Carmi (US 2014/0189576 A1), and further in view of Dovey et al (US 8,701,001 B2).
Regarding claims 7-12, Hsu with Carmi teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Hsu with Carmi does not teach expressly perform screen capture of the user computer responsive to detecting a focus of the user computer being a non-examination application or subapplication;
d) periodically repeat b) - c) one or more additional times;
prior to step c): identify a current in-focus application window in the at least one userscreen image; reduce the at least one userscreen image to a reduced at least one userscreen image that comprises the identified current in-focus application window;
perform the extracting by, at least: i. identifying, utilizing image analysis techniques, in the at least one userscreen image, an application window; and ii. responsive to determining that the identified application window is a non-examination application window, extracting one or more text strings from the identified application window;
responsive to determining that the identified application window is a non-examination application window;
comparing an application window identification string with an examination window title.
Dovey, in the same field of endeavor, teaches perform screen capture of the user computer responsive to detecting a focus of the user computer being a non-examination application or subapplication (see col. 3, lines 60-col. 4, lines 4, col. 6, lines 5-13);
d) periodically repeat b) - c) one or more additional times (see col. 5, lines 55-64, col. 6, lines 40-46);
prior to step c): identify a current in-focus application window in the at least one userscreen image; reduce the at least one userscreen image to a reduced at least one userscreen image that comprises the identified current in-focus application window (see col. 3, lines 60-col. 4, lines 4, col. 5, lines 50-60);
perform the extracting by, at least: i. identifying, utilizing image analysis techniques, in the at least one userscreen image, an application window; and ii. responsive to determining that the identified application window is a non-examination application window, extracting one or more text strings from the identified application window (see col. 2,lines 42-50, col. 3, lines 60-col. 4, lines 45);
responsive to determining that the identified application window is a non-examination application window (see col. 5, lines 5-13);
comparing an application window identification string with an examination window title (see col. 5, lines 5-13).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsu with Carmi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Dovey. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the end user to see information in context (see col. 7, lines 60-67). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Hsu with Carmi, while the teaching of Dovey continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
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 EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights