DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 6/16/2026 has been received and fully considered. In the response, claims 1, 9, 15, and 23 have been amended; and claims 5, 14, 19, and 28 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20-27 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 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 PEG Analysis
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.)
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are directed to a process. Claims 15-18 and 20-27 are directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Defining a parametric question template including a plurality of parameters (e.g., claims 1 and 15)
Generating a question substituting one of the plurality of possible values for each of the plurality of parameters (e.g., claims 1 and 15)
Generating an identifier for each question (e.g., claims 1, 9, 15, and 23)
Searching online for question (e.g., see claims 1, 9, 15, and 23)
Identifying a candidate associated with the question based on the identifier (e.g., see claims 1, 9, 15, and 23)
Defining a time period to answer (e.g., see claims 6, 10, 20, and 24)
Generating a list of correct and incorrect answers, linked to the substituted values (e.g., see claims 7, 8, 21, and 22)
Generating an examination (e.g., see claim 9 and 23)
Verifying that the identifiers is unique (e.g., see claims 9 and 23)
Grading the exam (e.g., see claims 11, 12, 25 and 26)
Monitoring candidate behavior and alert when behavior is outside norms (e.g., see claims 13 and 27)
The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims are primarily directed to creating, proctoring, and grading an examination for students which can be done mentally by a teacher. Teachers commonly substitute question variables from a question template to provide unique test questions to reduce cheating or for other educational purposes, which can be done mentally by the teachers. For example, an elementary school multiplication exam will include numerous different multiplication problems using the template of A x B = Answer. Teachers simply substitute various values for A and B in the template to test each student’s understanding of a wide variety of multiplication problems. Further, teachers usually number (identify) each of the questions on an exam.
Further, teachers often create unique questions for certain candidates that are different from questions for other candidates. It is very common for a teacher with multiple sections of the same class to make different test questions for each section. For example, a first-class section for physics that meets on Mondays may be given a different set of test questions than a second-class section for the same physics class that meets on Tuesdays in order to reduce the chance that students in Monday’s class could leak relevant questions to the students of Tuesday’s class. Further, if the teacher finds evidence (e.g., online or a paper copy) of the Monday section test questions, the teacher will know it was one of the Monday section students that leaked the test questions because the Monday section test questions are unique (i.e., an identifier) from the Tuesday section test questions. The recited features are abstract because the teacher posses the ability to mentally perform these features by observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Further, teaching is considered a certain method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Overall, the following additional claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use, as outlined below:
Receiving a request to generate (e.g., see at least claims 1 and 15, insignificant extra-solution activity);
Parameter type possible values (e.g., see claims 3, 4, 17, and 18, field of use); and
Sending the examination to candidates (e.g., see claims 9 and 23, insignificant extra-solution activity).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20-27 the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations display and process game data in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. Further, the computer hardware of claims 15 and 23 (e.g., a processor and memory) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination of conventional elements in the art, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0149681 to Tinkler is cited for disclosing the conventional features of educational testing question generators that including processors and memory (e.g., see at least column 11, lines 14-16) and displays (e.g., see at least paragraph 22 for discussion of conventional processor/memory and paragraph 177 for use in a quiz/test question generator). Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20-27 are not patent eligible under 101.
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, 3, 4, 7-9, 11, 15, 17, 18, 21-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0244434 to Livne in view of Non-patent Literature to Honorlock, Search & Destroy software that was available prior to February 24, 2022 (see online video by Jessica Brennan and available online: https://mediaspace.usf.edu/media/Monday+Minute+-+Search+and+Destroy/1_jeyreohj/219865593) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0095157 to Tzvieli.
With regard to claim 1, Livne discloses a method for generating an examination question comprising: defining a parametric question template including a plurality of parameters (e.g., see at least paragraph 74, “The parser allows building complex templates that include parametric expressions”), each of the plurality of parameters having a plurality of possible values (e.g. see paragraph 75, “two parameters, each one assuming 100 possible values”); receiving a request to generate a plurality of examinations utilizing the parametric question (e.g., see at least paragraph 74 that discusses “building complex templates that include parametric expressions” which implies that someone requested the generation of a question); generating a question by substituting one of the plurality of possible values for each of the plurality of parameters (e.g., see at least paragraph 74 that discusses “building complex templates that include parametric expressions” which implies that a question was generated); generating an identifier of the question including a combination of the substituted possible values for each of the plurality of parameters of the question (e.g., see at least Fig. 7 that provides a question ID, “Question ID 37”);
[claim 3] wherein the plurality of possible values is selected based on a parameter type including one or more of: predetermined values, a logical expression, a mathematical expression, a date, a time, a user-defined set of values, an image, a chart based on randomized values related to the question (e.g., see at least paragraphs 74 and 75 that discusses “random values”), a map, a visual element related to content of the question, a visual element needed to answer the question, a user-uploadable dataset, and an Al generated dataset;
[claim 4] wherein one of the plurality of parameters is generated based on a second of the plurality of parameters (e.g., see at least paragraph 74 that discusses two parameters, wherein parameter “#a#” is associated/based on parameter “#b#” because they are part of an equation);
[claim 7] further comprising generating a list of correct answers and a list of incorrect answers for the question (e.g., see at least Fig. 7 for image of a question with correct and incorrect answer(s); see also at least paragraph 70 for discussion of “Multiple-Choice (MC) questions” which list correct and incorrect answers);
[claim 8] wherein the list of correct answers or the list of incorrect answers for the question is linked to one of the substituted value (e.g., see at least Fig. 7 for image of a question with correct and incorrect answer(s); see also at least paragraph 70 for discussion of “Multiple-Choice (MC) questions” which list correct and incorrect answers, wherein the answers must be linked to the substituted values in order for the test question to operate properly since the correct answer is dependent on the question values).
Claims 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are anticipated by Livne based on the same analysis set forth above for claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8, which are similar in scope.
Claims 9 and 23 are similar to claim 1 but each further requires verifying that each identifier is unique and sending an examination to each of the candidates. As discussed above, Livne disclose adding a question ID to each question (e.g., see Fig. 7, “Question ID: 37”, there is no logical reason to different questions to have the same question number, therefore the numbers will be unique). Regarding claims 9, 11, 23, and 25, Since Livne discloses that the exams are graded, then the candidates were sent an examination and the exam was graded (e.g., see at least paragraph 20 for discussion of analyzing a student’s response).
With regard to claims 1, 9, 15, and 23, Livne is silent regarding searching an online site for a text containing the question and identifying a candidate associated with leaked information based on an identifier.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem face, Honorlock’s Search & Destroy software teaches searching online sites for text containing an exam question (e.g., see online video at about 1:00+ for a demonstration of how Search & Destroy is implemented to search 17 websites).
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 Livne with the online site search taught by Honorlock in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, allowing teachers to efficiently initiate an online search of sites for leaked exam questions informs the teacher there was a leak in order to take action to reduce the likelihood of cheating.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem face, Tzvieli teaches identifying a candidate that leaked information via a canary trap (e.g., see at least paragraphs 299 that discuss a canary trap and notes “if the sensitive data is leaked, the user may be identified as the source based on detecting the small variations in the leaked data”).
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 Livne with the canary trap taught by Tzvieli in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, canary traps help identify a user as a source of an information leak by detecting a small variation the leaked information, which would helpful to the teacher to stop future information leaks and reduce cheating.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livne in view of Honorlock and Tzvieli and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0315181 to Frempong.
With regard to claims 2 and 16, Livne is silent regarding the use of determining an academic integrity score. It is noted that Liven discloses that a greater number of parameters and associated values increases the academic integrity but fail to mention providing a score (e.g., see at least paragraph 75 that discloses preventing “student copying”).
Reasonably pertinent to the problem solved, Frempong teaches determining an academic integrity score (e.g., see at least paragraph 26, the “first integrity score and the additional integrity score can be combined to determine an overall integrity score for the user performing the academic task”).
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 Livne with the academic integrity score as taught by Frempong in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, utilizing a score to judge academic integrity provides a useful metric for understanding a vulnerability to cheating.
Claims 6, 10, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livne in view of Honorlock and Tzvieli and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,431,875 to Elliott.
With regard to claims 6, 10, 20, and 24, Livne fails to expressly disclose defining a time period during which an answer to the question may be received from a candidate.
From the same field of endeavor, Elliott teaches defining a time limit for academic assessments (e.g., see at column 10 lines 52-59 for discussion of setting time limits on an academic assessment).
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 Livne with assessment time limits as taught by Elliott in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, setting a time limit for an assessment creates an additional factor to help determine whether a student understands the course material and can produce correct answers in a timely fashion.
Claims 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livne in view of Honorlock and Tzvieli and further in view of NPL on OpenTuition.com dated March 2, 2022 (available online at https://opentuition.com/topic/errors-carried-forward-marks-2/)(OpenTuition.com)
With regard to claims 12 and 26, Livne fails to expressly disclose defining the use of error carry forward (ECF) grading. ECF grading is common on multiple step questions where an error on a first part will not harm the correct solution of a second part, which is common on math or science exam question sets.
From the same field of endeavor, OpenTuition.com teaches the use of error carry forward grading (e.g., see at page 1, discussion by the Author and Tax Tutor about “Errors carried forward marks”)
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 Livne with error carry forward grading as taught by OpenTuition.com in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, error carry forward grading is an equitable doctrine of providing the student with credit when a second portion of a question is answered using the proper rules, but with an earlier error.
Claims 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livne in view of Honorlock and Tzvieli and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0232830 to Dorenkamp.
With regard to claims 13 and 27, Livne fails to expressly disclose defining an alert when a candidates’ behavior is outside a range of allowable behaviors.
From the same field of endeavor, Dorenkamp teaches defining an alert when a candidates’ behavior is outside a range of allowable behaviors (e.g., see at least paragraph 67 for discussion of an “alert to suggest the proctor more closely monitor the area of suspected cheating”).
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 Livne with cheating alerts as taught by Dorenkamp in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, detecting cheating will likely discourage more cheating.
Response to Arguments
On page 8, fourth paragraph, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process. Applicant notes that claim 1 has been amended to recited a computer implemented method, including searching an online site. The Examiner disagrees that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process). As set forth above, the claims recite several features that are abstract ideas despite the fact that they can be computer implemented. For example, the following are abstract ideas: 1.) Defining a parametric question template including a plurality of parameters (e.g., claims 1 and 15) and 2.) Generating a question substituting one of the plurality of possible values for each of the plurality of parameters (e.g., claims 1 and 15).
As also noted above in the 101 rejection, teachers often create unique questions for certain candidates that are different from questions for other candidates. It is very common for a teacher with multiple sections of the same class to make different test questions for each section. For example, a first-class section for physics that meets on Mondays may be given a different set of test questions than a second-class section for the same physics class that meets on Tuesdays in order to reduce the chance that students in Monday’s class could leak relevant questions to the different students of Tuesday’s class. Further, if the teacher finds evidence (e.g., online or a paper copy) of the Monday section test questions, the teacher will know it was one of the Monday section students that leaked the test questions because the Monday section test questions are unique (i.e., an identifier) from the Tuesday section test questions. The recited features are abstract because the teacher possess the ability to mentally perform these features by observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Further, teaching is considered a certain method of organizing human activity.
On page 10, final paragraph, Applicant argues that teachers can’t generate an identifier encoding the specific combination of substituted values, nor crawl the internet in real time to detect whether a leaked question matches a generated identifier, nor perform a fuzzy-matching reverse lookup (among other assertions regarding teachers).
First, Applicant has clearly underestimated teachers. Of course, a teacher can create a test question that is unique from other test questions (e.g., as discussed above for first- and second-class sections). Of course, a teacher can “crawl”/search the internet. Of course, a teacher can match a leaked exam question back to the individual or group that was assigned that unique exam question. The claims do not recite any features that make cheating detection too complex for a mere human teacher to perform.
Second, Applicant is arguing multiple features that are not recited in the claims. Claim 1 does not recite “forensic fingerprint”, “real time”, “perform a fuzzy-matching reverse lookup”, or “maintain a database of unique identifiers across and entire student population simultaneously”. All of these features sound impressive but are not recited in the claims.
On page 11, Applicant argue that “the claims as a whole integrate those concepts into a practical application producing, real-world results”. The Examiner disagrees. Despite language argued by Applicant that is not recited in the claims, the actual claims merely apply the abstract idea of detecting cheating with a generic computer and online searching. This general linking of an abstract idea to technology is not evidence that the claimed features as a whole are integrated into a practical application.
Applicant’s prior art arguments on pages 12-14 with respect to claims 1, 9, 15, and 23 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. It is noted that claims 1, 9, 15, and 23 were amended to include features previously recited in canceled claims 5, 14, 19, and 28, as well as, additional recited features. In order to address the newly added features, a new ground of rejection was necessitated.
For at least these reasons, all pending claims remain rejected. The Examiner is available to discuss possible paths forward as long as the conversation is consistent with examiner interview guidelines found in MPEP 713.09.
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 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
Prosecution Insights