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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “selecting one of a more and a less difficult at least a second item” (emphasis added), in lines 7-9. The recitation renders the claim indefinite as the claim can be interpreted in conflicting ways such as selecting just one of a more or less difficult question, selecting both a more and less difficult (one more difficult and one less difficult) question/item, and selecting an item that is both more and less difficult. This is further compounded in view of the dependent claims. The lack of clarity makes it unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Examiner recommends amending the limitations to selecting at least one of a more and a less difficult item as a second item” and amending subsequent recitations accordingly.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the conclusive fail status is assigned prior to scoring the target subset upon receiving the at least a second performance submission in accordance with the less difficult at least a second item”, in lines 1-4. However, claim 1, under its reasonable interpretation, recites selecting one of a more and a less difficult item and assigning one of a conclusive fail and a conclusive pass and claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, already recites a more difficult at least a second item as well as assigning the conclusive pass status. Therefore, the limitations of claim 3 contradict the limitations of claim 2 and are not possible as recited. Therefore, the claims are indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the conclusive pass status and the conclusive fail status are respectively assigned responsive to at least one of a predetermined number of the first and at least a second items and a predetermined percentage of the first and at least a second items being answered correctly and incorrectly in accordance with the scoring” (emphasis added) in lines 1-5. It is unclear if there can be multiple (predetermined number of) first items or merely a number of second items. Regardless, the recitation of claim 1 of “one of a more and a less difficult at least a second item” renders the limitation of claim 8 indefinite as it is unclear if the claim allows for a plurality of second items. Therefore, it is unclear what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “selecting one of a more and a less difficult at least a second item” (emphasis added), in lines 13-15. The recitation renders the claim indefinite as the claim can be interpreted in conflicting ways such as selecting just one of a more or less difficult question, selecting both a more and less difficult (one more difficult and one less difficult) question/item, and selecting an item that is both more and less difficult. This is further compounded in view of the dependent claims. The lack of clarity makes it unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Examiner recommends amending the limitations to selecting at least one of a more and a less difficult item as a second item” and amending subsequent recitations accordingly.
Claims 12-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the test" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the conclusive fail status is assigned prior to scoring the target subset upon receiving the at least a second performance submission in accordance with the less difficult at least a second item”, in lines 1-4. However, claim 11, under its reasonable interpretation, recites selecting one of a more and a less difficult item and assigning one of a conclusive fail and a conclusive pass and claim 12, from which claim 13 depends, already recites a more difficult at least a second item as well as assigning the conclusive pass status. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 contradict the limitations of claim 12 and are not possible as recited. Therefore, the claims are indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the conclusive pass status and the conclusive fail status are respectively assigned responsive to at least one of a predetermined number of the first and at least a second items and a predetermined percentage of the first and at least a second items being answered correctly and incorrectly in accordance with the scoring” (emphasis added) in lines 1-5. It is unclear if there can be multiple (predetermined number of) first items or merely a number of second items. Regardless, the recitation of claim 11 of “one of a more and a less difficult at least a second item” renders the limitation of claim 18 indefinite as it is unclear if the claim allows for a plurality of second items. Therefore, it is unclear what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “selecting one of a more and a less difficult at least a second item” (emphasis added), in lines 8-10. The recitation renders the claim indefinite as the claim can be interpreted in conflicting ways such as selecting just one of a more or less difficult question, selecting both a more and less difficult (one more difficult and one less difficult) question/item, and selecting an item that is both more and less difficult. This is further compounded in view of the dependent claims. The lack of clarity makes it unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Examiner recommends amending the limitations to selecting at least one of a more and a less difficult item as a second item” and amending subsequent recitations accordingly.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite a process, a computer system for performing the process, and a computer program product including the process, the process including the steps of rendering a test having a plurality of test questions ('items') sourced from an item bank that includes a plurality of unique test items [claim 1]; scoring a first performance submission received from a candidate computing device in accordance with a first item sourced from the item bank that is presented to the candidate computing device; in accordance with the scoring, selecting, from the plurality of unique test items of the item bank, one of a more and a less difficult at least a second item; scoring an at least a second performance submission received from the candidate computing device in accordance with the one of the more and the less difficult at least a second item; generating a candidate performance profile based at least on the first and the at least a second performance submissions received; and assigning one of a conclusive fail and a conclusive pass status based on the candidate performance profile as generated. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are rendering a test having a plurality of questions from an item bank, scoring a first submission, selecting a second item based on the scoring of the first submission, scoring the second submission, generating a performance profile based on the submissions, and assigning one of a conclusive fail and a conclusive pass based on the profile. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (scoring the first and second submissions; generating a candidate performance profile), judgement (rendering the test; selecting a second item; assigning one of a fail and a pass status) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (rendering the test; scoring the submissions; selecting a second item; generating a performance profile; assigning one of a fail and a pass). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are a test delivery server computing system communicatively coupled within a distributed network computing system [claim 11]; one or more processors [claims 11 and 20]; and a memory storing instructions executable in the one or more processors [claims 11 and 20]; and the submission received from a candidate computing device and the first item is presented to the candidate computing device. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are merely displaying content on a device and transmitting data across a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The other additional elements of a candidate computing device, a distributed network system, one or more processors, and a memory are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) of receiving the first submission from a candidate computing device and presenting the first item to the device is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of a candidate computing device, a distributed network system, one or more processors, and a memory used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 20 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are dependent from claims 1 and 11, respectively, and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2-6, 8-9, 12-16, and 18-19 recite clarification of the assignment criteria and the types of data used/comprising the test items, the classification of the items, and the candidate performance profile. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely setting criteria for the mental processes and defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 7, 10, and 17 recite further abstract ideas including concluding the test (judgment MP; CMOHA) and selecting the first item in accordance with a first level of difficulty, the difficulty selected based upon prior performance (judgment MP; CMOHA). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities including defining the type of test. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-10 and 12-19 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira (US PGPub 20090047648) in view of Capone et al. (US PGPub 20140134588), hereinafter referred to as Capone.
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 20, Ferreira teaches a method of rendering a test having a plurality of test questions (‘items’) sourced from an item bank that include a plurality of unique test items [claim 1] (Abstract; Paragraphs 0047, 0051, 0068-0069 teach a process/method for performing an adaptive assessment including selecting and presenting questions from a content database (item bank) and/or a pool of questions); a test delivery server computing system communicatively coupled within a distributed network computing system (Abstract; Paragraphs 0047, 0095 teach the system can include a server and one or more user devices connected over a network for managing the system including test presentation and delivery), the test delivery server computing system comprising: one or more processors (Paragraph 0097; “one or more processors”); and a memory storing instructions executable in the one or more processors, the instructions, when executed in the one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to implement operations [claim 11] (Paragraphs 0006, 0095, 0096 teach the system can include any suitable device for storing data including instructions for performing the processes executed by the processors); and a computer-readable non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, the instructions when executed in one or more processors causing the one or more processors to implement operations [claim 20] (Paragraphs 0006, 0095, 0096 teach the system can include any suitable device for storing data including instructions for performing the processes executed by the processors); comprising:
scoring a first performance submission received from a candidate computing device in accordance with a first question ('item') that is presented to the candidate computing device (Paragraphs 0047, 0050 teach the system can determine (score) if an answer to a question such as a first question was correct or incorrect), the first question being sourced from an item bank that includes a plurality of unique test items (Abstract; Paragraphs 0051, 0068-0069 teach the content including questions are stored and retrieved from a content database (item bank) and/or a pool of questions);
in accordance with the scoring, selecting, from the plurality of unique test items of the item bank, one of a more and a less difficult at least a second item (Paragraphs 0047, 0050-0051 teaches the system can select a next question based on the previous answer such that an incorrect answer results in a less difficult question and a correct answer results in a more difficult question);
scoring an at least a second performance submission received from the candidate computing device in accordance with the one of the more and the less difficult at least a second item (Paragraphs 0047, 0050 teach the system can determine (score) if an answer to a question such as a second question was correct or incorrect including the more or less difficult question);
generating a candidate performance profile based at least on the first and the at least a second performance submissions received (Paragraphs 0047-0048 teach the assessment can be ended when a student has met a threshold (such as answering the first and second question correctly or a certain number of questions such as 2) and updating the students mastery profile); and
assigning one of a conclusive pass status based on the candidate performance profile as generated (Paragraph 0052 teaches the system can determine a student has concept mastery (conclusive pass) based on answering a question at a particular difficulty level and/or reaching an expected ability level based on questions answered).
Ferreira may not explicitly teach assigning one of a conclusive fail status. However, Capone teaches a system and method for generating adaptive assessments to assess student performance including determining if a student has mastered or non-mastered (conclusive fail) the construct/topic/concept (Paragraphs 0054-0060, 0066, 0073, 0093-0095).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferreira to incorporate the teachings of Capone by incorporating the step of determining if a student has mastered or non-mastered a concept or test of Capone for the assessment evaluation of Ferreira, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to computer based adaptive testing using variable difficulty questions based on user performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Ferreira by coding the system to determine a student has non-mastered (conclusive failed) a concept or topic based on continued incorrect answers. Upon such modification, the method and system of Ferreira would include assigning one of a conclusive fail status. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Capone with Ferreira’s system and method in order to improve evaluation efficiency and determine if a user has not mastered a concept or skill.
With regard to claims 2 and 12, Ferreira may not explicitly teach wherein the test comprises a target subset of the plurality of unique test items for presenting to the candidate computing device, and the conclusive pass status is assigned prior to scoring the target subset upon receiving the at least a second performance submission in accordance with the more difficult at least a second item. However, Capone further teaches the generated test can include sub-tests (target subset) of test items presented to the student/user and the system can terminate a test early based on user performance such as a user mastery (conclusive pass) being determined and thereby ending the test before evaluating the full set of questions (Paragraphs 0037-0046, 0054-0060, 0094-0095).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferreira to incorporate the teachings of Capone by incorporating the teaching of the assessment including sub-tests/groups of questions and the step of terminating a test or assessment early of Capone for the assessment evaluation of Ferreira, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to computer based adaptive testing using variable difficulty questions based on user performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Ferreira by coding the system to include sub-tests/sets of test items as part of the assessment and using the mastery determination of Ferreira wherein answering a question at a particular difficulty level determine the student has achieved concept mastery (Ferreira Paragraph 0052) to determine student mastery and terminate an assessment early therefore not requiring completion or scoring off the subsequent sub-test items. Upon such modification, the method and system of Ferreira would include wherein the test comprises a target subset of the plurality of unique test items for presenting to the candidate computing device, and the conclusive pass status is assigned prior to scoring the target subset upon receiving the at least a second performance submission in accordance with the more difficult at least a second item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Capone with Ferreira’s system and method in order to improve evaluation efficiency and better measure user mastery/performance.
With regard to claims 3 and 13, Ferreira may not explicitly teach wherein the conclusive fail status is assigned prior to scoring the target subset upon receiving the at least a second performance submission in accordance with the less difficult at least a second item. However, as discussed above, Capone teaches the system can terminate a test early based on user performance such as a user non-mastery (conclusive fail) being determined and thereby ending the test before evaluating the full set of questions (Paragraphs 0054-0060, 0094-0095).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferreira to incorporate the teachings of Capone by incorporating the teaching of the assessment including sub-tests/groups of questions and the step of terminating a test or assessment early of Capone for the assessment evaluation of Ferreira, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to computer based adaptive testing using variable difficulty questions based on user performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Ferreira by coding the system to include sub-tests/sets of test items as part of the assessment and presenting questions of easier difficulty as a user provides incorrect answers representing a pattern of non-mastery such that a question of a particularly low difficulty can be used to determine student non-mastery and terminate an assessment early therefore not requiring completion or scoring off the subsequent sub-test and sub-test items. Upon such modification, the method and system of Ferreira would include wherein the conclusive fail status is assigned prior to scoring the target subset upon receiving the at least a second performance submission in accordance with the less difficult at least a second item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Capone with Ferreira’s system and method in order to improve evaluation efficiency and better measure user mastery/performance.
With regard to claims 4 and 14, Ferreira further teaches wherein ones of the plurality of unique test items of the item bank are distributed among a set of predefined test topics (Paragraphs 0036, 0051, 0059, 0063, 0069 teach the content including questions can be tagged including concept/topic tags and difficulty tags and the questions can be selected based on the tags such that there are questions distributed among different topics/concepts), each predefined test topic of the set including a subset of the plurality that share a classification in accordance with respective ones of multiple levels of difficulty (Paragraphs 0036, 0051, 0059, 0063, 0069 teach the content including questions can be tagged including concept/topic tags and difficulty tags and the questions can be selected based on the tags such that questions can be of a same or similar topic and selected based on their classification and difficulties such that questions can have a same topic but various difficulty levels).
With regard to claims 5 and 15, Ferreira further teaches wherein the classification in accordance with the multiple levels of difficulty is based at least in part upon a cumulative history of performance by a population of prior test candidates (Paragraph 0051 teaches the difficulty of a question can be determined based on user statistics (cumulative history of performance) such as performance of other students (population of prior candidates) on the question).
With regard to claims 8 and 18, Ferreira, as modified, further teaches wherein the conclusive pass status and the conclusive fail status (see prior art rejections of claims 1-3/11-13 above) are respectively assigned responsive to at least one of a predetermined number of the first and at least a second items and a predetermined percentage of the first and at least a second items being answered correctly and incorrectly in accordance with the scoring (Paragraphs 0047, 0051, 0052, 0060 teach that the mastery of a concept is determined based on a threshold which can be a number of questions answered and/or a percentage of questions answered correctly including the “first” question and subsequent selected questions (second items); Examiner notes that the determination of the conclusive fail status based on incorrect answers is based on the teachings of Capone per the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 3 above wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the threshold for non-mastery of Capone to be based on a number or percentage of incorrect answers using the teachings of Ferreira).
With regard to claims 9 and 19, Ferreira further teaches wherein the candidate performance profile comprises a set of performance results selected from prior examination performance results in accordance with examination undertakings by a test candidate associated with the candidate computing device (Paragraphs 0052-0053, 0059 teach the student performance on assessments can be stored in the database and the student profile can include the student’s past performance on assessments as a factor for determining student mastery).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of Capone as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Regan (US PGPub 20160180248).
With regard to claims 6 and 16, Ferreira in view of Capone may not explicitly teach wherein the more difficult at least a second item comprises a performance success probability of 40% or less, and the less difficult at least a second item comprises a performance success probability of 60% or more, the more difficult and the less difficult classifications of items being distributed at one of above and below a target success probability that is predefined in accordance with a 50% success probability. However, Regan teaches a system and method including providing computer adaptive testing using variable difficulty questions wherein questions have a difficulty rating based on the chance of a user getting a correct answer (success probability) wherein more difficult questions have a probability less that 50%, and more specifically those of a proficiency of -1 have a 50% chance of answering a question that a standard (proficiency of 0) user has approximately a 40% or less chance of answering correctly, and less difficult questions have a probability higher than 60%, and more specifically those of a proficiency of 1 have a 50% chance of answering a question that a standard (proficiency of 0) user has approximately a 60% or less chance of answering correctly (Figures 18-19; Paragraphs 0095, 0192-0196).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferreira in view of Capone to incorporate the teachings of Regan by incorporating the teaching of the question items having variable difficulty ratings based on a chance of a student answering correctly (probability of success) centered around a 50% probability of Regan for the questions of Ferreira, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to computer based adaptive testing using variable difficulty questions based on user performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Ferreira in view of Capone by coding the system to use the difficulty determination of Ferreira to determine the difficulty of the questions based on the chance of a user answering the question correctly wherein more difficult questions would be those with a probability less than 50% and less difficult questions would be those with a probability more than 50% and tagging the questions accordingly. Upon such modification, the method and system of Ferreira in view of Capone would include wherein the more difficult at least a second item comprises a performance success probability of 40% or less, and the less difficult at least a second item comprises a performance success probability of 60% or more, the more difficult and the less difficult classifications of items being distributed at one of above and below a target success probability that is predefined in accordance with a 50% success probability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Regan with Ferreira in view of Capone’s system and method in order to further classify the question content and improve question difficulty.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of Capone as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US PGPub 20150072332).
With regard to claims 7 and 17, Ferreira may not explicitly teach wherein the test comprises a linear on the fly test (LOFT), and the test is concluded responsive to assigning the one of the conclusive fail and the conclusive pass status. However, as discussed above, Capone further teaches the generated test can include sub-tests (target subset) of test items presented to the student/user and the system can terminate a test early based on user performance such as a user mastery (conclusive pass) or non-mastery (conclusive fail) being determined and thereby ending the test before evaluating the full set of questions (Paragraphs 0037-0046, 0054-0060, 0094-0095).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferreira to incorporate the teachings of Capone by incorporating the teaching of the assessment including sub-tests/groups of questions and the step of terminating a test or assessment early of Capone for the assessment evaluation of Ferreira, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to computer based adaptive testing using variable difficulty questions based on user performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Ferreira by coding the system to include sub-tests/sets of test items as part of the assessment and using the mastery determination of Ferreira wherein answering a question at a particular difficulty level determine the student has achieved concept mastery (Ferreira Paragraph 0052) to determine student mastery and/or a pattern of incorrect answers resulting in a determination of non-mastery and terminate an assessment early therefore not requiring completion or scoring off the subsequent sub-test items. Upon such modification, the method and system of Ferreira would include the test is concluded responsive to assigning the one of the conclusive fail and the conclusive pass status. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Capone with Ferreira’s system and method in order to improve evaluation efficiency and better measure user mastery/performance.
Ferreira in view of Capone may not explicitly teach wherein the test comprises a linear on the fly test (LOFT). However, Lin teaches a testing system and method for providing computer adaptive testing wherein the test/assessment can be a linear on the fly test (Paragraphs 0199, 0201, 0204, 0207, 0251, 0299-0304).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferreira in view of Capone to incorporate the teachings of Lin by substituting the linear on the fly test of Lin for the adaptive assessment of Ferreira, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to computer based adaptive testing using item-response theory. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Ferreira in view of Capone by coding the system to continue generating the assessment “on the fly” by selecting questions as a user progress thereby presenting a linear on-the-fly test. Upon such modification, the method and system of Ferreira in view of Capone would include wherein the test comprises a linear on the fly test (LOFT). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Lin with Ferreira in view of Capone’s system and method as LOFT are a known type of adaptive testing to one of ordinary skill in the art and would improve Ferreira in the same way by reducing test fraud and improving efficiency (Lin Paragraphs 0251; Table 0004 (Paragraph 0336)).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of Capone as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang (US PGPub 20210343175).
With regard to claim 10, while Ferreira teaches the student’s past performance on assessments can be used to tailor the student’s initial syllabus or strategy (Paragraphs 0052-0053), Ferreira in view of Capone may not explicitly teach wherein the first item is selected in accordance with a first level of difficulty, the first level of difficulty being selected based at least in part upon prior examination performance results of the test candidate. However, Wang teaches a system and method for adaptive assessment using item response theory wherein the system determines a user’s skill level/ability level based on a user’s past performance on tests and assessments and using the user’s skill level/ability level to set an initial item difficulty distribution and selecting a first time based on the item difficulty distribution (Abstract; Paragraphs 0147-0150).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferreira in view of Capone to incorporate the teachings of Wang by incorporating the step of determining a user skill level based on previous performance and using the skill level to determine a first question difficulty of Wang for the adaptive assessment of Ferreira, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to computer based adaptive testing using item-response theory. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Ferreira in view of Capone by coding the system to use the previous performance and assessment results of the user/student to determine the user’s skill level and determining an initial (first) level of difficulty for the questions and presenting a first question based on the initial difficulty level based on the user’s skill level based on the user’s prior performance. Upon such modification, the method and system of Ferreira in view of Capone would include wherein the first item is selected in accordance with a first level of difficulty, the first level of difficulty being selected based at least in part upon prior examination performance results of the test candidate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Wang with Ferreira in view of Capone’s system and method in order to further tailor the content and questions to the student’s abilities and to provide questions appropriate for the user’s skill and ability levels.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm 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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights