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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 01/12/2026
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1-9 have been withdrawn from consideration. Please see election by original presentation below.
Election/Restriction
Claims 1-9 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 1-9 each introduce three new limitations, each of which is not seen in claims 10-20, which are still drawn to the original claims. Furthermore, claims 10 and 16 recite “for each answer choice, generating a confidence factor based on a position of the respective confidence slider for the associated answer choice.” This limitation is not seen in claims 1-9. Claims 1-9 are therefore distinct from the originally claimed invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-9 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-15 of Applicant’s response filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, and 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are moot in light of the fact that the claims 1-9 (having the limitations argued by Applicant) are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 10-20 do not include the limitations argued as distinguishing from the art of record or directing the claims to patent eligible subject matter.
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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 10 and 16 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 10 and 16 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 10 and 16, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
retrieving an evaluation module from a data repository, the evaluation module comprising a set of questions; (claims 10 and 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive an evaluation module from a data repository; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith)
presenting a question with a number of answer choices. . . wherein each answer choice is associated with a respective confidence slider, wherein each confidence slider is operable to receive an input representing a user's confidence in an associated answer choice; (claims 10 and 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could present a number of questions and associated confidence indicators to a user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith)
for each answer choice, generating a confidence factor based on a position of the respective confidence slider for the associated answer choice; (claims 10 and 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a confidence factor based on a position of a slider; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith)
calculating a weighted score for the question by scaling a question score by the confidence factor associated with a correct answer to the question; (claims 10 and 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform this calculation; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical formula or operation for performing this calculation)
and generating a report based on the weighted score and the confidence factor associated with the correct answer. (claims 10 and 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate this report; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above process could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgement. The above elements, as a whole, further recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since the limitations outlined a method for testing individuals using confidence values associated with each answer, a form of teaching.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
in a graphic user interface. . . using a confidence slider (claims 10 and 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
An employee evaluation system, comprising: (claim 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a processor; (claim 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a data repository storing one or more training modules, wherein each of the training modules comprises a respective set of questions, and (claim 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a non-transitory memory coupled to the processor, the non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the employee evaluation system to perform the method of: (claim 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A computer program product, comprising: (claim 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer system to perform the method of: (claim 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 10 and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 11-15 and 17-20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 11 and 17:
wherein generating the confidence factor for each answer choice further comprises: normalizing confidence factors across the number of answer choices based on relative positions of each confidence slider.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform this this normalization; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical formula or operation for performing this normalization.
Claims 12 and 18:
presenting a sequence of questions selected from the set of questions;
calculating weighted scores for each respective question in the sequence of questions;
and calculating a combined score for the evaluation module based on a combination of the weighted scores for the set of questions, wherein the combined score represents a user's overall mastery of subject matter in the evaluation module.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could present a sequence of questions, calculate weighted scores, and calculate a combined score; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical formula or operation for performing this normalization.
Claims 13 and 19:
wherein calculating the combined score further comprises: at each respective step of the sequence, incrementing the combined score based on the weighted score calculated for an associated question;
and adjusting presentation of subsequent questions in the evaluation module based on the combined score, wherein the adjusting includes at least one of: modifying question difficulty, reordering questions in the sequence, and adjusting the number of answer choices presented in the graphic user interface.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could increment a combined score and adjust questions based on the score; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith.
Claim 14:
wherein generating the report further comprises: generating a quartile categorization of the confidence factor associated with the correct answer to the question;
and presenting the quartile categorization in a chart displayed in the graphical user interface.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a present this quartile categorization; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith.
Claim 15:
wherein generating the report further comprises: providing recommendations for further training based on a set of user records stored in the data repository, wherein the recommendation comprises one or more additional modules based on a user's demonstrated knowledge and confidence levels as indicated in the report.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide these recommendations based on these records; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith.
Claim 20:
generating a quantized categorization of the confidence factor associated with the correct answer to the question;
presenting the quantized categorization in a chart displayed in the graphical user interface; and
providing recommendations for further training based on a set of user records stored in the data repository, wherein the recommendation comprises one or more additional modules based on a user's demonstrated knowledge and confidence levels as indicated in the report.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a quantized categorization and present it, as well as provide recommendations in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including teaching since this step would be used in testing a user’s knowledge and associated confidence therewith.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 11-15 and 17-20, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 10, 12, 15-16, 18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agley et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20210005099; hereinafter "Agley").
As per claim 10, Agley teaches:
An employee evaluation system, comprising:
Agley teaches a system and method for user assessment. (Agley: abstract) Agley further teaches that the system may comprise a company knowledge assessment and training tool. (Agley: paragraph [0003-4, 108])
a processor;
Agley teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which implements instructions stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Agley: paragraphs [0109-117], Fig. 11)
a data repository storing one or more training modules, wherein each of the training modules comprises a respective set of questions, and
Agley teaches a system and method for user assessment. (Agley: abstract) Agley further teaches that the system may comprise a company knowledge assessment and training tool. (Agley: paragraph [0003-4, 108]) Agley teaches a content database 104 and knowledgebase 106 which may store answer questions and learning content. (Agley: paragraph [0042], Fig. 1) Agley further teaches that a user knowledge assessor may access these databases in order to present questions to a user on a user interface 114. (Agley: paragraphs [0042-46], Fig. 1)
a non-transitory memory coupled to the processor, the non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the employee evaluation system to perform the method of:
Agley teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which implements instructions stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Agley: paragraphs [0109-117], Fig. 11)
retrieving an evaluation module from a data repository, the evaluation module comprising a set of questions;
Agley teaches a content database 104 and knowledge base 106 which may store answer questions and learning content. (Agley: paragraph [0042], Fig. 1) Agley further teaches that a user knowledge assessor may access these databases in order to present questions to a user on a user interface 114. (Agley: paragraphs [0042-46], Fig. 1)
presenting a question with a number of answer choices in a graphic user interface, wherein each answer choice is associated with a respective confidence slider, wherein each confidence slider is operable to receive an input representing a user's confidence in an associated answer choice;
Agley teaches a user interface which may present questions to a user. (Agley: paragraph [0049], Fig. 1, 4B) Agley further teaches that a question may be presented to a user with a set of answers, wherein each answer may be associated with its own confidence slider, and wherein the system may generate a confidence factor based on a user's selected confidence on the slider, wherein the system calculates a weighted score based on such, and presents a report based on the weighted score. (Agley: paragraph [0049, 73-78], Fig. 4B, 4C)
for each answer choice, generating a confidence factor based on a position of the respective confidence slider for the associated answer choice;
Agley teaches a user interface which may present questions to a user. (Agley: paragraph [0049], Fig. 1, 4B) Agley further teaches that a question may be presented to a user with a set of answers, wherein each answer may be associated with its own confidence slider, and wherein the system may generate a confidence factor based on a user's selected confidence on the slider, wherein the system calculates a weighted score based on such, and presents a report based on the weighted score. (Agley: paragraph [0049, 73-78], Fig. 4B, 4C)
calculating a weighted score for the question by scaling a question score by the confidence factor associated with a correct answer to the question;
Agley teaches a user interface which may present questions to a user. (Agley: paragraph [0049], Fig. 1, 4B) Agley further teaches that a question may be presented to a user with a set of answers, wherein each answer may be associated with its own confidence slider, and wherein the system may generate a confidence factor based on a user's selected confidence on the slider, wherein the system calculates a weighted score based on such, and presents a report based on the weighted score. (Agley: paragraph [0049, 73-78], Fig. 4B, 4C)
and generating a report based on the weighted score and the confidence factor associated with the correct answer.
Agley teaches a user interface which may present questions to a user. (Agley: paragraph [0049], Fig. 1, 4B) Agley further teaches that a question may be presented to a user with a set of answers, wherein each answer may be associated with its own confidence slider, and wherein the system may generate a confidence factor based on a user's selected confidence on the slider, wherein the system calculates a weighted score based on such, and presents a report based on the weighted score. (Agley: paragraph [0049, 73-78], Fig. 4B, 4C)
As per claim 12, Agley teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches:
presenting a sequence of questions selected from the set of questions;
Agley teaches a user interface which may present questions to a user. (Agley: paragraph [0049], Fig. 1, 4B) Agley further teaches that a question may be presented to a user with a set of answers, wherein each answer may be associated with its own confidence slider, and wherein the system may generate a confidence factor based on a user's selected confidence on the slider, wherein the system calculates a weighted score based on such, and presents a report based on the weighted score. (Agley: paragraph [0049, 73-78], Fig. 4B, 4C) See Agley 420L indicating a total score and 420M indicating a score on a given question set.
calculating weighted scores for each respective question in the sequence of questions;
Agley teaches a user interface which may present questions to a user. (Agley: paragraph [0049], Fig. 1, 4B) Agley further teaches that a question may be presented to a user with a set of answers, wherein each answer may be associated with its own confidence slider, and wherein the system may generate a confidence factor based on a user's selected confidence on the slider, wherein the system calculates a weighted score based on such, and presents a report based on the weighted score. (Agley: paragraph [0049, 73-78], Fig. 4B, 4C) See Agley 420L indicating a total score and 420M indicating a score on a given question set.
and calculating a combined score for the evaluation module based on a combination of the weighted scores for the set of questions, wherein the combined score represents a user's overall mastery of subject matter in the evaluation module.
Agley teaches a user interface which may present questions to a user. (Agley: paragraph [0049], Fig. 1, 4B) Agley further teaches that a question may be presented to a user with a set of answers, wherein each answer may be associated with its own confidence slider, and wherein the system may generate a confidence factor based on a user's selected confidence on the slider, wherein the system calculates a weighted score based on such, and presents a report based on the weighted score. (Agley: paragraph [0049, 73-78], Fig. 4B, 4C) See Agley 420L indicating a total score and 420M indicating a score on a given question set.
As per claim 15, Agley teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein generating the report further comprises: providing recommendations for further training based on a set of user records stored in the data repository, wherein the recommendation comprises one or more additional modules based on a user's demonstrated knowledge and confidence levels as indicated in the report.
Agley further teaches that based on a user's demonstrated proficiency in a given concept, the user may be recommended to switch to another concept for training. (Agley: paragraph [0120-122])
As per claim 16, Agley teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A computer program product, comprising:
Agley teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which implements instructions stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Agley: paragraphs [0109-117], Fig. 11)
a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer system to perform the method of:
Agley teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which implements instructions stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Agley: paragraphs [0109-117], Fig. 11)
As per claim 18, Agley teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 12, and claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12, as outlined above.
As per claim 20, Agley teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 16, as outlined above, and further teaches:
generating a quantized categorization of the confidence factor associated with the correct answer to the question;
Agley further teaches that analytics for the user's performance may be generated and displayed in order to aid in training the user, wherein the analytics may comprise a quantized categorization of the confidence factor associated with the correct answer in a chart. (Agley: paragraph [0079-80], Fig. 9A, 9B)
presenting the quantized categorization in a chart displayed in the graphical user interface; and
Agley further teaches that analytics for the user's performance may be generated and displayed in order to aid in training the user, wherein the analytics may comprise a quantized categorization of the confidence factor associated with the correct answer in a chart. (Agley: paragraph [0079-80], Fig. 9A, 9B)
providing recommendations for further training based on a set of user records stored in the data repository, wherein the recommendation comprises one or more additional modules based on a user's demonstrated knowledge and confidence levels as indicated in the report.
Agley further teaches that based on a user's demonstrated proficiency in a given concept, the user may be recommended to switch to another concept for training. (Agley: paragraph [0120-122])
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. 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. 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 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agley in view of Dey et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20160100000; hereinafter "Dey").
As per claim 11, Agley teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein generating the confidence factor for each answer choice further comprises: normalizing confidence factors across the number of answer choices based on relative positions of each confidence slider.
Dey, however, teaches that confidence values may be normalized such that the total confidence value given across a plurality of answers may equal 1. (Dey: paragraph [0057]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Agley or Dey. Normalizing the provided answers such that the total confidence value equals one does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Agley. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Dey with the teachings of Agley, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 17, Agley teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 11, and claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11, as outlined above.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agley in view of Cho et al. (Korean Patent Document No. KR 20150051198 A; hereinafter "Cho").
As per claim 13, Agley teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein calculating the combined score further comprises: at each respective step of the sequence, incrementing the combined score based on the weighted score calculated for an associated question;
Agley teaches a user interface which may present questions to a user. (Agley: paragraph [0049], Fig. 1, 4B) Agley further teaches that a question may be presented to a user with a set of answers, wherein each answer may be associated with its own confidence slider, and wherein the system may generate a confidence factor based on a user's selected confidence on the slider, wherein the system calculates a weighted score based on such, and presents a report based on the weighted score. (Agley: paragraph [0049, 73-78], Fig. 4B, 4C) See Agley 420L indicating a total score and 420M indicating a score on a given question set.
Agley does not appear to explicitly teach:
and adjusting presentation of subsequent questions in the evaluation module based on the combined score, wherein the adjusting includes at least one of: modifying question difficulty, reordering questions in the sequence, and adjusting the number of answer choices presented in the graphic user interface.
Cho, however, teaches that difficulty of subsequent answers may be altered based on a user's cumulative score so far in taking a test. (Cho: paragraphs [0021, 101, 114-116, 120]) Cho teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Agley for the benefit of improving learning efficiency and improving learning interest. (Cho: paragraphs [0006-10]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cho with the teachings of Agley to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 19, Agley teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 13, and claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 13, as outlined above.
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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628