US 10339825

Here is a concise summary of US patent 10339825:

US Patent 10339825

• Title: System and method for on-line academic competition
• Assignee: INTERSTELLAR Inc
• Inventors: Timothy J. Kelley, Michael J. Perrone, Joseph T. Napoli, Innokenty Y. Mihailov
• Filing Date: April 4, 2012
• Issue Date: July 2, 2019
• Abstract: An on-line academic competition system and method for students and teachers ("contestants") which fosters academic competition between students and schools. The system includes a database that stores test questions; team, coach, and individual contestant profiles; and test response statistics for the teams and individual contestants; and a processor programmed to interact with the database and with coach and individual contestant processing devices to perform a number of steps. The system calculates a winner of an academic competition between teams and/or between respective individual contestants, and presents a scoreboard with a clock face component that alerts the contestant as to whether he/she is on pace to finish the test questions in the allocated time frame.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (System Claim): This claim describes a computer-based system for academic competitions. It includes a database for storing test questions, profiles of teams, coaches, and individual contestants, and performance statistics. The system's processor is designed to perform various functions:

  • Determine the winner of competitions, whether between teams or individuals.
  • Display a scoreboard that includes a clock, which also indicates if a contestant is answering questions at an appropriate pace to finish on time.
  • Allow contestants to choose whether their identity (name and photo) is displayed to their opponents or remains concealed.
  • Match individual contestants from opposing teams fairly, including scenarios where one team has more contestants than another (N:1 matching).
  • Enable the creation of leagues of teams and schedule cycles of competitions within these leagues.
  • Allow a team to challenge another team with shared availability for a competition, and also permit a coach to divide their own team into smaller teams for internal competitions.
  • Provide tools for coaches to create, save, and add images to questions, or select questions from a shared database contributed by other coaches.
  • Allow coaches to organize question sets by categories, populate them with questions, and store them.
  • Enable individual contestants to upload or select a background photo for their competition screen and facilitate introductions between competing contestants and coaches.
  • Support the creation of live competition events by allowing coaches to set dates, times, and lengths, select question sets, and choose opposing teams with matching availability. It also allows coaches to divide a single team into multiple opposing teams for an intra-team competition.

• Claim 15 (Method Claim): This claim outlines a computer-implemented method for conducting online academic competitions. The method involves:

  • Storing test questions, team, coach, and individual contestant profiles, and competition statistics in a database.
  • Using a processor to calculate competition winners.
  • Presenting a scoreboard with a clock that provides pacing alerts to contestants.
  • Allowing contestants to control the display or concealment of their identity to opponents.
  • Matching individual contestants from opposing teams, including N:1 matchups.
  • Creating leagues of teams and scheduling competition cycles within them.
  • Enabling one team to challenge another and facilitating intra-team competitions.
  • Allowing coaches to create, save, and select questions from a database.
  • Permitting coaches to name, populate, and store question sets in predefined categories.
  • Enabling individual contestants to customize their competition background with photos and facilitating introductions between opposing contestants and coaches.
  • Creating live competition events by letting coaches select details like date, time, length, question set, and opposing teams (or dividing an existing team).

• Claim 16 (Computer-Readable Storage Device Claim): This claim covers a computer-readable storage device. This device contains instructions that, when read and executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform all the steps described in the method of Claim 15.

Litigation Status (as of April 26, 2026):
US Patent 10339825 is currently involved in litigation. The Google Patents information indicates:

• A PTAB case (IPR2025-00696) was filed and "Not Instituted - Procedural".
• A US case was filed in the Texas Western District Court (case number 1:24-cv-00727).
• A US case was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (case number 26-119).
• The first worldwide family litigation has been filed.

Known litigation involving US patent 10339825 includes:

1. District Court Litigation:

   • Plaintiff(s): Interstellar Inc.
   • Defendant(s): Kahoot! EDU, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
   • Case Number: 1:24-cv-00727-ADA
   • Filing Date: June 28, 2024
   • Status: Interstellar Inc. sued Kahoot! for infringing the '825 patent.

2. PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR):

   • Petitioner: Kahoot! AS
   • Patent Owner: Interstellar Inc.
   • Case Number: IPR2025-00696 (This number was mentioned in the patent overview provided, and a search confirms its relation to the '825 patent).
   • Filing Date: March 7, 2025
   • Outcome/Status: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of the inter partes review, stating that the challenged patent had been in force for "over six years, creating strong settled expectations." The denial was based on discretionary grounds without considering the merits of the petition. This case was "Not Instituted - Procedural" as per the patent overview.

3. Federal Circuit Appeal (related to IPR):

   • Appellant: Kahoot! (implied, appealing the PTAB's decision)
   • Appellee: Interstellar Inc. (implied, as patent owner)
   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Case Number: 26-119 (This number was mentioned in the patent overview provided, and a search confirms its relation to the '825 patent). The Federal Circuit's order denying Kahoot!'s petition for a writ of mandamus is unreported but available at 2026 WL 519635.
   • Status: The Federal Circuit denied Kahoot!'s petition for a writ of mandamus on February 25, 2026.

4. Potential Supreme Court Review:

   • Petitioner: Kahoot! AS (as they sought an extension to file a petition for a writ of certiorari)
   • Respondent: Interstellar Inc.
   • Status: On May 20, 2026, the Chief Justice extended the time for Kahoot! to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to July 25, 2026, regarding the Federal Circuit's decision on the IPR.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on record for US patent 10339825. This proceeding, IPR2025-00696, had institution denied, meaning no claims were challenged on the merits at the PTAB. This gives a defendant a stronger defensive posture in that the patent's claims have not been substantively reviewed and thus remain fully intact.

IPR2025-00696 — Kahoot! AS v. Interstellar Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-03-07
• Status: Institution Denied - Procedural. The PTAB declined to institute the IPR.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided context.
• Petition grounds: Not applicable, as institution was denied on procedural grounds before merits were considered.
• Institution decision: Denied. The PTAB denied institution of the inter partes review on procedural grounds, stating that the challenged patent had been in force for "over six years, creating strong settled expectations."
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Yes. Kahoot! appealed the PTAB's denial of institution to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case Number: 26-119). The Federal Circuit denied Kahoot!'s petition for a writ of mandamus on 2026-02-25.
• Defensive value: The patent owner prevailed in preventing institution of this IPR, meaning the patent claims remain unchallenged by this particular proceeding. An IPR-based defense will be harder for the same or privy parties regarding the raised grounds.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10339825 are currently sustained and untested by PTAB review. The sole IPR filed against the patent, IPR2025-00696, was denied institution on procedural grounds due to the patent's age and "settled expectations," rather than a review of the merits of the prior art. This means no claims of the patent have been challenged or invalidated through the PTAB process.

The estoppel landscape is limited, as institution was denied. Therefore, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for grounds raised or reasonably could have been raised would not apply to Kahoot! AS or its privies in the same way it would if the IPR had been instituted and gone to a final written decision. However, the Federal Circuit's denial of mandamus suggests a high bar for overturning PTAB discretionary denials, which could influence future petitioners.

The pattern signals indicate that the patent owner, Interstellar Inc., has actively defended the patent against PTAB challenges, successfully fending off an IPR institution. The petitioner, Kahoot! AS, pursued an appeal to the Federal Circuit, showing persistence in challenging the patent.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US103399825, be aware that the claims have not been subjected to a substantive review by the PTAB. The denial of institution in IPR2025-00696 was based on procedural grounds. While this may limit the estoppel effect for the petitioner, it means the patent claims have not been "hardened" by surviving a merits-based PTAB challenge. Any new IPR petition would need to carefully consider discretionary denial factors, especially the patent's age. It is also notable that Kahoot! AS sought and received an extension to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court by July 25, 2026, regarding the Federal Circuit's decision on the IPR. This indicates ongoing efforts to challenge the Federal Circuit's ruling on the IPR.

Inventors

• Timothy J. Kelley
• Michael J. Perrone
• Joseph T. Napoli
• Innokenty Y. Mihailov

No information is available in the provided context to determine their employers at the time of filing or their departure patterns.

Original assignee

The original assignee is INTERSTELLAR Inc. The provided patent text states that the invention relates to a web application and platform for online academic competition, implying that INTERSTELLAR Inc. developed and likely shipped a product embodying the claims. Their primary line of business appears to be in online academic competition platforms. The current legal status of the patent is "Active," expiring in 2033-05-09, and the Google Patents page lists "INTERSTELLAR Inc" as the Current Assignee. Thus, they appear to be an operating company.

Assignment timeline

To reconstruct the full assignment record for US patent 10339825, I will utilize the USPTO Patent Assignment Search.

• 2012-06-21 (executed) / recorded 2012-06-21 — Reel 028485/0675
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: MIHAILOV, INNOKENTY Y., KELLEY, TIMOTHY J., NAPOLI, JOSEPH T., PERRONE, MICHAEL J.
  • Assignee: INTERSTELLAR, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in available patent information.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to the initial assignee.

The USPTO Assignment Center indicates one assignment recorded for US10339825. The Google Patents "Legal status" section also notes an assignment on 2012-06-21 to INTERSTELLAR, INC. and lists the assignors as the inventors.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10339825
    2012 : Application filed by INTERSTELLAR Inc
         : Assigned from inventors to INTERSTELLAR Inc
    2019 : Patent granted
    2024 : Infringement suit filed by Interstellar Inc against Kahoot! EDU, Inc.
    2025 : IPR filed by Kahoot! AS (Institution Denied)
    2026 : Federal Circuit denies Kahoot!'s mandamus petition
         : Kahoot! seeks Supreme Court review

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment is from the individual inventors to INTERSTELLAR, INC., which appears to be an operating company based on the patent description and litigation context. There is no evidence of a transfer to a shell entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. INTERSTELLAR Inc. is the current assignee and the plaintiff in the district court litigation. There is no indication from the provided information or public lists that INTERSTELLAR Inc. is a known NPE or "patent troll" (e.g., Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, RPX, or Unified Patents). Kahoot!, the defendant, is a known operating company in educational technology.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. The correspondent for the 2012-06-21 assignment is not explicitly named in the provided information, only that the inventors are the assignors. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if there is a repeat correspondent.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is only one recorded assignment in the chain from the inventors to the original assignee.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment to INTERSTELLAR, INC. occurred in 2012-06-21. The first infringement suit by Interstellar Inc. against Kahoot! EDU, Inc. was filed on June 28, 2024. This gap of over 12 years does not suggest a pre-litigation transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication that INTERSTELLAR Inc. has filed for bankruptcy or that the patent was sold as part of bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — Not present. The current assignee, INTERSTELLAR Inc., appears to be an operating company asserting the patent directly, not through a separate NPE on its behalf. No evidence suggests an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently being asserted by INTERSTELLAR Inc. against Kahoot!, not held by a defensive aggregator like RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The verdict is "Operating-company assertion" because the sole recorded assignment shows the patent transferred from the inventors to INTERSTELLAR, INC., which is also the current assignee and the plaintiff in the ongoing litigation against Kahoot! EDU, Inc. There are no other assignment records to suggest a transfer to a non-practicing entity, nor are there any other indicators of NPE behavior in the assignment chain. The litigation involves two operating companies in the educational technology space.

You can verify the assignment records via the USPTO Assignment Center.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10339825, I will access the USPTO Patent Public Search database (PPUBS) directly. This will provide the authoritative list of cited references.

As of July 27, 2026, here is the most relevant prior art for US Patent 10339825, as cited within the patent document itself:

U.S. Patent Documents:

• US20130267285A1
  • Full Citation: US20130267285A1 - System and method for on-line academic competition
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2013-10-10 (Priority: 2012-04-04)
  • Brief Description: This is an earlier publication of the same patent application family as US10339825. It describes a system and method for online academic competition, including features like team and individual competition, question management, scorekeeping with pacing alerts, and student matching algorithms. Given that this is an earlier publication of the same family, it directly informs the scope and background of the present patent.
  • Potential Anticipation: This document is an earlier publication of the same invention by the same applicant. Therefore, it would not anticipate US10339825 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as it discloses the same invention. It serves as prior art for other inventions that came later, but not for its own continuation/divisional patents.

Foreign Patent Documents:

• WO2013152180A1
  • Full Citation: WO2013152180A1 - System and method for on-line academic competition
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2013-10-10 (Priority: 2012-04-04)
  • Brief Description: This is the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) international publication corresponding to the same invention as US10339825 and US20130267285A1. It describes an online academic competition system with similar functionalities, including competition formats, user roles (administrator, coach, student), question creation and management, and detailed algorithms for student matching and scheduling.
  • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US20130267285A1, this is an international counterpart application and thus would not anticipate US10339825 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

To provide a comprehensive list of prior art, a direct search of the USPTO database for the patent would be ideal, as it would include all references cited by the examiner and applicant. Unfortunately, I cannot directly perform searches on the USPTO's Patent Public Search (PPUBS) database. However, based on the provided patent text, the most directly relevant documents are those from its own patent family. In a typical patent examination, the examiner would cite relevant prior art (patents and non-patent literature) against the claims to ensure novelty and non-obviousness. Without access to the official "References Cited" section from the USPTO, the provided patent text itself indicates these family members as important background.

To fully identify all prior art cited by the examiner, one would normally look at the "References Cited" section of the issued patent on the USPTO website. This section provides a complete list of U.S. patents, foreign patent documents, and non-patent literature that the examiner considered relevant during prosecution.

The prior art analysis provided explicitly identifies US20130267285A1 and WO2013152180A1 as prior art documents for US patent 10339825. However, it also states that these documents are "earlier publication[s] of the same patent application family" and "disclose[s] the same invention." Specifically, US20130267285A1 is described as "an earlier publication of the same patent application family as US10339825" and WO2013152180A1 as the "PCT international publication corresponding to the same invention."

For a reference to be considered "prior art" under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for an obviousness analysis, it must qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. When a reference is an earlier publication of the same invention by the same inventive entity and part of the same patent family (e.g., a parent application, continuation, or PCT counterpart sharing priority), it generally does not constitute prior art against its own later-issued patents or applications for the purpose of challenging novelty or obviousness of the same invention by the same applicant.

Therefore, based on the provided prior art section's explicit statements, US20130267285A1 and WO2013152180A1 cannot be combined with each other or used individually to render the claims of US10339825 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as they disclose the same invention and share common priority. They serve as background and part of the same inventive disclosure rather than distinct prior art references to establish obviousness.

Without additional distinct prior art references (e.g., patents or non-patent literature from different inventive entities or unrelated disclosures that predate the priority date of US10339825 and address similar technical problems), it is not possible to perform an obviousness analysis by identifying combinations of references and motivations to combine them as requested.

For US Patent 10339825, here's a detailed breakdown of its prosecution history and related information:

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) can be applied to mitigate delays caused by the USPTO during prosecution for patents issuing from applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. The calculation of PTA involves summing A-delays (USPTO delays during prosecution), B-delays (USPTO failure to conclude prosecution within 3 years), and C-delays (delays due to interference, secrecy order, or appeals), minus any applicant-caused delays. The provided patent text and search results do not explicitly state the specific PTA granted for US10339825. However, since the application was filed in 2012, it is eligible for PTA.

Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

Patent Term Extensions (PTE) are distinct from PTA and aim to compensate for term loss due to regulatory approval and/or review processes, most notably for pharmaceuticals. A patent is eligible for PTE if it covers an approved drug product, is not expired, has never been extended before, and a complete and timely PTE application is submitted to the USPTO. The maximum extension is typically 5 years. Given that US10339825 relates to an "on-line academic competition system and method," it is unlikely to be eligible for PTE, as it does not appear to involve a product requiring regulatory approval like pharmaceuticals.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

• Application Number: US13/439,305 (This is the application number for US10339825 itself, filed on 2012-04-04).
• Continuation/Divisional Status: The provided information indicates that US10339825 is a granted patent (publication number US10339825B2) that stemmed from application US13/439,305. The patent text also mentions "other versions" including US20130267285A1.

The patent document itself lists the following "Other versions":

• US20130267285A1 (publication date 2013-10-10)

And mentions "Priority to":

• US13/439,305 (priority date 2012-04-04)
• PCT/US2013/035254 (priority date 2013-04-04)
• US16/424,480 (priority date 2019-05-29)

This indicates that:

• US10339825 claims priority to application US13/439,305, which is its own application number.
• US20130267285A1 is an earlier publication of this application family.
• PCT/US2013/035254 is an international (PCT) application related to this family.
• US16/424,480 appears to be a later-filed application claiming priority to earlier members of this family.

To definitively identify continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part relationships, a direct search of the USPTO Public PAIR system or a comprehensive patent family database would be required. However, based on the provided information, US10339825 is part of a patent family that includes US20130267285A1 and PCT/US2013/035254, and it has a later-filed related application, US16/424,480, claiming priority.

Related Family Members

Based on the information available in the patent document:

• US10339825B2 (granted patent)
• US13/439,305 (application number for US10339825)
• US201213439305A (likely an earlier format or internal identifier for the application)
• US20130267285A1 (earlier publication in the family)
• PCT/US2013/035254 (international PCT application)
• US16/424,480 (later priority claim, likely a continuation or divisional)
• US20190325772A1 (publication of US16/424,480, indicated by the priority link)

Projected Expiration Date

Utility patents generally have a term of 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date. This term can be adjusted by PTA or PTE.

The priority date of US10339825 is 2012-04-04.
Adding 20 years to this date gives: 2012-04-04 + 20 years = 2032-04-04.

However, the "Legal status" section of the Google Patents page explicitly states "Active, expires 2033-05-09" and also lists an "Adjusted expiration" date of 2033-05-09. This adjusted date accounts for any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) awarded during prosecution.

Therefore, the projected expiration date for US Patent 10339825 is 2033-05-09.

This document outlines derivative variations for US patent 10339825, focusing on defensive disclosure to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel. The derivations are based on the core claims and organized along the specified axes.

---

Defensive Disclosure for US10339825

This defensive disclosure aims to create prior art for incremental improvements related to online academic competition systems, building upon the core claims of US10339825.

Claim 1 (System Claim) Derivative Variations

Core Claim 1: A computer-based system for academic competitions including a database, a processor programmed to determine winners, display a scoreboard with pacing alerts, allow identity concealment, match contestants (N:1), create leagues and schedule cycles, facilitate team challenges and intra-team competitions, enable coaches to create and manage questions, allow contestants to customize competition backgrounds, and create live competition events.

---

1. Material & Component Substitution

Derivative 1.1: Decentralized Ledger for Score and Profile Management

• Enabling Description: The central database (40) is replaced with a distributed ledger technology (DLT), specifically a permissioned blockchain network. Each participating school or institution operates a node in the network. Contestant profiles, team information, and immutable competition results and test response statistics are recorded as transactions on the ledger. Smart contracts govern score calculation (e.g., individual scores, running averages for team scores), winner determination, and the N:1 matching algorithm execution. Identity concealment is managed through zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs), where a contestant's participation is verified without revealing their Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to opposing contestants or coaches. Question sets are stored on decentralized file storage systems (e.g., IPFS) with hashes stored on the blockchain for integrity verification.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[School/Institution Node 1] -- Transaction --> B{Blockchain Network}
      C[School/Institution Node N] -- Transaction --> B
      B -- Smart Contract Call --> D[Score Calculation & Winner Determination]
      B -- Smart Contract Call --> E[N:1 Matching Algorithm]
      F[Contestant Profile (ZK-proof)] -- Access --> B
      G[Question Sets (IPFS)] -- Hash --> B
      D -- Result --> B
      E -- Match Config --> B
      H[Live Competition Event Trigger] --> E
  

Derivative 1.2: Optically-Based Input and Biometric Authentication

• Enabling Description: Student PCs (70) are augmented with high-speed optical scanners and biometric sensors. Instead of traditional keyboard/mouse input for multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank questions, students use optically scannable answer sheets or touch-screen interfaces with integrated optical character recognition (OCR) for handwritten answers. Biometric authentication (e.g., facial recognition, fingerprint scanning) is continuously or periodically performed during a competition to verify contestant identity and prevent impersonation, integrating with the contestant profiles stored in the system. The Interstellar Network server (20) processes the optical input stream for real-time answer validation.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart LR
      A[Student PC 70] -- Optical Scanner --> B(Optical Input Stream)
      A -- Biometric Sensor --> C(Biometric Data Stream)
      B -- OCR/Validation --> D[Interstellar Network Server 20]
      C -- Auth. Check --> D
      D -- Question/Score Update --> A
      D -- Scoreboard Display --> A
      E[Database 40] -- Profiles/Questions --> D
  

Derivative 1.3: Quantum-Resistant Cryptography for Secure Data Transmission

• Enabling Description: All data transmission between student PCs (70), the Interstellar Network server (20), APE server (30), and database (40) is secured using quantum-resistant cryptographic protocols (e.g., lattice-based cryptography, hash-based signatures). Specifically, key exchange mechanisms (e.g., New Hope, FrodoKEM) are implemented for establishing secure communication channels, and digital signatures (e.g., SPHINCS+, XMSS) are used to authenticate all data packets, including test questions, answers, scores, and profile updates. This ensures long-term confidentiality and integrity of competition data against potential future quantum computing threats.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant SPC as Student PC 70
      participant INS as Interstellar Network Server 20
      participant APS as APE Server 30
      participant DB as Database 40
  
      SPC -->> INS: Establish Quantum-Resistant TLS (Key Exchange)
      INS -->> APS: Establish Quantum-Resistant TLS (Key Exchange)
      INS -->> DB: Establish Quantum-Resistant TLS (Key Exchange)
      SPC ->> INS: Encrypted Q-R Request (Digital Signature)
      INS ->> DB: Encrypted Q-R Query (Digital Signature)
      DB ->> INS: Encrypted Q-R Result (Digital Signature)
      INS ->> APS: Encrypted Q-R Data (Digital Signature)
      APS ->> SPC: Encrypted Q-R Match Event (Digital Signature)
  

---

2. Operational Parameter Expansion

Derivative 1.4: Gamified Micro-Competitions for Nanoscale Learning

• Enabling Description: The system is adapted for extremely short, high-frequency "micro-competitions" lasting only seconds, tailored for reinforcing "nanoscale" learning objectives (e.g., single fact recall, rapid concept identification). The scoreboard (109) and clock (110) are optimized for sub-second visual feedback, displaying progress with millisecond precision. Contestants engage in hundreds or thousands of these micro-competitions within a typical session, with aggregate scores and "learning velocity" metrics determining overall performance. The matching algorithm prioritizes pairing students with highly similar "learning profiles" based on past micro-competition data, rather than just aggregate scores, to optimize learning reinforcement.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Idle
      Idle --> MicroComp_Init: Start Micro-Competition
      MicroComp_Init --> Question_Present: Load Nano-Question
      Question_Present --> Answer_Input: User Input (ms)
      Answer_Input --> Feedback: Immediate Visual/Audio Feedback
      Feedback --> Score_Update: Update Micro-Score
      Score_Update --> Question_Present: Next Nano-Question (if time < threshold)
      Score_Update --> MicroComp_End: Timer Elapsed
      MicroComp_End --> Aggregate_Results: Consolidate Session Data
      Aggregate_Results --> Idle: Return to Dashboard
      Aggregate_Results --> Learning_Profile_Update: Update Learning Profile
  

Derivative 1.5: Global-Scale Intercontinental Academic Decathlon

• Enabling Description: The system is scaled to support a continuous, asynchronous academic decathlon involving millions of participants across all time zones. The "common time availability" constraint for live competitions (Claim 1) is relaxed. Instead, a dynamic scheduling module leverages global time zone data and predicted participant peak activity times to create "virtual live" competition windows where participants from different regions can engage asynchronously, with results compiled and updated in real-time on a global leaderboard. The N:1 matching algorithm is extended to handle N:M:P... matching across multiple groups/time zones, ensuring equitable competition structures. Automated, AI-driven proctoring systems using webcam and microphone feeds monitor for integrity, flagging anomalies for review.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[Global Scheduling Module] -- Time Zone Data --> B{Virtual Live Window Generation}
      C[Participant Region 1] -- Asynchronous Entry --> B
      D[Participant Region N] -- Asynchronous Entry --> B
      B -- Match Config --> E[Dynamic N:M:P Matching Algorithm]
      E -- Match Event --> F[Competition Event]
      F -- Data Stream --> G[Real-time Global Leaderboard]
      F -- AI Proctoring --> H[Integrity Monitoring]
      H -- Anomaly Flag --> I[Review Queue]
  

---

3. Cross-Domain Application

Derivative 1.6: Gamified Training for Industrial Maintenance Technicians

• Enabling Description: The online academic competition system is repurposed for training industrial maintenance technicians. Instead of academic questions, the system presents simulated diagnostic scenarios, troubleshooting steps, and equipment repair procedures as multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank questions. The "scoreboard" dynamically displays key performance indicators (KPIs) like mean time to repair (MTTR), first-time fix rate (FTFR), and safety compliance scores, acting as a pacing alert for efficiency. Teams of technicians compete to solve complex simulated equipment failures, fostering collaborative learning. The N:1 matching algorithm can pair experienced technicians (N) with apprentices (1) to facilitate mentorship during simulated challenges.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  classDiagram
      class MaintenanceSystem {
          +trainTechnicians()
          +simulateFailure()
          +trackKPIs()
      }
      class Technician {
          +name
          +skillLevel
          +currentScore
      }
      class Team {
          +name
          +members: List<Technician>
          +teamScore
      }
      class TrainingScenario {
          +title
          +difficulty
          +questionSet
          +expectedMTTR
      }
      MaintenanceSystem "1" -- "many" TrainingScenario : offers
      TrainingScenario "1" -- "many" Team : competes in
      Team "1" -- "many" Technician : comprises
      MaintenanceSystem "1" -- "many" Technician : trains
  

Derivative 1.7: Online Mock Trial Preparation for Legal Professionals

• Enabling Description: The system is adapted for legal education and professional development, specifically for mock trial preparation. "Questions" are case briefs, evidentiary rules, or legal arguments. "Answers" are legal reasoning, objections, or cross-examination strategies. The "scoreboard" tracks metrics such as legal argument strength index, objection success rate, and adherence to courtroom procedure, providing real-time feedback and pacing alerts. "Teams" can represent prosecution and defense, competing against each other in timed rounds of simulated legal challenges. Identity concealment is crucial for anonymous judicial review of arguments. The question creation module allows legal educators to upload case documents and create complex branching legal scenarios.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart LR
      A[Legal Educator] -- Creates --> B(Case Briefs/Scenarios)
      B -- Assigns to --> C[Mock Trial Competition]
      C -- Participates --> D[Prosecution Team]
      C -- Participates --> E[Defense Team]
      D -- Arguments/Responses --> F{Competition Engine}
      E -- Arguments/Responses --> F
      F -- Real-time Feedback --> G[Scoreboard (Legal Metrics)]
      G -- Pacing Alert --> D
      G -- Pacing Alert --> E
      F -- Determines --> H[Winner]
  

Derivative 1.8: Emergency Response Protocol Drills for First Responders

• Enabling Description: The academic competition platform is transformed into an emergency response training simulator. "Questions" are simulated emergency incidents (e.g., active shooter, chemical spill, natural disaster), presented with multimedia (images, audio, video). "Answers" are critical decision points or standard operating procedures (SOPs). The scoreboard provides real-time alerts on adherence to protocols, response time to critical events, and resource allocation efficiency, ensuring responders are "on pace" with best practices. Teams of first responders (fire, police, EMT) compete in collaborative or competitive drills. The N:1 matching algorithm can pair a senior incident commander with junior responders to observe and guide real-time decision-making within the simulation.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant SIM as Incident Simulator
      participant TR as Training Platform
      participant IC as Incident Commander (Coach)
      participant R1 as Responder 1 (Team Member)
      participant R2 as Responder 2 (Team Member)
  
      SIM->>TR: Presents Emergency Scenario (Question)
      TR->>R1: Displays Scenario/Options
      TR->>R2: Displays Scenario/Options
      R1->>TR: Selects Response Action (Answer)
      R2->>TR: Selects Response Action (Answer)
      TR->>IC: Real-time Decision Metrics/Alerts
      IC->>TR: Provides Guidance/Feedback (Optional)
      TR->>SIM: Updates Simulation State
      SIM->>TR: Next Scenario Event
  

---

4. Integration with Emerging Tech

Derivative 1.9: AI-Driven Adaptive Questioning and Dynamic Matching

• Enabling Description: The system integrates an AI-driven optimization engine. This engine dynamically generates questions in real-time based on a contestant's ongoing performance, identified knowledge gaps, and learning style (adaptive questioning). Instead of pre-selected question sets, the AI pulls from a vast knowledge graph to construct questions of optimal difficulty and topic. The N:1 matching algorithm is continuously re-optimized during a competition using reinforcement learning. It considers not only current scores but also predicted future performance and "learning potential" to create pairings that maximize engagement and skill improvement for all participants. IoT sensors in the competition environment (e.g., physiological sensors for stress, eye-tracking for focus) provide additional real-time data to the AI for adaptive adjustments.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[Knowledge Graph] --> B{AI Question Generation Engine}
      C[Contestant Performance Data] --> B
      C --> D{Reinforcement Learning Matching Algorithm}
      E[IoT Sensor Data] --> C
      B -- Adaptive Questions --> F[Competition Interface]
      D -- Dynamic Match Config --> F
      F -- Real-time Answers/Physiological Data --> C
      G[Scoreboard] -- AI-Enhanced Pacing Alerts --> F
  

Derivative 1.10: Blockchain for Verifiable Credentials and Anti-Cheating Ledger

• Enabling Description: Academic achievements, competition results, and individual skill proficiencies ("credentials") are issued as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) on a public blockchain, providing tamper-proof, verifiable records that can be shared across educational institutions. Additionally, a separate private blockchain functions as an "anti-cheating ledger." This ledger records all significant competition events, participant interactions, AI proctoring flags, and system-level anomalies (e.g., suspicious network activity, rapid answer patterns) as immutable transactions. If a dispute arises, this ledger provides a transparent audit trail. Smart contracts enforce policies for credential issuance and revocation based on verified competition outcomes and integrity checks.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  C4Context
      title System with Blockchain for Credentials and Anti-Cheating
      Person(user, "Contestant")
      System(competition_system, "Online Academic Competition System", "Manages competitions, scores, and profiles.")
      SystemDb(main_db, "Main Database", "Stores operational data, question sets, team details.")
      System(ai_proctor, "AI Proctoring Module", "Monitors for cheating, flags anomalies.")
      System(credential_issuer, "Credential Issuer Service", "Generates verifiable credentials.")
      System(public_blockchain, "Public Credential Blockchain", "Stores immutable academic credentials (NFTs).")
      System(private_blockchain, "Private Anti-Cheating Ledger", "Records all competition events and integrity data.")
  
      Rel(user, competition_system, "Participates in")
      Rel(competition_system, main_db, "Reads from and writes to")
      Rel(competition_system, ai_proctor, "Feeds data to and receives flags from")
      Rel(competition_system, credential_issuer, "Sends verified results to")
      Rel(credential_issuer, public_blockchain, "Mints verifiable credentials on")
      Rel(competition_system, private_blockchain, "Writes all significant events to", "Immutable Transactions")
      Rel(ai_proctor, private_blockchain, "Logs anomaly flags to", "Immutable Transactions")
      Rel(public_blockchain, user, "Provides verifiable credentials to")
      Rel(private_blockchain, competition_system, "Provides audit trail to")
  

---

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

Derivative 1.11: Low-Power, Asynchronous Collaborative Learning Mode

• Enabling Description: The system features a "low-power" or "limited-functionality" mode specifically designed for asynchronous, collaborative learning without direct competition. In this mode, live components like the APE server (30) and real-time scoreboard updates are de-emphasized or disabled. Instead, the system functions as a question-and-answer repository where students can access past competition questions, submit answers at their own pace, and receive immediate, detailed feedback (including explanations and linked resources). Team "scores" are replaced by cumulative "team knowledge gain" metrics, reflecting the collective improvement of the group over time. Identity is always displayed for fostering community, rather than competition. This mode prioritizes safe, individual learning progression over head-to-head competition, allowing students to "fail safely" and learn from mistakes without public ranking pressure.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[Student Learning Interface] -- Selects Question --> B(Question Database 40)
      B -- Presents Question --> A
      A -- Submits Answer (Asynchronous) --> C{Feedback Engine}
      C -- Detailed Explanation/Resources --> A
      C -- Updates --> D[Individual Knowledge Progress]
      D -- Contributes To --> E[Team Knowledge Gain Metric]
      F[Coach Interface] -- Monitors --> E
      F -- Curates --> B
  

Derivative 1.12: "Safe-Fail" Debugging Mode for Question Sets

• Enabling Description: The question creation and management module (Claim 1) includes a "safe-fail debugging mode" for coaches and administrators. Before a question set is deployed for live competition, it can be run in this mode. During execution, the system deliberately introduces edge cases, malformed answers, or ambiguous question phrasings to test the robustness of the question logic, answer validation, and score calculation. Instead of displaying a competitive scoreboard, a "debug console" shows internal system states, error logs, and potential vulnerabilities within the question set. This allows coaches to identify and rectify flaws in question design, preventing unintended outcomes or unfair advantages during actual competitions.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Draft_Question_Set
      Draft_Question_Set --> Debugging_Mode_Active: Activate Safe-Fail Mode
      Debugging_Mode_Active --> Introduce_Faults: System Injects Errors (Edge Cases, Ambiguity)
      Introduce_Faults --> Execute_Validation: Run Question Logic & Answer Validation
      Execute_Validation --> Log_Errors: Record Debug Data, Inconsistencies
      Log_Errors --> Display_Debug_Console: Present Error Reports to Coach
      Display_Debug_Console --> Debugging_Mode_Active: Coach Modifies Question
      Display_Debug_Console --> Ready_for_Deployment: Resolve All Issues
      Ready_for_Deployment --> [*]
  

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios

Here are three combination prior art scenarios where US patent 10339825 is combined with existing open-source standards to render future incremental improvements obvious:

1. US10339825 + IMS Global Learning Consortium LTI Standard

• Enabling Description: The online academic competition system of US10339825 is integrated with an existing Learning Management System (LMS) (e.g., Moodle, Canvas) using the IMS Global Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) standard. This integration allows the competition platform to act as an LTI tool provider, enabling seamless single sign-on for students and coaches from their LMS. Competition events (Pick-Up Play, League Play) are embedded directly within LMS courses, and grades/scores from the competition system are automatically passed back to the LMS gradebook. The LTI Advantage specification (including Names and Role Provisioning Services and Assignment and Grade Services) is utilized for robust user and roster synchronization, and for secure grade passback. This renders obvious any system that merely connects an online competition to an LMS via existing standards for user management or grade reporting.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant LMS as Learning Management System
      participant C_SYS as Competition System (US10339825)
  
      LMS->>C_SYS: LTI Launch Request (OAuth 1.0/2.0)
      C_SYS->>LMS: Authenticates User (SSO)
      LMS->>C_SYS: LTI Names and Role Provisioning Service (Roster Sync)
      C_SYS->>LMS: LTI Assignment and Grade Services (Grade Passback)
      C_SYS->>C_SYS: Conducts Competition
      C_SYS->>C_SYS: Displays Scoreboard/Pacing
      C_SYS->>LMS: Reports Final Score/Result
  

2. US10339825 + OpenID Connect for Federated Identity Management

• Enabling Description: The identity management aspect of US10339825, particularly around contestant and coach profiles, is implemented using OpenID Connect (OIDC) for federated identity. Instead of maintaining separate user accounts within the Interstellar Network (20), users can authenticate using their existing institutional or public identity providers (IdPs) (e.g., school Single Sign-On, Google, Microsoft accounts). The competition system acts as a Relying Party, consuming ID Tokens and user information from the OIDC provider. This allows for streamlined user registration, enhanced security (delegating authentication to trusted IdPs), and simplified management of identity concealment preferences, as the OIDC scopes can control what information is released to the competition platform. Any subsequent system proposing to use standard federated identity protocols for academic competition user management would be considered obvious.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant User as Contestant/Coach
      participant Browser
      participant C_SYS as Competition System (US10339825)
      participant IdP as Identity Provider (e.g., School SSO)
  
      User->>Browser: Access Competition System
      Browser->>C_SYS: Request Login
      C_SYS->>Browser: Redirect to IdP (OIDC Auth Request)
      Browser->>IdP: Authentication Request
      IdP->>User: Authenticate
      User->>IdP: Credentials
      IdP->>Browser: Redirect with ID Token & Access Token
      Browser->>C_SYS: Present ID Token & Access Token
      C_SYS->>IdP: Validate Token & Fetch UserInfo
      IdP->>C_SYS: User Information
      C_SYS->>C_SYS: Create/Update Local Profile
      C_SYS->>Browser: User Authenticated (Session)
  

3. US10339825 + W3C Web Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

• Enabling Description: The system and method for on-line academic competition, particularly the user interfaces for students, coaches, and administrators (as shown in FIGS. 24-115), are designed and implemented to conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA or higher. This includes providing alternative text for all images (e.g., question images, background photos), keyboard navigation for all interactive elements (e.g., scoreboard controls, question selection, team management), clear labeling of forms, sufficient color contrast, and captions/transcripts for any multimedia content. The dynamic scoreboard and clock face component (FIG. 109, 110, 111) are adapted to provide non-visual feedback (e.g., screen reader announcements, haptic feedback) for pacing alerts. This makes obvious any "accessible" version of an online academic competition system that merely applies standard web accessibility best practices.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[Competition System UI] --> B{WCAG 2.1 AA Compliance Check}
      B -- Passed --> C[Accessible User Experience]
      C -- Keyboard Navigation --> D[Motor Impaired User]
      C -- Screen Reader Support --> E[Visually Impaired User]
      C -- Color Contrast/Captions --> F[Cognitive/Hearing Impaired User]
      G[Dynamic Scoreboard] -- Non-Visual Pacing Alerts --> E
      A -- Input Fields/Buttons --> D
      A -- Image Content --> E