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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 7-8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the question processor includes a level obtainer” recited in claim 2, ln. 8-9 should likely read “the question processor includes: the level obtainer”;
“the question processor includes a combiner” recited in claim 4, ln. 2-3 should likely read “the question processor includes: a combiner”;
“during a lecture” recited in claim 4, ln. 5 should likely read “during [[a]]the lecture”;
“after the combiner combining the two” recited in claim 4, ln. 7 should likely read “after the combiner combines the two”;
“the question processor includes a correspondence obtainer” recited in claim 7, ln. 3-4 should likely read “the question processor includes: a correspondence obtainer”;
“page identifier or the page” recited in claim 7, ln. 8 should likely read “page identifier of the page”;
“the question processor further includes a question identifier receiver” recited in claim 8, ln. 2-3 should likely read “the question processor further includes: a question identifier receiver”; and
“storing program” recited in claim 10, ln. 1 should likely read “storing a program”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
level obtainer recited in claim 2;
question recommender recited in claim 3;
question manager recited in claim 3;
combiner recited in claim 4;
sorter recited in claims 6 and 11; and
correspondence obtainer recited in claim 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-6 and 11 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 3 recites in part “a question manager managing two or more levels in a manner each associated with at least one question”. It is indefinite as to what managing two or more levels “in a manner each associated with at least one question” is intended to comprise, and the Specification does not offer further guidance. That is, it is unclear what the term “each” refers to, and consequently, the relationship between the levels and the questions is not clear.
A suggested amendment is as follows: “a question manager managing two or more levels, each level being associated with at least one question”.
Claim 4 recites in part “the question processor includes a combiner […] and a combined-question transmitter configured to transmit at least one question remaining after the combiner combining the two or more questions.” It is indefinite as to where the at least one question remaining after the combiner combining the two or more questions is transmitted to. That is, claim 1 recites that the question processor receives the questions from the question receiver and performs information processing on the questions, where the processing result is then transmitted. Thus, it is indefinite as to where the combined-question transmitter of the question processor transmits the at least one question to, as it is the question processor that performs the information processing before the processing result is thereafter transmitted.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected for similar reasoning (see claim 6, ln. 5-6 & claim 11, ln. 5-6).
Claims 5-6 and 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 4.
Claim 6 recites “The question processing device according to claim 4, wherein the question processor further includes a sorter configured to sort, in descending order, questions resulting from the combining performed by the combiner using a number of original questions as a key, and the combined-question transmitter transmits two or more questions resulting from the combining and sorted by the sorter.” First, claim 4, from which claim 6 depends, recites in relevant part “a combiner configured to combine two or more questions satisfying a similarity condition into a single question among two or more questions received by the question receiver during a lecture”. Accordingly, it is indefinite as to how the sorter is configured to sort multiple questions resulting from the combining performed by the combiner in claim 4 and the combined-question transmitter transmits two or more questions resulting from the combining and sorting, wherein claim 4 recites that the output from the combiner is a single question.
Second, it is indefinite as to what “using a number of original questions as a key” is intended to mean.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasonings.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 1 recites in part “A question processing device” which falls within the “machine” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Claim 1 recites: A question processing device, comprising:
a question receiver configured to receive, during a lecture provided by an instructor to two or more students, a question about the lecture from each of two or more student terminals (human activity: interactions between individuals; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering));
a question processor configured to perform information processing on two or more questions received by the question receiver and obtain a processing result (mental process: evaluation); and
a result transmitter configured to transmit the processing result obtained by the question processor to an instructor terminal or the two or more student terminals (human activity: interactions between individuals; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data transmission)).
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity, as shown above, but for the recitation of generic computing components. That is, a human instructor could receive questions from multiple students, mentally review or compare the questions to determine a result (e.g., two of the same question were asked, or review and determine answers to the questions), and transmit the result. Accordingly, the claim recites abstract ideas.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. That is, while the claim recites a question processing device comprising a question receiver to receive a question from each of two or more student terminals, a question processor to perform information processing and obtain a processing result, and a result transmitter for transmitting the result to an instructor terminal or the two or more student terminals, the device, question receiver, question processor, result transmitter, and student and instructor terminals are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on generic computers and/or generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment (i.e., computing environment). Additionally, and/or alternatively, the limitations of receiving questions and transmitting a result are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering and data transmission, respectively), where the generic computing components are configured to perform their generic functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
There is no indication that the additional elements recite an improvement to a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), recite a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), recite a transformation or reduction of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or recite any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract ideas.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a particular technological environment, the additional elements recite generic computers/generic computer components perform their conventional functionality, general linking of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving and transmitting data). Further, the Specification demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, and which refers to the additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see Specification, [0038], “The question processing device 1 is, for example, a cloud server or an application service provider (ASP) server of any type.”; [0041], “The student terminals 2 and the instructor terminal 3 are terminals of any type, such as smartphones, tablets, and personal computers.”; [0108], “The receiver 12, the question receiver 121, the reaction receiver 122, the transmitter 14, the material transmitter 141, the result transmitter 142, the student transmitter 24, the student receiver 25, the instructor transmitter 34, the instructor receiver 35, the combined-question transmitter 1328, the question identifier receiver 1329, and the page transmitter 1330 are typically implemented by wireless or wired communicators.”; [0109], “The processor 13, the material obtainer 131, the question processor 132, the question storage 1322, the level obtainer 1323, the level storage 1324, the combiner 1326, the sorter 1327, the correspondence obtainer 1321, the question storage 1322, the student processor 23, and the instructor processor 33 may be typically implemented by, for example, processors and memories. […] The processors include, but are not limited to, a central processing unit (CPU), a micro processing unit (MPU) and a graphics processing unit (GPU).”). Thus, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 10 are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 analyzed above.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore also recite the abstract ideas noted above. While dependent claims 2-8 and 11 may have a narrower scope than independent claim 1, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Therefore, claims 2-8 and 11 are also not patent eligible.
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.
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 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashima (JP2008268406A).
Regarding claim 1, Yashima discloses a question processing device (Figs. 1-2, teaching material distribution system comprising in part an information processing apparatus 200 (e.g., a workstation or server)), comprising:
a question receiver configured to receive, during a lecture provided by an instructor to two or more students, a question about the lecture from each of two or more student terminals (Figs. 1 & 12-13; [0031]; [0033]; [0047-0048]; [0062-0066]; [0071-0072], where a student(s) receives learning material (lecture) provided by an instructor and the teaching material distribution system receives a question transmitted from a student terminal);
a question processor configured to perform information processing on two or more questions received by the question receiver and obtain a processing result ([0067], where the information processing device of the teaching material distribution system adds one reference number of the question stored in a question management database and acquires an answer from the question management database based on the question; or [0072], where the received question is registered in a question management database by the information processing device such that a unique question ID is assigned to the question, and the student ID, the learning material ID, and the page ID are registered in association with each other); and
a result transmitter configured to transmit the processing result obtained by the question processor to an instructor terminal or the two or more student terminals ([0067-0068], where the acquired answer is transmitted to the student terminal; or [0073], where the new question is transmitted from the teaching material distribution system to the instructor terminal 103).
While Yashima may not explicitly disclose wherein a question is received from two or more student terminals and a result may be transmitted to the two or more student terminals, Yashima discloses where multiple student terminals are communicatively coupled to the teaching material distribution system (Fig. 1; [0021], student terminals 101-1 to 101-n). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system to receive a question from each of two or more student terminals and transmit a result to the two or more student terminals, as the system is configured to allow for such data transmission, in order to achieve the claimed invention and provide for communication between an instructor and multiple students (i.e., a class).
Regarding claim 7, Yashima further discloses wherein the lecture is provided by the instructor with material having two or more pages ([0031]; [0033]; [0039], where the learning material (lecture) is provided by an instructor and comprises pages in which the contents of the learning material are posted), and
the question processor includes a correspondence obtainer configured to detect correspondence between the question received by the question receiver and a page of the material and obtain a page identifier identifying the page ([0042]; [0063]; [0072], wherein the question processor (teaching material distribution system comprising the information processing device) assigns a question ID, which is identifiable identification information uniquely assigned to each question, teaching material ID, which is identifiable identification information uniquely assigned to each teaching material, and page ID, which is the page number for determining on which page the question is described, registered in association with each other), and a question storage configured to store the question in a manner associated with the page identifier or the page ([0042]; [0063]; [0072], where the unique question ID assigned to the question, learning material ID, and page ID, registered in association with each other, are stored in the question management database 205 of the teaching material distribution system).
Regarding claim 8, Yashima further discloses wherein the question processor further includes a question identifier receiver configured to receive a question identifier identifying a question from the instructor terminal (Figs. 17-18; [0093-0095]; [0099], a list of questions including information such as question ID and question content is displayed on the instructor terminal).
Yashima may not further explicitly disclose the question processor further including a page transmitter configured to transmit a page identifier or a page paired with the question identifier to the instructor terminal. However, Yashima discloses where each question ID is registered in association with a page ID ([0042]; [0072]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further transmit a page identifier or a page paired with the question identifier, previously registered with the question ID, to the instructor terminal along with the question identifier (ID) in order to transmit additional question information to the instructor and/or to prevent decoupling the previously registered/associated information (Yashima, [0099], noting that the instructor terminal receives information in addition to the question ID, including a teaching material name and question content).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is a method of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for same reasoning.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for same reasoning.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashima in view of Epshteyn et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0127340 A1) (hereinafter “Epshteyn”).
Regarding claim 2, Yashima further discloses wherein the question receiver receives a question associated with a student identifier ([0030]; [0036]; [0042]; [0071-0072]). Yashima does not further disclose the question processing device further comprising a reaction receiver configured to receive reaction information indicating an evaluation on each question of the two or more questions, the reaction receiver being configured to receive the reaction information from a student terminal held by at least one student other than a student who has transmitted each question, and the question processor including a level obtainer configured to obtain, using the reaction information received by the reaction receiver, a level of the question corresponding to the reaction information, and a level storage configured to store the level obtained by the level obtained in a manner associated with the student identifier. Nevertheless, Epshteyn, directed to presentation of lectures and facilitating discussion ([0003]), teaches these limitations ([0880], where student(s) (i.e., a second student) may score, rate or vote on a question presented by a first student, and questions are then assigned a level based on the reaction information (i.e., most votes/ highest rating, etc.) and presented to the professor accordingly (i.e., questions with votes, ratings, etc. that meet certain criteria)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive reaction information from at least one student other than a student who has transmitted each question and obtain a level of the question corresponding to the reaction information, as taught by Epshteyn, where the obtained level (question information) is stored in association with the student identifier in Yashima before transmission to an instructor/professor, as additional question identifying information and/or as additional criteria for transmitting a question to an instructor (Epshteyn, [0879-0880], where, due to a large class, inquisitive students, or for any other reason, a large number of questions may flow in to the processor, who may not have sufficient time or willingness to answer them all, or for other reasons, the number of questions that reach the professor may need to be filtered; Yashima, [0030]; [0036]; [0042]; [0071-0073], where question information and associated student information is stored in a question management database before transmission to the instructor).
Regarding claim 3, Yashima further discloses – as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – wherein the question processor further includes a question recommender configured to obtain, from a question manager managing two or more levels in a manner each associated with at least one question, a question associated with a level of a student identified by the student identifier and transmit the obtained question to a student terminal identified by the student identifier ([0056-0063], where, based on the student ID (determined through student login information), a list of teaching materials that can be attended by the student based on their student ID is received from a learning material database (question manager) and transmitted to the student terminal from the teaching material distribution system (question processor including a question recommender), where the listed/recommended teaching materials include question(s)).
Claims 4-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashima in view of Vo et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0215310 A1) (hereinafter “Vo”).
Regarding claim 4, Yashima does not further disclose – as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – wherein the question processor includes a combiner configured to combine two or more questions satisfying a similarity condition into a single question among two or more questions received by the question receiver during a lecture, and a combined-question transmitter configured to transmit at least one question remaining after the combiner combining the two or more questions. However, Vo, directed in part to identifying questions ([0003]), teaches these limitations, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above ([0060-0061], where a similarity score between a first question and a second question is determined and if the similarity score exceeds a threshold value (similarity condition), the first and second questions are determined to correspond to the same question and are aggregated before being transmitted to the project administrator). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine questions satisfying a similarity score before transmission, as taught by Vo, in the invention of Yashima such that the instructor does not have to provide multiple, repeated answers, for example (Yashima, [0073]; [0100], where newly raised questions are transmitted to the instructor terminal for the instructor to input an answer).
Regarding claim 5, Yashima does not further disclose, however, Vo teaches – as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – the combiner combining, at a predetermined time, the two or more questions satisfying the similarity condition into the single question among the two or more questions ([0060-0061], where the questions are combined at a predetermined time (i.e., before ranking)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, at a predetermined time in the lecture of Yashima two or more questions received by the question receiver during the lecture, the two or more questions satisfying the similarity condition into the single question, as taught by Vo, in order to prevent the instructor from having to input multiple, repeated answers, for example, and to achieve the claimed invention (Yashima, [0073]; [0100], where newly raised questions are transmitted to the instructor terminal for the instructor to input an answer).
Regarding claim 6, Yashima does not further disclose, however, Vo teaches – as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – the question processor including a sorter configured to sort, in descending order, questions resulting from the combining performed by the combiner using a number of original questions as a key, and the combined-question transmitter transmitting two or more questions resulting from the combining and sorted by the sorter ([0061], where the questions are sorted in descending order and presented to the project administrator). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sort the resulting questions from the combining in descending order and transmit the questions resulting from the combining and sorted, as taught by Vo, in the invention of Yashima to present the instructor with the highest ranked question first (Vo, [0061], where the ranking/score is determined at least in part based on a number of users that provided the question; Yashima, [0073]; [0100], where newly raised questions are transmitted to the instructor terminal for the instructor to input an answer).
Regarding claim 11, Yashima does not further disclose, however, Vo teaches – as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – the question processor including a sorter configured to sort, in descending order, questions resulting from the combining performed by the combiner using a number of original questions as a key, and the combined-question transmitter transmitting two or more questions resulting from the combining and sorted by the sorter ([0061], where the questions are sorted in descending order and presented to the project administrator). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sort the resulting questions from the combining in descending order and transmit the questions resulting from the combining and sorted, as taught by Vo, in the invention of Yashima to present the instructor with the highest ranked question first (Vo, [0061], where the ranking/score is determined at least in part based on a number of users that provided the question; Yashima, [0073]; [0100], where newly raised questions are transmitted to the instructor terminal for the instructor to input an answer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 10,223,930 B2 – This reference teaches where a student can input a question during a lecture, and the name of the questioning student is displayed.
U.S. 5,295,836 A – This reference teaches where, when a student raises a question during a lecture, it is determined whether the raised question is already registered in storage and if so, the answer is retrieved and transmitted to the terminal station of the student; however, if the raised question is not registered in the storage, a lecturer is contacted so that the answer can be transferred promptly to the terminal station of the student.
WO2023286937A1 – This reference teaches where students can freely ask questions during a lecture, wherein a server, which stores information on test questions, correct answers to questions, and statistical information about students, receives and transmits data to and from the student terminal.
JP2024132306A – This reference teaches receiving a question from a student terminal device, sharing the question with a lecturer terminal device and other students, and outputting answers acquired from the lecturer terminal device and the other student terminal devices to the student terminal device that is the source of the question.
JP2009217151A – This reference teaches a system comprising a network lecture system, lecturer terminal, and a plurality of course participant terminals, where the course participant terminals reproduce a lecture and transmit a question to the lecturer terminal during progress of a lecture, and, once the question is received, the lecturer terminal obtains an answer in accordance with the content of the question.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights