DETAILED ACTION 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 1-2 8 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 1-14 are directed to a process. Claims 15-28 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 5 , 14, 1 9 , and 28 ) Defining a time period to answer (e.g., see claim s 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 claim s 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 number usually number (identify) each of the questions on an exam. 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 claim s 3, 4, 17, and 18, field of use ) ; and Sending the examination to candidates (e.g., see cl aims 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 1-2 8 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 claim s 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 1-2 8 are not patent eligible under 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 3, 4, 7 -9, 11 , 15, 17, 18, 21 -23 , and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0244434 to Livne (paragraphs 74 and 75 are reproduced below for convenience) . 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. Claim s 9 and 23 are similar to claim 1 but each further requires verifying that each identifier is unique and send ing 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) . 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 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livne 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 u se a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same wa y. In this case, utilizing a score to judge academic integrity provides a useful metric for understanding a vulnerability to cheating. Claims 5 , 14 , 19, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livne in view o f U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/03 2 5614 to Zeidman . With regard to claims 5 , 14 , 19, and 28 , Livne fails to expressly disclose searching an online site for a text containing the question or a text matching the identifier. From the same field of endeavor, Zeidman teaches searching online to identify academic cheating ( e.g., see at least paragraph 3 for discussion searching online for plagiarism ) . 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 searching as taught by Zeidman in order to u se a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same wa y. In this case, utilizing searching online is a common and effective way to determine if someone has posted information that would be considered cheating. Claims 6 , 10 , 20 , and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livne in view o f 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 u se a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same wa y. In this case, setting a time limit for an assessment create s an additional factor to help determine whether a student understand s 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 o f 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 u se a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same wa y. 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 o f 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 u se a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same wa y. In this case, detecting cheating will likely discourage more cheating. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure , includes: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0122484 to Chuang discusses implementing parameter values for math test questions (e.g., see at least paragraphs 20 and 38). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0114901 to Biggin discusses system/method for collusion in student exams using student identifier and graded scores (e.g., see at least flow diagram in Fig. 12). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0068154 to Breed discusses a secure testing device for discouraging cheating by using scrambled questions/answers (e.g., see at least paragraph 148). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0046313 to Yi discusses anti-cheat method and system for math problems (e.g., see at least paragraph 42). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0011177 to Mayumi discusses question IDs for different questions (e.g., see at least Figs. 4A+). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0081120 to Nanjiani discusses a quiz generator that includes questions with parameter values (e.g., see at least paragraphs 10 and 38). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7167 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kang Hu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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