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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 14, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7-8, 10-16, 18-19, 25-26, and 28-34 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 19 are noted as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 17, “video feed of a robot” should read “video feed of the robot”.
In claim 19, line 19, “video feed of a robot” should read “video feed of the robot”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-16, 18-19, 25-26, and 28-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 19 recite the limitation “a default video of the robot in a stationary position is shown in a loop, until the next control command and the next video of the robot is called for display in the video feed pane, the videos of the robot are spliced together end to end so that it appears as a live, continuous video feed of a robot” [emphasis added]. As the claims are computer implemented methods, per MPEP 2161.01, the specification must disclose the hardware and the algorithm/necessary steps with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. The claimed limitation recites a “default video of the robot in a stationary position” and the videos are “spliced together end to end so that it appears as a live, continuous video feed of a robot”. The specification fails to explain and/or define a default video in sufficient detail as the wording of the limitation could be interpreted as a default state such that the robot is stationary in a starting position which could be different from where the robot/animation ended the previous command thereby appearing to jump to a starting location or if a default video is just the robot in a standby/stationary mode in the last position of the previous command. The claiming of the limitation raises this issue because in the latter example the video is not a (one) default video but a default animation that would require further steps and/or algorithm for the system to determine and perform the claimed function. Further, the process of splicing the videos together end to end is not detailed in the specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intends to create the “live, continuous video feed”. The last paragraph of page 9 and the last paragraph of page 13 of the specification filed on June 30, 2021 only recite the limitation verbatim, “a default video of the robot will be shown which in this case may simply be a video of the robot in a stationary position in a loop, until the next command and the next video is called for display in the video feed pane. The videos are spliced together end to end so that it appears as though the client is looking at a live, continuous video feed of a robot.”, and does not include the further detail needed to sufficiently describe and explain the claimed limitations. Therefore, the claimed limitations are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-8, 10-16, 18, 25-26, and 28-34 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claims 1 and 19.
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, 7-8, 10-16, 18-19, 25-26, and 28-34 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.
Claims 1 and 19 recite the limitation “a default video of the robot in a stationary position is shown in a loop”. The specification and claims fail to explain and/or define a default video in sufficient detail as the wording of the limitation could be interpreted as a default state such that the robot is stationary in a starting position which could be different from where the robot/animation ended the previous command thereby appearing to jump to a starting location or if a default video is just the robot in a standby/stationary mode in the last position of the previous command. The claiming of the limitation raises this issue because in the latter example the video is not a (one) default video but a default animation that would require further steps and/or algorithm for the system to determine and perform the claimed function. The limitation renders the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to determine the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention as a “default video” is not defined in the specification or claim.
Claims 7-8, 10-16, 18, 25-26, and 28-34 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claims 1 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 10, 13-16, 19, 25-26, 28-29, and 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US PGPub 20170186336), hereinafter referred to as Chong, in view of Gupta et al. (US PGPub 20150360366), hereinafter referred to as Gupta.
With regard to claim 1, Chong teaches a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, for teaching computer programming (Paragraphs 0018, 0029, 0125; “a computer program instructions stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices”) comprising program code for rendering a user interface on a user computing device (Paragraphs 0018, 0029; “interface 15” and “user interface 90”), the user interface comprising a programming pane (Fig. 3, Ref 96; Paragraph 0029; “work area”), a compiler (Paragraph 0031; “learning center runtime 22” which can run a computer program built in the learning center) and a video feed pane (Fig. 3, Ref 91; Paragraph 0029; “stage area”); the programming pane being operable to receive control commands from a user (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0029 teaches the user can drag and drop code blocks into the work area); the compiler being operable to compile the control commands received in the programming pane and pass those compiled control commands to the video feed pane (Paragraphs 0031-0035 teach the learning center runtime can run the program built in the workshop including generating scripts, parsing the code, and adding associating the scripts with the associated object/actor); and the video feed pane comprising a robot emulator (Figs. 4, 17; Paragraphs 0029, 0066, 0073 teach the system includes object/actors and the object can be a robot that must complete a maze) and a background (Paragraphs 0029, 0045 teach the display includes a stage which is a background for the actors/objects), both for display in the video feed pane (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0029); and in which the video feed pane comprising the robot emulator having at least one video of a robot performing a manoeuvre (Figs. 4, 17; Paragraphs 0029, 0066, 0073 teach the system includes object/actors and the object can be a robot that must complete a maze and paragraphs 0033 and Table 2 teach the objects can be assigned scripts to perform including moving and turning (manoeuvres)), and the background (Paragraphs 0029, 0045; “stage”), both for display in the video feed pane (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0029); the robot emulator being operable to execute the compiled control commands by displaying the background in the video pane, playing the video of the robot performing the manoeuvre on the background, and moving the video of the robot relative to the background in the video feed pane (Tables 2 and 4; Paragraphs 0029, 0033-0034, 0071-0073, 0122 teach that the system can compile and parse the computer program built by the user and execute the program including setting a stage/background and moving the actor/object, which can be a robot, as coded by the scripts including moving set number of spaces/distance and turning, specifically examples include moving a robot 10 spaces or a project to move a bird across a screen and back wherein the background is shown in Fig. 3 as the stage area in the pane wherein the background is a selected media asset which can include videos per paragraph 0122); and in which the background is a video of a background (Table 4; Paragraphs 0056, 0122 teach the system includes selecting the background for the stage from the Media library wherein the media can include images, sounds, and video such that a video can be selected as the stage/background of the project) and the robot emulator is operable to superimpose the video of the robot performing the manoeuvre on top of the video of the background in the video pane (Tables 2 and 4; Paragraphs 0029, 0071-0073 teach that the system can include a project code for moving the actor (bird, robot, etc.) moving across the background such that the movement (manoeuvre) occurs in front of (superimposed) the selected media for the background which as discussed above can include a video background).
Chong further teaches the videos/scripts can include a wait command and the run loop can include “forever loops” including characteristics and standard elements of the character element that are active while the system awaits the next code/program (Paragraphs 0033-0034; Tables 2 and 4). Chong may not explicitly teach an embedded compiler integrated therein; and the embedded compiler being operable to compile the control commands received in the programming pane locally on the user computing device; and in which during periods of inactivity, after a command has been executed, a default video of the robot in a stationary position is shown in a loop, until the next control command and the next video of the robot is called for display in the video feed pane, the videos of the robot are spliced together end to end so that it appears as a live, continuous video feed of a robot. However, Gupta teaches a system and method for programming education through robotic feedback wherein the user device includes the programming interface application which includes implemented compilers and wherein a programmed robot has a default behavior and/or personality in which the robot operates in a standby mode when the robot is not receiving control instructions from a user device or awaiting a new command or program such that a robot could be stationary and flashing an LED light while awaiting a command (Paragraphs 0033, 0084, 0097, 0105-0106).
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 Chong to incorporate the teachings of Gupta by incorporating the teaching of the compiler being implemented on the computing device/user device as taught by Gupta on the learning center client device of Chong and applying the teaching of a standby/default mode of a subject while awaiting a command or program of Gupta for the actor/object of Chong, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to educational systems for teaching software/programming. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Chong by coding the client/user device to have the complier implemented on the device rather than the server and by coding the system to include default/standby mode for the actor wherein the actor would execute a forever loop including a wait command to remain stationary while awaiting a new command to execute as part of the animation wherein once the new command/program is completed and/or executed the actor/object would continue to move creating a continuous animation (video) thereby improving Chong in the same way by having the actor/object act in a suitable manner to engage the user. Upon such modification, the method and system of Chong would include an embedded compiler integrated therein; and the embedded compiler being operable to compile the control commands received in the programming pane locally on the user computing device; and in which during periods of inactivity, after a command has been executed, a default video of the robot in a stationary position is shown in a loop, until the next control command and the next video of the robot is called for display in the video feed pane, the videos of the robot are spliced together end to end so that it appears as a live, continuous video feed of a robot. 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 Gupta with Chong’s system and method in order to allow users to benefit from real-time feedback and debugging (Gupta Paragraphs 0048), allow users to use their preferred coding languages and libraries, and provide a default behavior of the actor/object to maintain suitable behavior.
With regard to claim 7, Chong further teaches the computer program product as claimed in claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above) in which the robot emulator comprises a library of videos of the robot performing a plurality of disparate manoeuvres (Table 2; Paragraphs 0033-0035 teach a plurality of scripts (library of videos) which can be included in the runtime and can include codes/actions such as moving x steps or turning clockwise or counterclockwise wherein the actions/scripts are associated with an actor/object and performed by the object such that the robot discussed above could move set distance, turn, and move another set distance (plurality of manoeuvres)).
With regard to claim 8, Chong further teaches the computer program product as claimed in claim 7 (see prior art rejection of claim 7 above) in which the library of videos comprises: (i) a video of the robot moving forwards (Paragraph 0033-0034; Table 2; “move {number: 10} steps”); (ii) a video of the robot moving backwards (Paragraph 0033-0034; Table 2; “move {number: 10} steps” where the number is a negative number); (iii) a video of the robot stationary (Paragraph 0033-0034; Table 2; wait command); (iv) a video of the robot turning clockwise (Paragraph 0033-0034; Table 2; “turn CW {angle:15} degrees”); and (v) a video of the robot turning counter-clockwise (Paragraph 0033-0034; Table 2; “turn CCW {angle:15} degrees”).
In regards to claim 10, Chong further teaches the computer program product as claimed in claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above) in which the background is provided with a border operable to contain the video of the robot therein (see annotated image of Fig. 3 below which shows the stage area (video pane) is contained in a separate pane with a border around the stage area that contains the executed code which is shown as a video of an actor/bird flying across the background but can be the movement of a robot in a puzzle/maze as discussed above).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 13, Chong further teaches the computer program product as claimed in claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above) in which the user interface comprises a web page (Paragraphs 0018, 0025, 0031 teach the user interface can be a web browser accessing the learning center through the internet).
In regards to claim 14, Chong further teaches the computer program product as claimed in claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above) in which the user interface comprises a tutorial pane, the tutorial pane having user instructions for performing a task (Figs. 7, 12; Paragraphs 0044, 0064 teach the user interface can include a lesson steps box Ref 100 and a learning bar Ref 130 which each include instructions/guidance for a user to complete a lesson (task)).
In regards to claim 15, Chong further teaches the computer program product as claimed in claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above) in which the user interface comprises a feedback pane, the feedback pane having an output comprising at least one of a compiled code and a commentary on the user-inputted control commands (Figs. 18-19; Paragraphs 0065-0073, 0077-0078 teach a lesson author can include validation triggers that determine if a user’s code is a success or failure and the system can check the code against the criteria and present windows (Refs 181, 182, 191, 192) that tell a user if they succeeded or failed and presents the incorrect and/or correct code blocks (compiled code and commentary) see also paragraph 0050 which teaches the code can include comments).
In regards to claim 16, Chong further teaches the computer program product as claimed in claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above) in which the programming pane comprises a Visual Programming Language (VPL) Editor (Paragraph 0027 teaches the use can create the code by dragging and dropping visual blocks into a code area where the blocks snap into place to form logic sequences (VPL editor)).
In regards to claim 19, Chong teaches a computer implemented method of teaching computer programming (Abstract; Paragraphs 0082, 0085; “computer implemented method” for generating coding lessons) comprising the steps of: providing, on a user computing device a user interface (Paragraphs 0018, 0029; “interface 15” and “user interface 90”) having a plurality of panes including a programming pane (Fig. 3, Ref 96; Paragraph 0029; “work area”) and a video feed pane (Fig. 3, Ref 91; Paragraph 0029; “stage area”), the video feed pane comprising a robot emulator (Figs. 4, 17; Paragraphs 0029, 0066, 0073 teach the system includes object/actors and the object can be a robot that must complete a maze) and a background (Paragraphs 0029, 0045 teach the display includes a stage which is a background for the actors/objects), both for display in the video feed pane (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0029); receiving, in the programming pane of the user interface of the user computing device a control command (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0029 teaches the user can drag and drop code blocks into the work area); compiling the control command (Paragraphs 0031-0035 teach the learning center runtime can run the program built in the workshop including generating scripts, parsing the code, and adding associating the scripts with the associated object/actor); passing the compiled control command to the robot emulator (Paragraphs 0031-0035); the robot emulator executing the compiled control command by rendering the background and a robot performing a manoeuvre in front of the background in the video feed pane (Tables 2 and 4; Paragraphs 0029, 0033-0034, 0071-0073 teach that the system can compile and parse the computer program built by the user and execute the program including setting a stage/background and moving the actor/object, which can be a robot, as coded by the scripts including moving set number of spaces/distance and turning, specifically examples include moving a robot 10 spaces or a project to move a bird across a screen and back wherein the background is shown in Fig. 3 as the stage area in the pane); and in which the robot emulator comprises at least one video of the robot performing the manoeuvre (Figs. 4, 17; Paragraphs 0029, 0066, 0073 teach the system includes object/actors and the object can be a robot that must complete a maze and paragraphs 0033 and Table 2 teach the objects can be assigned scripts to perform including moving and turning (manoeuvres)), and in which the step of the robot emulator executing the compiled control command comprises the step of the robot emulator rendering a video of a robot performing a manoeuvre in front of the background in the video feed pane and moving the video of the robot performing the manoeuvre relative to the background in the video feed pane (Tables 2 and 4; Paragraphs 0029, 0033-0034, 0071-0073, 0122 teach that the system can compile and parse the computer program built by the user and execute the program including setting a stage/background and moving the actor/object, which can be a robot, as coded by the scripts including moving set number of spaces/distance and turning, specifically examples include moving a robot 10 spaces or a project to move a bird across a screen and back wherein the background is shown in Fig. 3 as the stage area in the pane wherein the background is a selected media asset which can include videos per paragraph 0122); and in which the background is a video of a background (Table 4; Paragraphs 0056, 0122 teach the system includes selecting the background for the stage from the Media library wherein the media can include images, sounds, and video such that a video can be selected as the stage/background of the project) and the method comprises the step of the robot emulator superimposing the video of the robot performing the manoeuvre on top of the video of the background in the video pane (Tables 2 and 4; Paragraphs 0029, 0071-0073 teach that the system can include a project code for moving the actor (bird, robot, etc.) moving across the background such that the movement (manoeuvre) occurs in front of (superimposed) the selected media for the background which as discussed above can include a video background).
Chong further teaches the videos/scripts can include a wait command and the run loop can include “forever loops” including characteristics and standard elements of the character element that are active while the system awaits the next code/program (Paragraphs 0033-0034; Tables 2 and 4). Chong may not explicitly teach compiling locally on the user computing device, in an embedded compiler integrated in the user interface; and in which during periods of inactivity, after a command has been executed, a default video of the robot in a stationary position is shown in a loop, until the next control command and the next video of the robot is called for display in the video feed pane, the videos of the robot are spliced together end to end so that it appears as a live, continuous video feed of a robot. However, Gupta teaches a system and method for programming education through robotic feedback wherein the user device includes the programming interface application which includes implemented compilers and wherein a programmed robot has a default behavior and/or personality in which the robot operates in a standby mode when the robot is not receiving control instructions from a user device or awaiting a new command or program such that a robot could be stationary and flashing an LED light while awaiting a command (Paragraphs 0033, 0084, 0097, 0105-0106).
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 Chong to incorporate the teachings of Gupta by incorporating the teaching of the compiler being implemented on the computing device/user device as taught by Gupta on the learning center client device of Chong and applying the teaching of a standby/default mode of a subject while awaiting a command or program of Gupta for the actor/object of Chong, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to educational systems for teaching software/programming. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Chong by coding the client/user device to have the complier implemented on the device rather than the server and by coding the system to include default/standby mode for the actor wherein the actor would execute a forever loop including a wait command to remain stationary while awaiting a new command to execute as part of the animation wherein once the new command/program is completed and/or executed the actor/object would continue to move creating a continuous animation (video) thereby improving Chong in the same way by having the actor/object act in a suitable manner to engage the user. Upon such modification, the method and system of Chong would include an embedded compiler integrated therein; and the embedded compiler being operable to compile the control commands received in the programming pane locally on the user computing device; and in which during periods of inactivity, after a command has been executed, a default video of the robot in a stationary position is shown in a loop, until the next control command and the next video of the robot is called for display in the video feed pane, the videos of the robot are spliced together end to end so that it appears as a live, continuous video feed of a robot. 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 Gupta with Chong’s system and method in order to allow users to benefit from real-time feedback and debugging (Gupta Paragraphs 0048), allow users to use their preferred coding languages and libraries, and provide a default behavior of the actor/object to maintain suitable behavior.
In regards to claim 25, Chong further teaches the computer implemented method as claimed in claim 19 (see prior art rejection of claim 19 above) in which the method comprises the intermediate step of the robot emulator selecting one of a plurality of videos of the robot performing the manoeuvre from a library of videos of the robot performing different manoeuvres (Table 2; Paragraphs 0033-0035 teach a plurality of scripts (library of videos) which can be included in the runtime and can include codes/actions such as moving x steps or turning clockwise or counterclockwise wherein the actions/scripts are associated with an actor/object and performed by the object such that the robot discussed above could move set distance, turn, and move another set distance (plurality of manoeuvres) wherein the selected script is retrieved and performed).
In regards to claim 26, Chong further teaches the computer implemented method as claimed in claim 25 (see prior art rejection of claim 25 above) in which the intermediate step of the robot emulator selecting one of a plurality of videos of the robot performing the manoeuvre from the library of videos of the robot performing different manoeuvres (see prior art rejection of claim 25 above) comprises selecting one of (i) a video of the robot moving forwards (Paragraph 0033-0034; Table 2; “move {number: 10} steps”); (ii) a video of the robot moving backwards (Paragraph 0033-0034; Table 2; “move {number: 10} steps” where the number is a negative number); (iii) a video of the robot stationary (Paragraph 0033-0034; Table 2; wait command); (iv) a video of the robot turning clockwise (Paragraph 0033-0034; Table 2; “turn CW {angle:15} degrees”); and (v) a video of the robot turning counter- clockwise (Paragraph 0033-0034; Table 2; “turn CCW {angle:15} degrees”).
In regards to claim 28, Chong further teaches the computer implemented method as claimed in claim 19 (see prior art rejection of claim 19 above) in which the method comprises the step of rendering the background and a default video of the robot performing the manoeuvre in front of the background in the video feed pane while waiting for a control command (Per page 9, lines 26-32 and page 13, lines 31-33, the default video is interpreted as the robot staying in a stationary position; Chong Table 2 teaches the program can include Wait until command that would loop until the desired time such that the object/actor (robot) waits (is stationary) until it receives a subsequent command or event (i.e. sensing command) such that the actor waits in front of the background per paragraphs 0029, 0033).
In regards to claim 29, Chong further teaches the computer implemented method as claimed in claim 19 (see prior art rejection of claim 19 above) in which the method comprises the initial step of defining a border for the background to delimit the movement of the video of the robot performing the manoeuvre in the video feed pane (see annotated image of Fig. 3 below which shows the stage area (video pane) is contained in a separate pane with a border around the stage area that contains the executed code which is shown as a video of an actor/bird flying across the background but can be the movement of a robot in a puzzle/maze as discussed above; additionally Table 4 teaches the user can include a “bounce on edge” command so the object/actor bounces off the edge (border) of the stage thereby defining the edge/border and limiting the object to move within the stage/background).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 31, Chong further teaches the computer implemented method of teaching computer programming as claimed in claim 29 (see prior art rejection of claim 29 above) in which the step of providing the user interface comprises providing a web page to the user computing device (Paragraphs 0018, 0025, 0031 teach the user interface can be a web browser accessing the learning center through the internet).
In regards to claim 32, Chong further teaches the computer implemented method of teaching computer programming as claimed in claim 29 (see prior art rejection of claim 29 above) in which the step of: receiving, in the programming pane of the user interface of the user computing device the control command further comprises receiving the control command in a VPL (Paragraph 0027 teaches the use can create the code by dragging and dropping visual blocks into a code area where the blocks snap into place to form logic sequences (VPL editor)).
In regards to claim 33, Chong further teaches the computer implemented method of teaching computer programming as claimed in claim 19 (see prior art rejection of claim 19 above) in which the user interface comprises a tutorial pane (Figs. 7, 12) and the method comprising the additional step of providing user instructions in the tutorial pane of the user interface (Figs. 7, 12; Paragraphs 0044, 0064 teach the user interface can include a lesson steps box Ref 100 and a learning bar Ref 130 which each include instructions/guidance for a user to complete a lesson (task)).
In regards to claim 34, Chong further teaches the computer implemented method of teaching computer programming as claimed in claim 19 (see prior art rejection of claim 19 above) in which the user interface comprises a feedback pane (Figs. 18-19) and the method comprising the additional step of providing at least one of compiled code and commentary on the user inputted control commands in the feedback pane of the user interface (Figs. 18-19; Paragraphs 0065-0073, 0077-0078 teach a lesson author can include validation triggers that determine if a user’s code is a success or failure and the system can check the code against the criteria and present windows (Refs 181, 182, 191, 192) that tell a user if they succeeded or failed and presents the incorrect and/or correct code blocks (compiled code and commentary) see also paragraph 0050 which teaches the code can include comments).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong in view of Gupta, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lau (US PGPub 20170316714).
In regards to claim 18, Chong further teaches the computer program product as claimed in claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above) but Chong in view of Gupta may not explicitly teach the robot comprises a vehicle having a motor and at least two wheels driven by the motor. However, Lau teaches one of the possible physical and virtual robots includes a robot with two wheels driven by an actuator (motor) (see annotated Fig. 1 below; Paragraphs 0014, 0020).
PNG
media_image2.png
441
665
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Chong in view of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Lau by incorporating the two-wheeled robot of Lau as the robot/actor/object of Chong, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to educational systems for teaching software/programming. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Chong in view of Gupta by using the two wheeled robot as the actor as the design of the robot is a design/aesthetic choice and would be obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art. Upon such modification, the method and system of Chong in view of Gupta would include the robot comprises a vehicle having a motor and at least two wheels driven by the motor. 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 Lau with Chong in view of Gupta’s system and method as a two-wheel robot is well-known in the art and as claimed is merely an aesthetic choice for the design of the robot/actor/object.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong in view of Gupta, as applied to claims 6 and 24 above, and further in view of Drieu et al. (US PGPub 20090228784), hereinafter referred to as Drieu.
In regards to claim 11, Chong further teaches the computer program product as claimed in claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above), but Chong in view of Gupta may not explicitly teach the robot emulator uses a transform operation to move the video of the robot relative to the background. However, Drieu teaches a method for animating elements of web-based content using transforms, specifically CSS transforms, to move content including videos/animations (Paragraphs 0032, 0034, 0117).
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 Chong in view of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Drieu by incorporating the teachings of using transforms, including CSS transforms, to move elements within the webpage/application of Chong, as, while the references are in different fields of endeavor, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to apply the techniques of Drieu to the webpage and content elements of Chong in order to improve Chong in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Chong in view of Gupta by moving the object/actor and the associated scripts using CSS transforms to move the object/actor within the video pane/background. One of ordinary skill would find it obvious to apply the techniques of Drieu to Chong as both references are directed to animating content in a user interface and using the CSS transforms of Drieu would improve Chong in the same way by improving content accessibility and control (Drieu paragraph 0004). Upon such modification, the method and system of Chong in view of Gupta would include the robot emulator uses a transform operation to move the video of the robot relative to the background. 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 Drieu with Chong in view of Gupta’s system and method in order to reduce content complexity and improve control of the object/actor and scripts of Chong.
In regards to claim 12, Chong, as modified, further teaches the computer program product as claimed in claim 11 (see prior art rejection of claim 11 above) but Chong in view of Gupta may not explicitly teach the robot emulator uses a cascading style sheets (CSS) transform to move the robot video relative to the background. However, Drieu teaches a method for animating elements of web-based content using transforms, specifically CSS transforms, to move content including videos/animations (Paragraphs 0032, 0034, 0117).
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 Chong in view of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Drieu by incorporating the teachings of using transforms, including CSS transforms, to move elements within the webpage/application of Chong, as, while the references are in different fields of endeavor, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to apply the techniques of Drieu to the webpage and content elements of Chong in order to improve Chong in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Chong in view of Gupta by moving the object/actor and the associated scripts using CSS transforms to move the object/actor within the video pane/background. One of ordinary skill would find it obvious to apply the techniques of Drieu to Chong as both references are directed to animating content in a user interface and using the CSS transforms of Drieu would improve Chong in the same way by improving content accessibility and control (Drieu paragraph 0004). Upon such modification, the method and system of Chong in view of Gupta would include the robot emulator uses a CSS transform to move the robot video relative to the background. 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 Drieu with Chong in view of Gupta’s system and method in order to reduce content complexity and improve control of the object/actor and scripts of Chong.
In regards to claim 30, Chong further teaches the computer implemented method as claimed in claim 19 (see prior art rejection of claim 19 below) but Chong in view of Gupta may not explicitly teach the step of moving the video of the robot performing the manoeuvre relative to the background in the video feed pane comprises using a transform operation to move the robot video relative to the background. However, Drieu teaches a method for animating elements of web-based content using transforms, specifically CSS transforms, to move content including videos/animations (Paragraphs 0032, 0034, 0117).
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 Chong in view of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Drieu by incorporating the teachings of using transforms, including CSS transforms, to move elements within the webpage/application of Chong, as, while the references are in different fields of endeavor, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to apply the techniques of Drieu to the webpage and content elements of Chong in order to improve Chong in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Chong by moving the object/actor and the associated scripts using CSS transforms to move the object/actor within the video pane/background. One of ordinary skill would find it obvious to apply the techniques of Drieu to Chong as both references are directed to animating content in a user interface and using the CSS transforms of Drieu would improve Chong in the same way by improving content accessibility and control (Drieu paragraph 0004). Upon such modification, the method and system of Chong in view of Gupta would include the step of moving the video of the robot performing a manoeuvre relative to the background in the video feed pane comprises using a transform operation to move the robot video relative to the background. 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 Drieu with Chong in view of Gupta’s system and method in order to reduce content complexity and improve control of the object/actor and scripts of Chong.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pages 8-12, filed July 14, 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7-8, 10-16, 18-19, 25-26, and 28-34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. First, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments and remarks reference specification paragraph numbers, but Applicant’s application and submission, filed June 30, 2021, does not include paragraph numbers. The amended limitations are taught by the previously cited combination of prior art as discussed above. Applicant’s arguments are primarily a summary of the amendment, citations to the specification, and features of the specification. Applicant’s arguments focus on “realism” and an “immersive experience” which merely conclusory statements of an intended performance/improvement of the claimed invention and are not explicitly claimed in the current claims. With regard to Applicant’s argument that Chong does not teach a “video” as defined by the Applicant in the arguments, Examiner, as previously discussed, notes that Chong, as discussed above, teaches selecting and using media assets as the character/object and the background wherein the media assets may include videos which does teach on the claimed limitations as recited. Assuming in arguendo that Chong does not teach a video background, Applicant’s argument that the “animation” of Chong is not equivalent to a video is not persuasive as one of ordinary skill in the art would consider an animation as a video under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a video. Further, the video library and videos are a script library under their broadest reasonable interpretation as the videos are merely showing a predetermined “disparate” manoeuvre which coincides with Chong’s teachings of scripts including a stationary/wait command which could be included in a forever loop as discussed above as a default state. Therefore, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the previously cited combination of prior art.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1, 7-8, 10-16, 18-19, 25-26, and 28-34 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 on (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