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 Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 3/10/2026; claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 recites “wherein the processing unit is configured to, in response to an operation of another of the plurality of operation elements on the answerer terminal, control the graphical user interface layout of the examination screen to display a second question window, and the first question window and the second question window are simultaneously displayed.” There is no the written description in the original specification to support two question windows display simultaneously. The Office requests that Applicant to cite paragraphs and/or figures to support the newly added limitation.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 2 and 4 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. (US 2009/0017432 A1) in view of Konig (US 2011/0144898 A1).
Re claims 1, 6, 7:
Hoffmann teaches 1. An online examination answering system (Hoffman, Abstract) comprising:
a storage unit configured to store an examination information including a question number for each of a plurality of questions included in one unit of examination questions (Hoffman, fig. 1; [0049] – [0050]); and
a processing unit connected to the storage unit, wherein the processing unit (Hoffman, fig. 17) is configured to:
establish a data association between the question number and a corresponding hyperlink provided by a provider, and register the data association in the storage unit (Hoffman, [0052]),
dynamically generate and control a graphical user interface layout of an examination screen on an answerer terminal (Hoffman, figs. 4A – 6C; [0080], “The testing interface”), plurality of operation elements respectively associated with the plurality of answer fields (Hoffman, figs. 4A – 6C; 4B, “Main Text Area: include test questions”, “Item Status buttons: status and navigation to test questions”), and
in response to an operation of one of the plurality of operation elements on the answerer terminal, synchronously retrieve the corresponding hyperlink and control the graphical user interface layout to display a first question window showing a corresponding question of the plurality of questions (Hoffman, fig 4B, “Main Text Area: include test questions”, “Item Status buttons: status and navigation to test questions”),
wherein the first question window is a separate window from the answer window (Hoffman, fig 4B, “Main Text Area: include test questions”, “Item Status buttons: status and navigation to test questions”).
Hoffman does not explicitly disclose
wherein the graphical user interface layout includes an answer window displaying a list of a plurality of answer fields, and a plurality of operation elements respectively associated with the plurality of answer fields, and wherein the first question window is a separate window from the answer window, and the answer window partially overlaps the first question window while the list of the plurality of answer fields remains visible and operable.
Konig (US 2011/0144898 A1) teaches a graphical user interface for marking dynamic and static elements. Konig teaches a wherein the graphical user interface layout includes an answer window displaying a list of a plurality of answer fields, and a plurality of operation elements respectively associated with the plurality of answer fields, and wherein the first question window is a separate window from the answer window, and the answer window partially overlaps the first question window while the list of the plurality of answer fields remains visible and operable (Konig, fig. 3A – 4; i.e., fig. 3D, 322 – Markup Icons 322 - operation elements, “Stopover name 320a” “Stopover name 320b”, “Stopover name 320c”.. – answer fields; [0050], “user can select stopover points and an array of areas 320a through 320g for the names of selected stopover points”; “Popup 350” – answer windows partially overlaps the first question windows; [0062], “FIG. 3D is a diagram of the route plan graphical user interface 300 with a popup window 350 for selecting contacts”).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of Konig, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system, computer program and method described in Hoffman, by providing pop-up windows as taught by Konig, since the popup window prompts the user to use the cursor to select whether to present or edit the answer fields for the corresponding stopover point (Konig, [0060]). The popup windows provide a quick way to edit the answers.
6. A non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon an online examination questions answering program, wherein the online examination answering program causes a processing unit connected to a storage unit to execute a process comprising:
establishing a data association between a question number and a corresponding hyperlink provided by a provider, and registering the data association in the storage unit;
dynamically generating and controlling a graphical user interface layout of an examination screen on an answerer terminal, wherein the graphical user interface layout includes an answer window that displays a list of a plurality of answer fields and a plurality of operation elements respectively associated with the plurality of answer fields; and
in response to an operation of one of the plurality of operation elements on the answerer terminal, synchronously retrieving the corresponding hyperlink and controlling the graphical user interface layout to display a question window showing a corresponding question of the plurality of questions,
wherein the question window is a separate window from the answer window, and the answer window partially overlaps the question window while the list of the plurality of answer fields remains visible and operable (See claim 1 citation above).
7. An online examination questions answering method executed by a processing unit connected to a storage unit that stores an examination information including a question number for each of a plurality of questions included in one unit of examination questions, wherein the online examination answering method comprises:
establishing a data association between a question number and a corresponding hyperlink provided by a provider, and registering the data association in the storage unit;
dynamically generating and controlling a graphical user interface layout of an examination screen on an answerer terminal, wherein the graphical user interface layout includes an answer window that displays a list of a plurality of answer fields and a plurality of operation elements respectively associated with the plurality of answer fields; and
in response to an operation of one of the plurality of operation elements on the answerer terminal, synchronously retrieving the corresponding hyperlink and controlling the graphical user interface layout to display a question window showing a corresponding question of the plurality of questions,
wherein the question window is a separate window from the answer window, and the answer window partially overlaps the question window while the list of the plurality of answer fields remains visible and operable (See claim 1 citation above).
Re claim 2:
2. The online examination questions answering system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to, in response to the operation, identify and cause a corresponding answer field of the plurality of answer fields to be visually distinguished among the plurality of answer fields (Konig, fig. 3A – 4; i.e., fig. 3D, 350 – Markup Icons 322 - operation elements, “Stopover name 320a” “Stopover name 320b”, “Stopover name 320c”.. – answer fields are visually different when they are edited by the user).
Re claim 4:
4. The online examination questions answering system according to claim 2, wherein the processing unit is configured to, in response to an operation of another of the plurality of operation elements on the answerer terminal, control the first question window to show another corresponding question of the plurality of questions (Konig, fig. 3A – 4; i.e., fig. 3D, 350 – PopUp windows can be visually different based on the Markup Icons 322”).
Re claim 5:
5. The online examination questions answering system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of answer fields are displayed in different sections according to a classification of the plurality of questions (Hoffman, [0129], “English”; [0130], “Spanish”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. (US 2009/0017432 A1) in view of Konig (US 2011/0144898 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Storistenau et al. (US 6,792,595 B1).
Re claim 3:
The combination of Hoffman and Konig does not explicitly disclose two simultaneous windows. Storistenau teaches an invention relates to a method for viewing, writing, and modifying source code in an integrated development environment (Storistenau, Abstract). Storistenau teaches a 3. The online examination answering system according to claim 2, wherein the processing unit is configured to, in response to an operation of another of the plurality of operation elements on the answerer terminal, control the graphical user interface layout of the examination screen to display a second question window, and the first question window and the second question window are simultaneously displayed (Storistenau, figs. 3A – 3B; col. 5, lines 35 – 41, “FIGS. 3A and 3B illustrate three background Edit Windows 56 and an Edit Window 56 with the current focus”). Therefore, in view of Storistenau, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system described in Huffman, by providing the simultaneous windows as taught by Storistenau, in order to allow a student to work on two questions at the same time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 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.
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 JACK YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/JACK YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715