Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to Applicant’s communication filed on 06/22/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivler et al (US 6,743,024 B1) in view of Imani et al (US 2024/0296294 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ivler discloses a system comprising one or more computer readable storage media and one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media (Fig. 11), and an application comprising program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct a computing system to at least receive, from a first client device, an indication to start a math problem (202: user enters demographic data), provide, by a math engine, the math problem to the first client device, wherein the math problem comprises a problem statement (214), generate, by the math engine, a plurality of answers based on the problem statement (210 – 212), wherein the plurality of answers comprises a correct answer and one or more distraction answers (210 – 212), and each of the one or more distraction answers corresponds to a respective challenge concept (Abstract: testing seeks to define what primitive components of the educational program that the individual doesn't understand), receive, from a first client device, an answer for the math problem (214), determine, by the math engine, that the answer corresponds to a respective distraction answer of the one or more distraction answers (218), identify, by the math engine, a challenge concept based on the answer corresponding to the respective distraction answer (220: increment primitive counter), and generate, by the math engine, a second math problem based on the challenge concept for the first client device (228). Imani suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—a Large Language Model (LLM) in operable communication with the math engine (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler and Imani in order to increase the quality of the answers by making them more likely to expose reasoning flaws by the user.
Regarding claim 3, Ivler discloses receiving, from the first client device, a plurality of answers responsive to a plurality of respective math problems (Fig. 2), determining, by the math engine, a pattern based on each of the plurality of answers received responsive to the plurality of respective math problems corresponding to a respective distraction answer (Fig. 2), and determining, by the math engine, that the pattern of each respective distraction answer is associated with the challenge concept (col. 4 line 53: system may identify patterns in the information being stored, such as identifying a high percentage of missed answers to questions by individuals from a particular area).
Claims 7 and 14 recite a system and storage medium, respectively, comprising substantially the same limitations as those in claim 1 above. They are accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra.
Regarding claim 10, Ivler discloses providing, by the math engine, the plurality of answers for the math problem to the first client device in a multiple-choice format, and receiving, from the first client device the answer for the math problem comprises receiving, by the math engine, a selection of the answer from the plurality of answers in the multiple-choice format from the first client device (col. 3 line 50: the test can be designed to make a common error in the primitive component and present that error as a possible solution to the multiple-choice selection … an individual could be presented with the problem 31/4-11/3. … the individual may make an error in borrowing … the individual may be able to arrive at 33/12-14/12, but when borrowing from the 3, the individual may transform 213/12 rather than 215/12 because the borrowed unit was borrowed at 10/12 versus the correct 12/12's).
Regarding claim 13, Ivler discloses receiving, from a second client device, a second indication to start the math problem, providing, by the math engine, the math problem to the second client device, and generating, by the math engine, a second plurality of answers for the math problem based on the problem statement and the second client device, wherein the second plurality of answers is different than the plurality of answers for the first client device (See Fig. 12 and claim 1 supra; system can provide testing services to multiple clients).
Regarding claim 16, Ivler discloses determining, by the math engine, challenges associated with the first client device responsive to receiving the indication to start the math problem from the first client device (Abstract: testing seeks to define what primitive components of the educational program that the individual doesn't understand), and determine, by the math engine, the math problem for the first client device based on the challenges associated with the first client device (Abstract: system adapts to test the primitives that were failed to be understood).
Regarding claim 20, Ivler discloses generating, by the math engine, a second problem statement, and generating, by the math engine, a second plurality of answers comprising at least one distraction answer corresponding to the challenge concept, provide, by the math engine, the second math problem to the first client device, receive, by the math engine, a second answer to the second math problem from the first client device, and compare, by the math engine, the second answer to the second plurality of answers (See Fig. 2 and claim 1 supra; system iterates over multiple questions).
Claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivler in view of Imani and Fuka (US 9,082,309 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—identifying, by the math engine, a math problem template based on the first client device (Fig. 6), generating, by the math engine, the math problem comprising the problem statement based on the math problem template (Fig. 6), and generating, by the math engine, the plurality of answers for the problem statement based on the math problem template (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler, Imani and Fuka in order to allow more flexible creation of test questions.
Regarding claim 5, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—receiving, by the math engine, the answer in a freeform format from the first client device, wherein the freeform format of the answer comprises one of the following: a typed answer input into an answer field by the first client device, or an image captured by the first client device (Fig. 11A). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler, Imani and Fuka in order to allow the formulation and presentation of non-multiple-choice questions.
Regarding claim 8, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—determining, by the math engine, an answer template corresponding to the problem statement, and generating, by a content generator of the math engine, the plurality of answers based on the answer template (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler, Imani and Fuka in order to allow the formulation and presentation of non-multiple-choice questions.
Regarding claim 9, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—identifying, by the math engine, a math problem template based on the first client device (Fig. 6), generating, by the math engine, the math problem comprising the problem statement based on the math problem template, identifying, by the math engine, an answer template corresponding to the math problem template (Fig. 6) and generating, by the math engine, the plurality of answers for the problem statement based on the answer template (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler, Imani and Fuka in order to allow the formulation and presentation of non-multiple-choice questions.
Regarding claim 11, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—receiving, from the first client device, a freeform answer to the problem statement, comparing, by the math engine, the freeform answer to the plurality of answers, and determining, by the math engine, a corresponding answer of the plurality of answers for the freeform answer (Fig. 11A). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler, Imani and Fuka in order to allow the formulation and presentation of non-multiple-choice questions.
Regarding claim 15, Fuka suggests—where Ivler does not disclose—identifying, by the math engine, an answer template based on the first client device (Fig. 6), and generating, by a content generator of the math engine, the plurality of answers for the problem statement based on the answer template (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler, Imani and Fuka in order to allow the formulation and presentation of non-multiple-choice questions.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivler in view of Gupta (US 2007/0172809 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ivler discloses wherein the math problem is part of a math assignment comprising a plurality of math problems (Fig. 2), and the program instructions further direct the computing system to grade, by the math engine, the math assignment based on answers received from the first client device and generate by the math engine, a grade for the math assignment for the first client device (Fig. 7), wherein the grade comprises one or more challenge concepts identified by the math assignment (col. 11 line 48: a recommended course of action may be presented by the system to an individual being tested … an advertising engine 704 may notify an individual being tested of products and tools available in the marketplace that may be used to correct deficiencies in the primitives requiring more study or work). Gupta suggests—where Ivler does not specifically disclose—wherein the grade comprises an indication of a number of correct answers for the math assignment (Fig. 18a). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler, Gupta and Fuka in order to apprise the user of his or her progress.
Regarding claim 18, Gupta suggests—where Ivler does not specifically disclose—generating, by the math engine, an assignment summary for the first client device, wherein the assignment summary comprises one or more interactions between the first client device and the math engine, and provide, by the math engine, a display of the assignment summary (Figs. 18a – 19b). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Ivler, Gupta and Fuka in order to apprise the user of his or her progress.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12, 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 and 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571)-272-4430. The fax 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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights