DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 12/16/2025 has been received and fully considered. In the response, claims 1 and 3-8 have been amended; and claim 2 has been canceled. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-8 are pending.
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0302771 to Lee (Figs. 1 and 2 are shown below for convenience, but the entire document is relevant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0046702 to Ross.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
756
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, Lee discloses a study management device (e.g., see at least paragraph that discusses that the “present invention is directed to providing an online learning management system”) comprising: a memory (e.g., see at least Fig. 2, that shows a learning management server 400 with various databases and a control unit) configured to store instructions; and at least one processor (e.g., see at least Fig. 2, control unit 450; see also paragraphs 36 and 37 for discussion of control unit 450) configured to execute the instructions to perform: acquire data of a study achievement (e.g., see at least paragraph 44 that discloses a learning result database 440 that acquires learning data); calculate a study amount based on the data of the study achievement (e.g., see at least paragraph 47 that discusses that study state information that includes “ a study amount”); and record information indicating the study amount (e.g., see at least paragraph 55 and 57, wherein paragraph 57 states that “study results…are stored in the learning management server 400”); converting the study amount into a score (e.g., see Fig. 5 that discuses that specific score following each test result, less than 60, 60-80, or more than 80);
[Claim 4] wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculate the study amount from the data of the study achievement for each study subject of one or a plurality of study subjects (e.g., see at least paragraph 40 for discussion of the learning management system being used for one more study subjects, “may be variously classified into various subjects”);
[Claim 5] The study management device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: record information indicating the study amount in association with the data of the study achievement (e.g., see at least paragraphs 47, 54, and 55 for discussion of “a study amount”); and
[Claim 6] wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: record information indicating the study amount to transmit the recorded information indicating the study amount to a terminal used by an administrator (e.g., see at least paragraphs 36 and 58 that discusses a teacher member can check the study results of a student member).
With regard to claims 1 and 3, Lee discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding converting a study amount to a monetary value according to a conversion ratio.
In the same field of endeavor, Ross teaches a system for monitoring student study values (e.g., see at least paragraph 33 “for achieving certain grades”) and converting the study amount to a monetary value according a conversion ratio (e.g., see at least paragraph 33 that discloses that “a user may receive a monetary reward for achieving certain grades on a report card each semester”; see also that the rewards may be incremental or a completion, which represents a ratio conversion)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Lee with the grade-based monetary rewards as taught by Ross in order to use a known technique on a different device in a predictable manner. In this case, it is common for parents to reward money to students for different report card grades (e.g., $5 for an “A”, $1 for a “B”, and $0 for all other grades) to provide an incentive to improve study habits that lead to better grades on the report card.
Claim 7 (study management method) and claim 8 (non-transitory recording medium) are anticipated by Lee as set forth above for claim 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, second paragraph, Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose a study amount calculated for each subject. As noted above, Lee discloses a study amount in paragraph 47 as study state information. With regard to “calculated for each subject”, the claims do not require more than one subject. If Lee is being used for a single subject, then the study amount is for “each subject”.
Additionally, Applicant argues that Lee fails to disclose the final wherein clause of claim 1, “wherein the score is calculated based on value corresponding to each of the study subject.” When Lee determines a study amount, it must be quantified into a value that can be stored in the system, which would be the “score”. Then when combined with Ross, a monetary value can be determined based on study amount that resulted in a score. As best understood, the combination of Lee and Ross make obvious the claimed subject matter.
At a high level, the Examiner interprets that claims as an incentive program to encourage students to study to earn good grades and then receive compensation based on the grades they earn. Parents around the world do exactly this when they offer their children money for good grades on their report cards. Applicant is invited to initiate an Examiner’s interview if Applicant believes that further clarification would be helpful.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715