DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
4. Claims 1, 5, 15, 18 have been amended; claims 10, 16 and 19 have been canceled; and new claims 22 and 23 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-9, 11-15, 17, 18 and 20-23 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
35 U.S.C.101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
● Claims 1-9, 11-15, 17, 18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 15, 18 and 23 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
to indicate a discoverable object by a human, or a user interact with a visible object:
[provide] one or more audible cues related to the discoverable object (claim 1);
[provide] one or more visual cues related to the discoverable object (claim 15);
[provide] one or more of motions and sounds associated with the discoverable object (per claim 18);
provide a cue to the user to identify the discoverable object (per claim 23);
acquire image [related] to one or more visible objects (or location, per claim 23);
isolate one or more indicated objects; and
determine whether one or more of the one or more indicated objects match a predetermined template of the discoverable object; and
performing an action based at least in part on the determining one of the match and a mismatch of the one or more indicated objects with the predetermined template of the discoverable object;
when the one or more indicated objects are a mismatch with the predetermined template of the discoverable object, provide one or more additional cues; and when the one or more indicated objects are a match with the predetermined template of the discoverable object, provide confirmation (per claim 23)
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior, such as teaching, wherein one or more cues (e.g., audible, visual or tactile information) related to a discoverable object (e.g., a picture on a page/book, etc.) is presented to a user; and the user attempts to identify or select the discoverable object (such as, by pointing to the object using an instrument, etc.); and wherein, based on the analysis of the user’s selection, the accuracy of the user’s selection is determined; and thereby, a relevant action is performed (e.g., providing relevant feedback based on whether or not the user has correctly identified the discoverable object), etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process of isolating one or more indicated objects; and determining whether the one or more of the indicated objects match a predetermined discoverable object; also (per claim 23), the process of providing one or more additional clues when determining that the one or more indicated objects are a mismatch with the predetermined template of the discoverable; and providing a confirmation when the one or more indicated objects are a match with the predetermined template of the discoverable object, etc., the current clams also overlap with the abstract idea group mental processes—such as, an observation, an evaluation or a judgment process, etc.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two
The claims recite additional element(s), wherein one or more computer devices, including a handheld device that comprises a processor, a speaker, a camera, a light beam source that generates a narrow beam of light (e.g., the light beam source and the camera are mounted on the device such that the beam location is located at a center of camera images or off set from the center of camera images acquired by the camera); and thereby the handheld device is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/step regarding: directing a light beamat an object/page (e.g., “activating the device such that the light beam is generated by the device light beam source and the device camera acquires images within the field-of-view”); playing one or more audible cues (“playing, by the device speaker, one or more audible cues related to the discoverable object”), or displaying one or more visual cues (“displaying, by the one or more device displays, one or more visual cues related to the discoverable object”), or providing one or more haptic cues (“producing, by the device haptic unit, sensed haptic vibrations at one or more haptic frequencies related to one or more of motions and sounds associated with the discoverable object”); and subsequently: capturing an image(s) (e.g., “acquiring, by the device camera, a camera image when the handheld device is held and manipulated to direct the light beam such that the light beam points from the device light beam source to the one or more visible objects”); analyzing the captured image(s) (“isolating, by the device processor, one or more indicated objects at the beam location region within the camera image”); and determining one or more results (e.g., “determining, by the device processor, whether one or more of the one or more indicated objects match a predetermined template of the discoverable object; and performing an action by the device processor based at least in part on the determining one of the match and a mismatch, with the predetermined template of the discoverable object”; and per claim 23, the action comprises “when the device processor determines that the one or more indicated objects are a mismatch . . .provide one or more additional cues to the human; and when the device processor determines that the one or more indicated objects are a match . . . provide a confirmation to the human”); etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an “inventive concept”.
It is worth to note that the use of the conventional computer and/or network technology to provide content items to a user, including the process of capturing image of printed information; and thereby presenting relevant content item(s) based on the analysis of the captured information, etc., is already directed to a well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the art (e.g., US 2006/0029296; US 2013/0168954; US 2008/0087718, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-9, 11-14, 17 and 20-22). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Thus, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 12/02/2025).
Firstly, it is noted that Applicant is not addressing the Office’s eligibility analysis according to the specific sequence of steps presented in the office-action. Accordingly, the following response addresses the relevant steps based on the issues that Applicant is raising in the argument. For instance, while referring to the amendment made to the current claims, Applicant is asserting that “claims 1, 15, and 18 have all been amended to recite a device light beam source configured to generate a light beam . . . wherein the device light beam source generates a narrow beam of light that provides the light reflection, and wherein the device light beam source and device camera are mounted on the handheld device such that the beam location is located at a center of camera images or offset from the center of camera images acquired by the device camera . . . under Step 1, the eligibility of the present claims is clearly self-evident when viewed as a whole. The present claims are not directed merely to a mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity, but recite a unique combination of hardware and software components that provide a technological improvement to enhance a user's interaction, e.g., with a printed object, such as a book, to improve reading and other skills” (emphasis added).
However, except for identifying one or more structural and/or functional features of the claimed device, Applicant appears to fail to address the fundamentals of the eligibility analysis. In particular, the structural and/or functional features of the claimed device, which Applicant is emphasizing, is already part of the existing computer/network technology. For instance, a smartphone, which is part of the existing computer technology, already incorporates a light source (e.g., a laser pointer, etc.) and a camera; wherein the light source and the camera are mounted on the smartphone such that the beam location is located at the center—or offset from the center—of camera images being captured; and wherein, the smartphone also allows the user to project a narrow beam of light (i.e., a laser light) on a desired object, including capturing one or more images, etc. Accordingly, simply identifying such existing features of the existing computer/network technology does not necessarily demonstrate whether the claimed device is rendering the current claims “significantly more” than an abstract idea. This is because the current claimed device, which is itself part of the existing computer technology (e.g., a handheld device, which allows the user to project a light beam on a page and capture image data, etc.) is being used—merely as a tool—to facilitate the presentation educational materials to the user. So far, except for the assertion made regarding the alleged “unique combination of hardware and software components”, Applicant does not identify a component—or a combination of components—that is assumed to be an advance over the existing computer technology. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, Applicant appears to be mistaking the skill improvement, which the user may arguably achieve as the result of using the device, for a technological improvement. In particular, Applicant is asserting that the alleged unique combination of hardware and software components provide a technological improvement to “enhance a user's interaction, e.g., with a printed object, such as a book, to improve reading and other skills”; however, regardless of whether the user’s alleged skill improvement is due to the claimed device or some other factor, this does not necessarily demonstrate a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Instead, the above is merely demonstrating the use of the claimed device as an educational tool/aid to facilitate learning, etc.
Note also that the eligibility of a claim is not necessarily determined per Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. This is because Step 1 is merely evaluating whether the claim is directed to one on of the four statutory categories per section §101. Thus, Applicant’s alleged “self-evident” eligibility of the claims, per Step 1 of the analysis, is not valid. This is because one has to execute the subsequent steps, including prong-two of Step 2A and/or Step 2B, in order to determine whether a given claim, which recites a judicial exception, is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—that renders the claim beyond the judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea).
In addition, while failing to properly apply the eligibility analysis, Applicant is attempting to challenge the Office’s finding presented under prong-one of Step 2A while emphasizing the claimed computer-elements. Applicant asserts, “claims 1, 15, 18, and 23 do not merely recite certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes. The methods cannot be performed mentally, but require a light beam source configured to generate a narrow light beam producing a light reflection at a beam location when directed at surf aces such that the light reflection is viewable by the human. See, e.g., 10a, 10b in FIG. 1 . . . the claims recite a device camera aligned with the light beam source such that a camera field-of-view includes the beam location with the device light beam source and device camera mounted on the handheld device such that the beam location is located at a center of camera images or offset from the center of camera images. An example of such a camera 66a aligned with a light beam source 61a is shown in FIG. 6 . . . the light beam source and camera are not merely generic computer components, but are a specialized set of hardware components provided on a handheld device that is manipulated by a user” (emphasis modified).
However, per prong-one of Step 2A, none of the computer elements (e.g., the device that comprises a camera and a light source, including the projection of a narrow beam of light, etc.) is required to be considered when analyzing whether a given claim (e.g., current claim 1) is reciting an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity). This is because none of the claimed computer elements is part of the abstract idea. Instead, the claimed computer elements are part of the additional elements.
Nevertheless, Applicant’s attempt to challenge the Office’s finding presented under prong-one of Step 2A, while relying on the claimed computer elements, is not persuasive. Note that Applicant’s inaccurate approach above is further evident when considering the Court’s analysis regarding Electric Power Group. In particular, if one considers Applicant’s theory, such as emphasizing the computer elements in order to negate the finding regarding a mental process, one may incorrectly conclude that any claim that utilizes a computer device to facilitate an abstract idea is patent-eligible. For instance, the claim—i.e., claim 12—that the Federal Circuit has considered regarding Electric Power Group recites, at least in part, the following limitations (emphasis added),
12. A method of detecting events on an interconnected electric power grid in real time over a wide area and automatically analyzing the events on the interconnected electric power grid . . . receiving a plurality of data streams, each of the data streams comprising sub-second, time stamped synchronized phasor measurements . . . detecting and analyzing events in real-time from
the plurality of data streams . . . measurements from the data streams including at least one of frequency instability, voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes . . .
Accordingly, if one applies Applicant’s logic to claim 12 above, one may be tempted to conclude that the claim above is not a mental process. In particular, one may be tempted to argue that that the claimed process of detecting and automatically analyzing events on an electric power grid in real-time, including: (a) receiving multiple data streams that include synchronized phasor measurements that are collected in real-time; (b) detecting and analyzing limits, sensitiveness or rate of changes of at least one of frequency instability, voltages, phase angles, etc., are computer implemented functions/steps that cannot be performed in the human mind (and/or using a pen and paper).
In contrast, despite the limitations above, the court has concluded that the claim is reciting an abstract idea; namely, a mental process. This is because the claim is using the existing technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea; such as, collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying certain results. Similarly, Applicant’s claims (e.g., see claim 1) are also using the existing computer technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea; such as, facilitating the presentation of educational material to a user, etc.
The observation above confirms that Applicant fails to properly apply the eligibility analysis. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note also that the various figures (e.g., FIG 1, FIG 6) that Applicant has listed from the original disclosure also do not negate the Office’s findings. In particular, regardless of the illustrations per the figures, the current claims are still broadly reciting the existing computer technology, which is utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the presentation of educational material to a user. For instance, given the structural and functional features that the claims are reciting, none of the claims, when considered as a whole, is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing computer technology (per the finding under prong-two of Step 2A). For instance, a smartphone, which is part of the existing computer/network technology, already represents the technology that the current claims are reciting (per Step 2B). Accordingly, Applicant’s attempt to confine the interpretation of the current claims, while using the figures as a template, is not relevant.
Applicant so far fails to demonstrate whether any of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that is considered to be an advance over the existing computer technology. Instead, Applicant is describing the basic structural and/or functional features currently claimed (e.g., “a light beam source configured to generate a narrow light beam producing a light reflection at a beam location when directed at surf aces such that the light reflection is viewable by the human”, “a device camera aligned with the light beam source such that a camera-field-of-view includes the beam location with the device light beam source and device camera mounted on the handheld device such that the beam location is located at a center of camera images or offset from the center of camera images”, etc.). However, none of the above assertions, alone or in combination with any of the features currently claimed, demonstrates a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology.
Secondly, while attempting to compare the claimed handheld device with a smartphone, Applicant is asserting that “Unlike a conventional smart phone, the light beam source is configured to provide a light reflection at a specific location within the field-of-view of the camera (rather than the broad illumination provided by a smart phone light). This light reflection is used to guide and assist the user manipulating the device to identify one or more visible objects on a visible surface, e.g. to allow the user to indicate the dog 12b shown in FIG. 1 . . . the light reflection is not used for illumination but to allow the user to confirm the location at which the device is pointed” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s assumption, it is part of the conventional computer technology (e.g., see the analysis per Step 2B) to implement smartphones that include a laser pointer. In fact, the above is evident at least from one of the references; namely, Koren (US 2013/0168954), which is a publication available to the public almost for a decade prior to Applicant’s claimed device. Note that per the teaching of Koren, the term “portable device” or “reading enhancement device” already encompass one or more conventional computer devices—e.g., a smartphone (see [0169] to [0171]); and wherein such conventional device comprises a laser light/pointer (see claim 33). Thus, the user utilizes the laser pointer of the smartphone to point to a particular word on a page of the book that the user is reading (e.g., [0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2); and wherein the smartphone plays, after imaging and analyzing the particular word, an audio/visual material pertinent to that particular word ([0088]; [0089], “a preset sound sequence (e.g. recorded and/or synthesized and/or selected) is also associated or otherwise related with the page . . . or part thereof, e.g. a word or phrase . . . For example, if the page contents (or a pointed word) relate to wind then a sound track of wind is played”, emphasis added).
The fact above confirms that Applicant is relying not only on the conventional computer technology but also on a concept that is old and well known. However, while simply dismissing the fact above, Applicant incorrectly assumes that the light beam source of a conventional smartphone provides “broad illumination”, as opposed to a light reflection at a specific location. In contrast, as quite evident from Koren’s teaching above, the conventional smartphone, which is already equipped with a laser pointer, is projecting a narrow beam of light, which the user utilizes to point to a particular section on the page (e.g., a particular word on the page); and thus, even basic common sense dictates that such laser light is providing a light reflection at a specific location (e.g., the location of the particular word), as opposed to the “broad illumination” that Applicant is alleging. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Note that the conventional smartphone above may include two light sources; i.e., a light source that provides broad illumination and a laser pointer. However, the user is still utilizing the laser pointer to point (as the name already suggests) to a particular object.
The discussion above also confirms that the example, which Applicant identified from the specification, does not demonstrate a technological improvement (if any) regarding the claimed device. Instead, Applicant is confirming—at least implicitly—that the claimed device is attempting to accomplish the same/similar objective that Koren is teaching. For instance, per the teaching of Koren discussed above, the user utilizes the laser pointer to point to a particular location (e.g., a particular word) on the page; and the above causes a light reflection on that particular location only. Similarly, Applicant is asserting that “the user manipulating the device to identify one or more visible objects on a visible surface, e.g. to allow the user to indicate the dog 12b shown in FIG. 1 . . . the light reflection is not used for illumination but to allow the user to confirm the location at which the device is pointed” (emphasis added). Thus, besides the lack of technological improvement regarding the claimed device, Applicant is once again confirming that the claimed device is used to accomplish the same/similar objective that Koren is teaching.
Applicant also continues to summarize the lesson presentation procedure currently claimed. Applicant asserts, “claim 1 recites a specialized processor that performs template matching, which are based on physical cues that are provided (e.g., one or more audible cues in claim 1, visible cues in claim 15, etc.), i.e., after playing the one or more cues . . . acquires a camera image when the handheld device is held and manipulated by the human . . . reference to FIG. 1, the specification provides an example between page 26, line 26 and page 27, line 11 where the processor provides an audible cue, e.g., barking sounds to identify a discoverable object on the page, i.e., a dog, whereupon a child may manipulate the device to position the light reflection 10b on the dog 12b . . . The processor then acquires an image and isolates an indicated object within the image (i.e., the object on the page indicated at the location where the child positions the light reflection), and then classifies whether the indicated object at the beam location 10b matches the predetermined template for the intended discoverable object. Thus, if the child positions the light reflection on the dog 12b, the processor determines and verifies this within the acquired image, and the device performs an action based on this verification, i.e., to provide confirmation of a match or to provide additional cues if the processor determines there is a mismatch, e.g., as recited in claim 24. Thus, these affirmative steps do not merely recite mental processes. Therefore, even assuming that the claims recite an abstract idea pursuant to the first prong of Step 2A, the additional elements of the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A” (emphasis modified).
However, once again Applicant fails to address one of the fundamental inquires established per prong-two of Step 2A. In particular, Applicant fails to demonstrate whether any of the claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Instead, while relying on the disclosure (e.g., the drawings), Applicant is simply summarizing how the device is presenting an interactive lesson material to the user (e.g., the device presents the user with a cue regarding a pictorial object depicted on a book; the user attempts to identify the object by pointing a light beam on an object on the page; the device captures the image of the object and analyzes the image in order to determine whether the captured image matches—or mismatches—a pre-stored template in the device’s memory; the device then generates to the user a confirmation—or an additional cue—depending on whether the result above is a match or a mismatch, etc.).
Accordingly, Applicant is effectively demonstrating how the claimed device is being utilized—merely as a tool—to facilitate the presentation of an interactive lesson material to the user (i.e., the claimed device is being used as a tool to facilitate an abstract idea). In contrast, the eligibility inquiry, per prong-two of Step 2A, requires one to identify a claim element (if any)—or a combination of claim elements (if any)—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. In the instant case, given the lack of technological improvement per the current claims, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application (i.e., none of the claimed additional elements, when considered alone or in combination with the rest of the claimed features, imposes meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea). Consequently, Applicant’s conclusory assertion, “the additional elements of the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A”, is not persuasive.
Note also that Applicant’s alleged “specialized processor” does not have any significance to challenge the Office’s findings. In particular, the above appears to be merely a label, which Applicant assigned to the processor based on a subjective speculation. This is because Applicant fails to demonstrate whether the processor is implementing any structural and/or functional feature(s) that is considered to be an advance over the existing computer technology. Instead, Applicant is describing the basic data processing functions that the processor is expected to perform (e.g., isolating one or more indicated objects at the beam location from the camera image; determining whether the one or more indicated objects match a predetermined template, etc.). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are still not persuasive.
Thirdly, regarding Step 2B, Applicant asserts, “the present claims clearly recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . . . the present claims recite a handheld device that includes a unique combination of elements, including a device light beam source configured to generate a narrow light beam producing one or more light beam reflections off one or more visible objects viewable by the human, and a device camera aligned such that a camera field-of-view includes a beam location region of the one or more light beam reflections and operatively coupled to a device processor, which performs unique template matching to perform actions to motivate a human, e.g., a child reading a book or other printed object. FIG. 1 and the associate description provide an example of such an interaction, where the handheld device provides an audible cue to the user (‘Let's find the dog!’) whereupon the processor of the device determines whether the user manipulates the device to point the beam at the image of a dog in a book, and then performs an action, e.g., providing acoustic, haptic and/or visual rewards to the child upon successfully pointing out the dog . . . claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the idea into a specific practical application, e.g., to enhance learning and/or interaction of a child with a book, i.e., involving identifying objects in response to cues provided by the device” (emphasis added) ,
However, except for presenting the same repetitive argument, while relying on the specification/drawings to describe the components of the device and/or its use for facilitating teaching, Applicant fails to address the fundamentals of the eligibility inquiry per Step 2B. It is worth to note that the inquiry, per Step 2B, is not attempting to challenge the claimed structural and/or functional features (e.g., the analysis is not questioning whether the claimed device is capable of performing the functions currently claimed). Instead, the inquiry, per Step 2B, is also evaluating whether or not the claimed method—considered as a whole—is providing a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Thus, providing repetitive assertions regarding the components of the claimed device, and/or the functions that the claimed device is supposedly performing, does not necessarily constitute evidence of eligibility per Step 2B (or per any of the eligibility steps for that matter). Instead, quite similar to prong-two of Step 2A, the inquiry per Step 2B also evaluates whether a claim is providing a technological improvement (e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(a), emphasis added),
While improvements were evaluated in Alice Corp. as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A). See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, an examiner should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis.
In the instant case, Applicant still fails to demonstrate whether any of the claims is implementing a claim element—or a combination of claim elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing computer technology (e.g., if any of the claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that is considered to be an advance over the conventional smartphone discussed per Koren above). Of course, besides the lack of technological improvement discussed above, the conventional and generic arrangement of the claimed additional elements, which mirrors the conventional smartphone, also confirms that none of the current claims—considered as a whole—is implementing an inventive concept that is considered to be “significantly more” than an abstract idea. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s further asserts, “claim 3 recites that the device light beam source is operatively coupled to the device processor and wherein an intensity of the device light beam source is controlled by one or more of regulating a magnitude of a light beam driving current and a pulse width modulation of the light beam driving current, while claim 5 recites the device light beam source is operatively coupled to the device processor, the method further comprising turning the device light beam source off when acquiring the camera image. These are specific hardware functionality and not merely mental processes . . . the Final Office Action attempts to use Applicant's own specification to conclude that the features of these claims do not provide a technological improvement over existing technology. This argument conflates obviousness with the threshold question of whether the claims are patent eligible under§ 101. Clearly, the functions recited in claims 3 and 5 are not abstract ideas, but utilize hardware and software components in a specific manner” (emphasis added).
However, while mischaracterizing the Office’s findings presented in the previous office-action, Applicant is once again confusing the eligibility analysis (section §101) with an obviousness analysis (section §103). It is important to note that the finding presented on page 19 of the previous office-action, which identifies the existing technology that Applicant has admitted, is pointing out an undisputable fact. In particular, Applicant is expressly admitting the use of the existing technology for its intended purpose. For instance, Applicant expressly admits, “Beam intensity may be modulated by a number of means known in the art including regulating the magnitude of the light beam driving current (e.g., with transistor-based circuitry) and/or using pulse width modulation (i.e., PWM) of the driving circuitry” (see page 18 of the specification, emphasis added). This effectively confirms that the claimed limitation, “the device light beam source is operatively coupled to the device processor and wherein an intensity of the device light beam source is controlled by one or more of regulating a magnitude of a light beam driving current and a pulse width modulation of the light beam driving current” (see claim 3), which Applicant is currently attempting to paint as a new or an advanced technology, is in fact part of the existing technology. In particular, the specification is admitting that the core technology, which Applicant’s claimed device is relying on (claim 3), is not a new/advanced technology that Applicant developed; rather, an existing technology that Applicant has borrowed or incorporated. Thus, Applicant’s attempt to substantiate the alleged technological improvement, while repeatedly relying on the existing technology, is once again not valid.
Note that the same is true regarding the limitation, “the device light beam source is operatively coupled to the device processor . . . turning the device light beam source off when acquiring the camera image” (claim 5). Although a reference is not necessarily required to show the fact that claim 5 is also part of the exiting technology, the Office presents the following evidence, namely Kotlarsky (US 2013/0292475), which is a publication available to the public almost for a decade prior to Applicant’s claimed method, already teaches such existing technology. In particular, Kotlarsky teaches a handheld device for capturing a discoverable object—such as, a barcode (e.g., [0052]; [0053]); wherein the device projects a liner light beam, which the user aligns on the desired target object; and wherein the device switches off the linear light beam during the image capturing phase; so that the system achieves a successful image output (e.g., the barcode symbol) ([0389]).
Thus, it is quite evident—at least to one applying basic common sense—that claim 5 above is also relying on the existing technology. In contrast, despite such reliance on the existing technology, Applicant is once again attempting to paint the existing technology as a technological improvement, “provides a specific improvement for image processing, i.e., that the light source is turned off while acquiring camera images to avoid pixel saturation. A conventional smartphone is incapable of performing this function” (emphasis added). Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are once again not persuasive. Note that one may use the existing technology in a desired filed or environment; however, this does not mean providing a technological improvement.
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 1-9, 11-15, 17, 18 and 20-23 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(a) Each of claims 1, 15, 18 recites an activation process in which the light beam source generates the light beam and the camera acquires images within its field-of-view even before one or more cues are presented to the user (see lines 10-11 of each of claims 1, 15 and 18).
However, the original disclosure appears to be silent regarding any such activation in which the light beam source generates the light beam and the camera acquires images within its field-of-view even before one or more cues are presented to the user. In particular, per the original disclosure, one or more cues are initially presented to the user; and subsequently, the camera acquires image when the user manipulates the device to direct the light beam to point to one or more visible objects. Consequently, claims 1-9, 11-15, 17, 18 and 20-22 involve new subject matter at least for the reason above.
(b) Claim 23 recites an activation process in which the light beam is directed at the visible object and the camera acquires the image of the visible object; and the above process is followed by the process of providing a cue, which leads the user to direct the “light reflection” at a location of the above visible object; and wherein the camera acquires further image; namely, the so-called “a camera image including the location” (see lines 9-14 of claim 23).
Thus, claim 23 also lacks support from the original disclosure. In particular, the original disclosure does not have any written description regarding such process where the device, before providing any cue to the user, first captures (via its camera) the visible object as the user directs the light beam on the visible object; wherein the above process is followed by the device providing a cue to the user, so that the user once again manipulates the device to again direct the light “reflection” at a location on the visible object; so that the camera once again acquires further image (again the so-called “a camera image including the location”).
Accordingly, claim 23 also involves new subject matter at least for the reason above.
7. 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 1-9, 11-15, 17, 18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b), or second paragraph (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Each of Claims 1, 15 and 18, recites, “activating the device such that the light beam is generated by the device light beam source and the device camera acquires images within the field-of-view . . . acquiring, by the device camera, a camera image when the handheld device is held and manipulated by the human to direct the light beam such that the light beam points from the device light beam source to one or more visible objects” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, it is unclear whether currently added limitation, namely “activating the device such that the light beam is generated by the device light beam source and the device camera acquires images within the field-of-view”, is referring to (i) an activation action, which makes the device ready to (1) generate light using the light beam source and (2) capture images using the camera, or (ii) an initial image capturing process required to be performed even before the user starts to point—using the light beam—to a visible object. Thus, the current claims are ambiguous at least for the reason above.
Note that for examination purpose, the limitation, “activating the device such that the light beam is generated by the device light beam source and the device camera acquires images within the field-of-view”, is construed as an activation action only (e.g., turning the device on); and therefore, no image is being captured before the user starts to direct the light beam to point to one or more of the visible objects.
It is also worth to note that the interpretation above is consistent with the description in the specification. In particular, the camera captures image only when the user points—using the light beam—to a visible object (e.g., see page 7, lines 11-11-14, as applied to claim 1; page 7, lines 24-30 as applied to claim 15; and page 8, lines 7-11 as applied to claim 18).
(b) Claim 4 recites the term, “the projected light beam”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above term in the claim.
(c) Claim 6 recites the term, “the projected light beam”, in several lines of the claim; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above term in the claim.
(d) claim 23 recites, “activating the device by the user such that the light beam is directed at the visible object and the light reflection is viewable by the user, the device camera acquiring images within the field-of-view including the visible object, whereupon the processor activates the output device to provide a cue to the user to identify the discoverable object; in response to the processor activating the output device to provide the cue, manipulating the device by the user to direct the light reflection at a location on the visible object, whereupon; the device camera acquires a camera image including the location” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the above is asserting that the user first identifies the discoverable object, even before the user is presented with any cue related to the discoverable object, wherein the camera captures the discoverable object as the user directs the light beam to the discoverable object. Of course, given the above ambiguity, it is further unclear whether the user is repeating the same process, after the user is presented with the cue regarding the discoverable object; wherein the user once again directs the light at a location of the discoverable object so that the camera captures the image (which is the so-called “a camera image including the location”).
(e) In addition, given the current limitation of claim 23, “activating the device by the user such that the light beam is directed at the visible object and the light reflection is viewable by the user . . . manipulating the device by the user to direct the light reflection at a location on the visible object” (emphasis added), it is unclear whether Applicant is attempting to establish different limitations while treating (i) directing a “light beam” as a first feature, and (ii) directing a “light reflection” as a second feature (i.e., based on the assumption that the first feature is different from the second feature).
(f) Clam 23 also recites the terms “the user” and “the human”; and accordingly, it is unclear whether the term “the human” is referring to the same user or a new user since it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claim 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koren 2013/0168954.
Regarding claim 18, Koren teaches the following claimed limitations: a method to indicate a discoverable object by a human ([0049]; [0052]; [0055]: e.g. a system/method that provides one or more relevant audio and/or visual material related to an object or element depicted on a surface—such as, a page of a book) comprising: providing a handheld device including a device processor, a device light beam source configured to generate a light beam producing a light reflection at a beam location when directed at surfaces such that the light reflection is viewable by the human, a device camera aligned with the light beam source such that a camera field-of-view includes the beam location and operatively coupled to the device processor, and a device haptic unit operatively coupled to the device processor ([0087] lines 1-2; [0088]; [0114]; [0169]; also claim 33: e.g. the system already comprises a handheld device—such as a smartphone—that a user utilizes to scan or capture one or more sections of the surface; such as the page of the book, etc., and furthermore, the smartphone above already comprises: a processor; a light beam source—such as a laser pointer—for directing a light beam on a surface; and also a camera aligned with the light beam source such that the camera field-of-view already includes the beam location. The smartphone also incorporates one or more motion and/or orientation sensors, including an IMU, etc., which enables it to detect the motion and/or the movement of the device—such as, detecting the movement of the device caused by a page turning action, see [0114]. Thus, the device incorporates at least one haptic unit that is operatively coupled to the processor); activating the device such that the light beam is generated by the device light beam source and the device camera acquires images within the field-of-view; after activating the device, producing, by the device haptic unit, sensed haptic vibrations at one or more haptic frequencies related to one or more of motions and sounds associated with the discoverable object ([0066]; [0069]: [0091]; [0114] lines 4-7: e.g., the smartphone already incorporates an IMU—i.e., a haptic unit of the smartphone—that detects the motion/movement of the smartphone. Accordingly, when the user is manipulating the book—such as turning a page—while holding the smartphone, the IMU senses a page turn and generates relevant signals. This confirms the fact that the smartphone is first activated; and subsequently, the IMU of the smartphone starts detecting one or more motions/vibrations as the user is manipulating the book; and thereby, the IMU provides the sensed motions/vibrations at one or more haptic frequencies to the processor of the smartphone. Similarly, the smartphone already incorporates a microphone, which is also construed as a haptic unit, that detects the sound—i.e., acoustic vibration—as the user is sounding the word; and thereby the microphone provides the sensed haptic vibrations at one or more haptic frequencies to the processor of the smartphone. Accordingly, each of the above scenarios teaches the process of producing, by the device haptic unit, sensed haptic vibrations at one or more haptic frequencies related to one or more motions associated with the discoverable object. Note that the discoverable object is on the page being tuned; and therefore, the motions or sounds are associated with the discoverable object); after producing the sensed haptic vibrations, acquiring, by the device camera, a camera image when the handheld device is held and manipulated by the human to direct the light beam such that the light beam points from the device light beam source to the one or more visible objects ([0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2; [0106] lines 6-10; [0174]: e.g., the handheld device—the smartphone—already has a light beam source—such as, a laser beam or a LED. Thus, after the user has turned the page, i.e., after the haptic unit has produced the sensed haptic vibrations that indicate the turning of the page, the user identifies a visible object(s) on the page by pointing to—i.e. directing light on—a relevant section on the page; and wherein the camera captures image of the location or place on which the light is pointing. Note that the user is manipulating the smartphone while holding it since it is merely optional to use the support member—such as, FIG 6B, label “602” ); isolating, by the device processor, one or more indicated objects at the beam location region within the camera image; and determining, by the device processor, whether one or more of the one or more indicated objects match a predetermined template of the discoverable object ([0088]; [0096]; [0100]; [0101]: e.g. while holding the device, the user manipulates or positions the smartphone to project a light beam on part of the page and captures the image of at least the portion of the page in order to identify a discoverable object—such as, (a) a page identification or a page number at which the light is pointing to, or (b) a word at which the light is pointing to, etc., and subsequently, the device generates an audio and/or visual content relevant to the identified page or word. Accordingly, the processor not only isolates one or more indicated objects—such as, one or more alphabetical and/or numerical symbols that represent a page identification/number or a word, etc., but also determines whether one or more of the above indicated objects match a predetermined template of the discoverable object); performing an action by the device processor based on the determining one of the match and a mismatch of the one or more indicated objects with the predetermined template of the discoverable object ([0088] to [0089]: e.g., as already indicated above, the system generates an audio and/or visual content that is relevant to the identified page or word, which is the discoverable object, etc. Accordingly, based on the analysis of the captured page identification or word, the system provides relevant audio/video feedback to the user; and therefore, the device processor is performing an action based on the determining one of the match and a mismatch of the one or more indicated objects with the predetermined template of the discoverable object); wherein the device light beam source generates a narrow beam of light that provides the light reflection ([0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2: e.g., the smartphone, which corresponds to the handheld device, already incorporates a laser pointer that directs laser beam onto a surface; and therefore, basic common sense dictates that the such light beam source generates a narrow beam of light that provides the light reflection), and wherein the device light beam source and device camera are mounted on the handheld device such that the beam location is located at a center of camera images or off set from the center of camera images acquired by the device camera ([0169]; [0170]; also see claim 33: e.g., again given the fact that the handheld device is a smartphone, the light source and the camara are mounted on the device in close proximity with one another; and furthermore, during capturing of an object—such as a word—on the page of the book while directing laser beam on that object, the beam location is located at a center of camera images or off set from the center of camera images acquired by the camera).
Regarding claim 20, Koren teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 18.
Koren further teaches, the action comprises one or more of: transmitting, to one or more remote processors, one or more of: the one or more haptic frequencies, the camera image, an acquisition time of acquiring the camera image, the predetermined camera image light beam pointing region, the predetermined template of the discoverable object, and the one or more indicated objects; playing one or more sounds on a device speaker operatively coupled to the device processor; displaying one or more illumination patterns on one or more device displays operatively coupled to the device processor; and activating a device haptic unit operatively coupled to the device processor ([0088]: e.g., the device, which is in the form of a smartphone—see [0169]—already comprises a speaker. In addition, as already indicated per claim 19, the system generates a relevant audio to the user based on the analysis of the identified page that user is reading, etc. Accordingly, the action comprises at least playing one or more sounds on the device speaker operatively coupled to the device’s processor).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Koren 2013/0168 954.
Regarding claim 15, Koren teaches the following claimed limitations: a method to indicate a discoverable object by a human ([0049]; [0052]; [0055]: e.g. a system/method that provides one or more relevant audio and/or visual material related to an object or element depicted on a surface—such as, an electronic book) comprising: providing a handheld device including a device processor, a device light beam source configured to generate a light beam producing a light reflection at a beam location when directed at surfaces such that the light reflection is viewable by the human, a device camera aligned with the light beam source such that a camera field-of-view includes the beam location and operatively coupled to the device processor, and one or more device displays operatively coupled to the device processor ([0087] lines 1-2; [0088]; [0169]; also see claim 33: e.g. the system already comprises a handheld device—such as a smartphone—that a user utilizes to scan or capture one or more sections of the surface; such as the page of the book, etc., and furthermore, the smartphone already comprises: a processor; a light beam source—such as a laser pointer—for directing a light beam on a surface; and also a camera aligned with the light beam source such that the camera field-of-view already includes the beam location; and furthermore, the processor is already coupled—at least via a wireless interface—to one or more computing/display devices, etc.); activating the device such that the light beam is generated by the device light beam source and the device camera acquires images within the field-of-view; after activating the device, acquiring, by the device camera, a camera image when the handheld device is held and manipulated by the human to direct the light beam such that the projected light beam points from the device light beam source to one or more visible objects ([0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2; [0106] lines 6-10; [0174]: e.g., the handheld device—the smartphone—already has a light beam source—such as, a laser beam or a LED. Accordingly, after activating the device to generate the light beam, the user identifies one or more visible objects on the page by projecting/pointing to—i.e. pointing a laser light on—a relevant section on the page, so that the camera captures an image of the relevant object—such as a word on the page to which the laser beam is pointing. Note that the user is manipulating the smartphone to direct the light beam on the desired object since it is merely optional to use the support member—i.e., FIG 6B, label “602”); isolating, by the device processor, one or more indicated objects at the beam location within the camera image; and determining, by the device processor, whether the one or more indicated objects match a predetermined template of the discoverable object ([0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2; [0088]; [0103]; [0106]; [0107]: e.g. as the user is projecting or directing the light beam on the relevant section—such as a word pertinent to wind—on the page using the laser or LED pointer, the camera captures the section on the page where the user is pointing using the light. Subsequently, the system generates an audio and/or visual content relevant to the identified word—such as, playing a sound track of wind, etc. In this regard, it is understood that the processor determines whether the one or more of the indicated objects match a predetermined template of the discoverable object; i.e., it identifies whether the combination of one or more of the letters, including the combination of letters that is related to wind, has a corresponding prestored audio/visual content; and thereby, it selects the relevant content—such as audio—that matches the identified word); and performing an action by the device processor based on the determining one of the match and a mismatch the one or more indicated objects with the predetermined template of the discoverable object ([0088] to [0092]: e.g., as already indicated above, the system generates an audio and/or visual content relevant to the identified word; such as, playing a sound track of wind, displaying one or more images or animations, etc. The above indicates that the system, based on the analysis of the captured word/phrase on the page, the system provides relevant audio feedback to the user. Thus, the process of generating audio and/or visual content indicates the process of performing an action by the device processor based on the determining one of the match and a mismatch of the one or more indicated objects with the predetermined template of the discoverable object); wherein the device light beam source generates a narrow beam of light that provides the light reflection ([0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2: e.g., the smartphone, which corresponds to the handheld device, already incorporates a laser pointer that directs laser beam onto a surface; and therefore, basic common sense dictates that the such light beam source generates a narrow beam of light that provides the light reflection), and wherein the device light beam source and device camera are mounted on the handheld device such that the beam location is located at a center of camera images or off set from the center of camera images acquired by the device camera ([0169]; [0170]; also see claim 33: e.g., again given the fact that the handheld device is a smartphone, the light source and the camara are mounted on the device in close proximity with one another; and furthermore, during capturing of an object—such as a word—on the page of the book while directing laser beam on that object, the beam location is located at a center of camera images or off set from the center of camera images acquired by the camera).
Koren, per the implementation above, does not expressly describe the step of displaying one or more visual cues related to the discoverable object before the user attempts to identify the discoverable object from the one or more visible objects depicted on the page.
However, Koren already suggests an exemplary embodiment, wherein the system initially displays an image to the user when a page turn is detected ([0091]: e.g., the image is displayed to the user before the user attempts to identify the discoverable object on the page, i.e., before the user starts to capture the image of any of the visible objects on the page).
It is also worth to note that the claimed content/topic of the image (e.g., content being related to the discoverable object), does not necessarily patentably distinguish the claim from the prior art. This is because the content/topic of the displayed image is merely nonfunctional descriptive matter (i.e., the content does not have any new and nonobvious functional relationship with the substrate/deice).
Accordingly, given the teaching of Koren above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Koren’s system; for example, by incorporating one or more additional steps; such as, displaying to the user at least one image (e.g., an image/animation that encourages the user to perform well during the exercise; an image/animation that illustrates to the user the procedures to be performed, etc.) before the user attempts to identify a discoverable object—such as the particular word/picture—from the one or more words/pictures depicted on the page; so that, the user would be motivated to proceed with his/her learning or reading activity without frustration.
Regarding claim 17, Koren teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 15.
Koren further teaches, the action comprises one or more of: transmitting, to one or more remote processors, one or more of: the one or more visual cues, the camera image, an acquisition time of the acquiring the camera image, the predetermined camera image light beam pointing region, the predetermined template of the discoverable object, and the one or more indicated objects; playing one or more sounds on a device speaker operatively coupled to the device processor; displaying one or more illumination patterns on the one or more device displays; and activating a device haptic unit operatively coupled to the device processor ([0088]: e.g., the device, which is in the form of a smartphone—see [0169]—already comprises a speaker. In addition, as already indicated per claim 16, the system provides relevant audio feedback to the user based on the analysis of the captured word/phrase on the page that user is reading, etc. Accordingly, the action comprises at least playing one or more sounds on the device speaker operatively coupled to the device’s processor).
● Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Koren 2013/0168 954 in view of Levy 2013/0295535.
Regarding claim 1, Koren teaches the following claimed limitations: a method to indicate a discoverable object by a human ([0049]; [0052]; [0055]: e.g. a system/method that provides one or more relevant audio and/or visual material related to an object or element depicted on a surface—such as, a page of a book) comprising: providing a handheld device including a device processor, a device light beam source configured to generate a light beam producing a light reflection at a beam location when directed at surfaces such that the light reflection is viewable by the human; a device camera aligned with the light beam source such that a camera field-of-view includes the beam location and operatively coupled to the device processor, and a device speaker operatively coupled to the device processor ([0087] lines 1-2; [0119]; [0169]; also claim 33: e.g. the system already comprises a handheld device—such as a smartphone—to scan or capture one or more sections of the surface; such as the page of the book, etc., and wherein the a smartphone already comprises: a processor; a light beam source for directing a beam of light on the surface; and a camera aligned with the light beam source such that the camera field-of-view includes the beam location; and furthermore, the processor is coupled to: (i) the camera and (ii) a speaker on the smartphone, etc.); activating the device such that the light beam is generated by the device light beam source and the device camera acquires images within the field-of-view; acquiring, by the device camera, a camera image when the handheld device is held and manipulated by the human to direct the light beam such that the light beam points from the device light beam source to one or more visible objects ([0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2; [0106] lines 6-10; [0174]: e.g., the smartphone already has a light beam source—such as, a laser beam or a LED; and accordingly, the user identifies one or more visible objects on the page by pointing to—i.e. projecting/directing light on—a relevant section on the page, so that the camera captures an image of the relevant object—such as a word on the page to which the laser beam is pointing. The above indicates that the user has already activated the device, which makes the light beam source to generate the light beam and the camera to capture images. It is also worth to note that the user is manipulating the smartphone while holding it since it is merely optional to use the support member—see FIG 6B, label “602” ); isolating, by the device processor, one or more indicated objects at the beam location within the camera image; determining, by the device processor, whether one or more of the one or more indicated objects match a predetermined template of the discoverable object ([0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2; [0088]; [0103]; [0106]; [0107]: e.g. as the user projects/directs the light beam on the relevant section—such as a word pertinent to wind—on the page using the laser or LED pointer, the camera captures the section on the page where the user is pointing using the light. Subsequently, the system generates an audio and/or visual content relevant to the identified word—such as, playing a sound track of wind, etc. In this regard, it is understood that the device processor determines whether one or more of the indicated objects match a predetermined template of the discoverable object; i.e., it identifies whether the combination of one or more of the letters, including the combination of letters that is related to wind, has a corresponding prestored audio/visual content; and thereby, it selects the relevant content—such as audio—that matches the identified word); and performing an action by the device processor based at least in part on the determining one of the match and a mismatch of the one or more indicated objects with the predetermined template of the discoverable object ([0088] to [0089]: e.g., as already indicated above, the system generates an audio and/or visual content relevant to the identified word; such as, playing a sound track of wind, displaying one or more images or animations, etc. The above indicates that the system, based on the analysis of the captured word/phrase on the page, the system provides relevant audio feedback to the user. Thus, the process of generating audio and/or visual content indicates the process of performing an action by the device processor based at least in part on the determining one of the match and a mismatch of the one or more indicated objects with the predetermined template of the discoverable object); wherein the device light beam source generates a narrow beam of light that provides the light reflection ([0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2: e.g., the smartphone, which corresponds to the handheld device, already incorporates a laser pointer that directs laser beam onto a surface; and therefore, basic common sense dictates that the such light beam source generates a narrow beam of light that provides the light reflection), and wherein the device light beam source and device camera are mounted on the handheld device such that the beam location is located at a center of camera images or off set from the center of camera images acquired by the device camera ([0169]; [0170]; also see claim 33: e.g., again given the fact that the handheld device is a smartphone, the light source and the camara are mounted on the device in close proximity with one another; and furthermore, during capturing of an object—such as a word—on the page of the book while directing laser beam on that object, the beam location is located at a center of camera images or off set from the center of camera images acquired by the camera).
Although Koren already plays one or more audios related to the discoverable object, Koren does not expressly describe initially playing an audible cue related to the discoverable object before the user attempts to identify the discoverable object from the one or more visible objects depicted on the page.
However, Levy discloses a system/method that provides, via a client device, a lesson material(s) to a user; and wherein, the system plays one or more audible cues related to a discoverable object before the user attempts to identify the discoverable object from one or more visible objects depicted on a page ([0020]; [0026]); and wherein the client device above is a handheld device—such as, a smartphone ([0082]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Koren in view of Levy; for example, by incorporating one or more additional instructions; such as, playing to the user one or more initial audible cues related to the discoverable object before the user attempts to identify the discoverable object—such as the particular word/picture—from one or more words/pictures depicted on the page, so that the user would have a better chance to easily identify the object from a plurality of objects, etc., and this motivates the user to progress with his/her learning or reading activity without frustration (e.g., while relying on the played audible cue, the user attempts to identify the discoverable object by capturing the image of just one of the pictures/words, which is considered to be more pertinent to the played audible cue).
Regarding claim 2, Koren in view of Levy teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Koren further teaches, the device light beam source is one of a light emitting diode and a lasing diode ([0087]: e.g., the device already generates light via a LED or a laser pointer; and thus, it comprises at least a LED).
Regarding claim 3, Koren in view of Levy teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Koren further teaches, the device light beam source is operatively coupled to the device processor ([0087]; [0106]: e.g., the processor of the device controls the process of generating light; and therefore, it is understood that the light bean source is operatively coupled to the processor). Although Koren does not expressly describe that “an intensity of the device light beam source is controlled by one or more of regulating a magnitude of a light beam driving current and a pulse width modulation of the light beam driving current”, the above limitation is directed to an old and well-known function, which one or more portable computing device—such as a cellphone—usually performs; for example, when capturing an image, etc.
Moreover, Applicant has already admitted that the above limitation is an old and well-known practice in the art, “Beam intensity may be modulated by a number of means known in the art including regulating the magnitude of the light beam driving current (e.g., with transistor-based circuitry) and/or using pulse width modulation (i.e., PWM) of the driving circuitry” (see page 18 of the specification, emphasis added).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Koren; for example, by incorporating one or more well-known regulating schemes in the art—such as: a scheme that regulates the magnitude of the light beam driving current, a PWM scheme, etc., in order to control one or more attributes of the light being generated (e.g. the magnitude or intensity of the light), so that such implementation provides one or more inherent advantages—such as, prolonging the battery life of the smartphone when reducing the intensity of the light being emitted, etc.
Koren in view of Levy teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Koren further teaches:
Regarding claim 4, the projected light beam is one or more of collimated, non-coherent, diverging, and patterned ([0087]: e.g., the device is generating light using laser pointer or a LED. According, such generation of light using a laser pointer indicates that the projected light beam is collimated);
Regarding claim 7, the one or more audible cues related to the discoverable object include one or more of: “one or more sounds generated by the discoverable object, one or more names of the discoverable object . . . and one or more related object descriptions related to the discoverable object” ([0058]; [0059]; [0088]: e.g., when the user plays a jigsaw puzzle, the device captures and recognizes one or more patterns of the puzzle, including one or more pieces of the puzzle; and thereby it provides a relevant audio feedback to the user. Similarly, based on a word/phrase detected on a page, such as a word that relates to a wind, the device provides relevant audio feedback—such as, playing a sound track of wind, etc. Thus, one or more audible cues related to the discoverable object includes at least one or more of: one or more sounds generated by the discoverable object, one or more names of the discoverable object, etc. Note that claim 7 is directed to the content/topic of the audible cues; and this is nonfunctional descriptive matter. Thus, the prior art is not necessarily required to teach the content/topic of any of the listed audible cues; rather, the prior art is required to teach merely the process of generating an audio material that is relevant to the identified/detected object);
Regarding claim 8, the predetermined template of the discoverable object includes one or more of: one or more shapes of the discoverable object, one or more sizes of the discoverable object, one or more colors of the discoverable object, one or more textures of the discoverable object, and one or more patterns within the discoverable object ([0058] to [0061]: e.g., based on the analysis of the shape, content or pattern, the system determines that boardgame or jigsaw puzzle that the user is playing, including one or more pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and their corresponding location, etc. Accordingly, the above indicate that the system already incorporates one or more templates of the discoverable object(s); such as: one or more shapes of the discoverable object, one or more sizes of the discoverable object, etc.);
Regarding claim 9, the discoverable object is a printed object within one of a book, a book cover, a brochure, a box, a sign, a newspaper and a magazine ([0074]; 0088]: e.g., the system plays a sound track of wind when it detects, from the page of the book that the user is reading, a word/phrase that relates to wind. Accordingly, this word, which is printed on the page of the book, demonstrates that the discoverable object is a printed object within a book, or a book cover, etc.);
Regarding claim 11, the action comprises one or more of: transmitting, to one or more remote processors, one or more of the one or more audible cues, the camera image, an acquisition time of the acquiring the camera image, the predetermined camera image light beam pointing region, the predetermined template of the discoverable object, and the one or more indicated objects; playing one or more sounds on the device speaker; displaying one or more illumination patterns on one or more device displays operatively coupled to the device processor; and activating a device haptic unit operatively coupled to the device processor ([0058]; [0059]; [0088]: e.g., as already indicated per claim 10, the system provides a relevant audio feedback to the user based on the analysis of (i) the captured image of the puzzle that the user is playing, and/or (ii) the captured word/phrase on the page that user is reading, etc. Accordingly, the action comprises at least playing one or more sounds on the device speaker);
Regarding claim 12, a device switch is operatively coupled to the device processor, the method further comprising determining the match with the predetermined template of the discoverable object occurring upon detecting, by the device processor, a change in a switch state of the device switch (see FIG 8B; also [0261]: e.g., after selecting, via a user interface on the device, the book to be read, the user presses the “PLAY” button; and in response, a page identification sensor is switched on and the device identifies the current page of the book; and subsequently, based on the identification of the page above, the system plays an audio track pertinent to the identified page. The above indicate that at least one device switch is operatively coupled to the device’s processor; and wherein, upon the processor detecting a change in a switch state of the device switch, the processor proceeds with the process of determining the match with the predetermined template of the discoverable object).
Regarding claim 13, Koren in view of Levy teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Koren further teaches that a device microphone is operatively coupled to the device processor ([0169]; [0171]: e.g., the device, which is in the form of one or more handheld computing devices—such as a smartphone, already comprises a microphone).
Levy further teaches, determining a match with a predetermined template of a discoverable object occurring upon identifying, by the device processor, one or more identifiable sounds produced by the human within data acquired by the device microphone ([0023]: e.g. the system prompts the user to read one or more words depicted on a flashcard; and the system captures, via its microphone, the speech/voice of the user as he/she is reading the word; and subsequently the system compares the captured speech/voice with one or more stored templates—such as “stored correct sounds of the words on the flashcards”—in order to determine whether there is a match or not. Accordingly, the above corresponds to the process of determining a match with a predetermined template of a discoverable object occurring upon identifying, by the device processor, one or more identifiable sounds produced by the human within data acquired by the device microphone).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Koren in view of Levy; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithms, so that it further prompts the user to audibly identify a word or a picture displayed on the page; and the device captures—via its microphone—one or more words that the user is uttering; and wherein the device analyzes and compares the captured words or pronunciation of the user with one or more stored correct words or pronunciations that are relevant to the displayed word or picture in order to determine whether there is a match or not, etc., and thereby the system generates a pertinent audio and/or visual feedback to the user in order to further enhance the user’s learning/reading experience (e.g. encouraging the user to repeat the word if the user’s pronunciation is incorrect; presenting a score that represents the accuracy of the user’s pronunciation, etc.).
Regarding claims 14, Koren in view of Levy teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Koren further teaches, a device inertial measurement unit is operatively coupled to the device processor ([0169]: e.g., the device is already in the form of a smartphone; and therefore, it normally incorporates an inertial sensor, i.e., an IMU, for determining the orientation of the device, etc.); determining the match with the predetermined template of the discoverable object occurring upon identifying, by the device processor, one of a predetermined handheld device gesture motion and a predetermined handheld device orientation within data acquired by the device inertial measurement unit ([0066]; [0114] lines 4-7: e.g., the device is positioned at one or more parts of the book; and accordingly, before executing the process of identifying the particular page and the audio/visual content relevant to that page, the device first detects a page turn based on a page turn motion that moves the device. Accordingly, the above indicates that the processor executes the process of determining the match with the predetermined template of the discoverable object upon identifying—based on data acquired using its IMU—at least a predetermined device gesture motion or orientation).
Regarding claims 21, Koren in view of Levy teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Koren further teaches, wherein the handheld device comprises a portion configured to be held by the human, and wherein the device light beam source and the device camera are mounted on one end of the handheld device aligned such that the camera field-of-view includes the beam location region ([0087] lines 1-2; [0169]; [0171] lines 1-3: e.g., the handheld device is already a smartphone; and thus, it already comprises a portion to be held by a human. In addition, the light source and the camera of such smartphone are already on one end of the device; and the camera is capturing the area that the light beam—from the light source---is illuminating. The above indicates the alignment of the camera and the light source, wherein the camera’s field-of-view already includes the beam location region).
Regarding claim 22, Koren in view of Levy teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
The limitation, “when the device processor determines that the one or more indicated objects are a mismatch with the predetermined template of the discoverable object, the device processor activates the device speaker to provide one or more additional audible cues to the human”, is referring to an optional limitation of claim 1 since claim 1 is requiring an action to be performed based on determining one of the match or a mismatch.
Nevertheless, before the user attempts to identify a discoverable object depicted on a page/screen, Levy’s the system provides the user with one or more cues related to the discoverable object; such as, prompting the user to highlight at least one relevant word ([0136]); and furthermore, based on comparing the at least one word—which the user has identified above—with a stored template, the system determines whether the highlighted/identified word is correct or incorrect; and thereby the system provides the user with further cue—such as, indicating the word that the user has incorrectly highlighted/identified, etc. ([0138]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Koren in view of Levy; for example, by upgrading the system algorithm, so that the system provided the user—based on the analysis of the accuracy of the user’s response—with one or more additional cues; such as, visually and/or audibly informing the user whether the word/object that the user has identified is correct or incorrect, etc., so that the user would have a further option to carefully evaluate and study each of the one or more words/pictures depicted on the page, etc.
Regarding claim 23, Koren teaches the following claimed limitations: a method for interacting with a visible object by a user, comprising: providing a handheld device including a processor, a device light beam source configured to generate a narrow light beam producing a light reflection at a beam location when directed at surfaces such that the light reflection is viewable by the user, a device camera aligned with the light beam source such that a camera field-of-view includes the beam location and operatively coupled to the device processor, and an output device operatively coupled to the device processor ([0049]; [0055]; [0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2; [0169] : e.g., a system and/or method for enhancing a readable media—such as, a page of a book; wherein the system comprises a handheld device—such as, a smartphone that includes a camera and a light beam source—such as, a laser pointer. In this regard, basic common sense dictates that the such light beam source generates a narrow beam of light that provides the light reflection Thus, the camera of the smartphone is already aligned with the light beam source such that a camera field-of-view includes the beam location), the device light beam source and device camera mounted on the handheld device such that the beam location is located within camera images acquired by the device camera ([0169]; [0170]; also see claim 33: e.g., once again given the fact that the handheld device is a smartphone, the light source and the camara are mounted on the device in close proximity with one another; and furthermore, during capturing of an object—such as a word—on the page of the book while directing laser beam on that object, the beam location is located at a center of camera images or off set from the center of camera images acquired by the camera); activating the device by the user such that the light beam is directed at the visible object and the light reflection is viewable by the user, the device camera acquiring images within the field-of-view including the visible object ([0085]; [0086] lines 2-4; [0087] lines 1-2; [0103]; [0119]; also see claim 33: e.g., as part of a recording phase, the user points—using the laser pointer—to a particular page or a particular word on the page while reading aloud; and wherein the smartphone associates the particular page/word above with the audio after capturing that page/word via its camera. Thus, the above scenario already indicates that the user is activating the device such that the light beam is directed at the visible object and the light reflection is viewable by the user; and wherein the device camera is acquiring images within the field-of-view including the visible object): manipulating the device by the user to direct the light reflection at a location on the visible object, whereupon: the device camera acquires a camera image including the location ([0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2; [0106] lines 6-10; [0174]; also claim 33: e.g., during a reading phase, the user points—using the laser pointer—to a particular location on the page; such as a particular word; and wherein the camera of the smartphone captures the above location. Accordingly, the user is manipulating the device to direct the light reflection at a location on the visible object, whereupon: the device camera acquires a camera image including the location); the device processor isolates one or more indicated objects at the beam location on the visible object within the camera image and determines whether the one or more indicated objects match a predetermined template of the discoverable object ([0086] lines 4-6; [0087] lines 1-2; [0088]; [0103]; [0106]; [0107]: e.g. as the user is directing the light beam on the particular word—such as the word pertinent to wind—on the page, the camera captures the section on the page where the user is pointing using the light beam; and subsequently, the system generates an audio and/or visual content relevant to the identified word—such as, playing a sound track of wind, etc. This indicates that the processor identifies whether the combination of one or more of the letters, including the combination of letters that is related to wind, has a corresponding prestored audio/visual content; and thereby, it selects the relevant content—such as audio—that matches the identified word. Accordingly, the processor not only isolates one or more indicated objects at the beam location on the visible object within the camera image, but also determines whether the one or more indicated objects match a predetermined template of the discoverable object); and the device processor performs an action based at least in part on determining one of a match and a mismatch of the one or more indicated objects with the predetermined template of the discoverable object, the action comprising one of: when the device processor determines that the one or more indicated objects are a match with the predetermined template of the discoverable object, the device processor activates the output device provide a confirmation to the human ([0088] to [0092]: e.g., as already indicated above, the system generates an audio and/or visual content relevant to the identified word; such as, playing a sound track of wind, displaying one or more images or animations, etc. The above indicates that the system, based on the analysis of the captured word/phrase on the page, the system provides relevant audio feedback to the user. Thus, the process of generating audio and/or visual content indicates the process of performing an action based at least in part on determining one of a match and a mismatch of the one or more indicated objects with the predetermined template of the discoverable object. Note also that such plying of a sound track of wind also indicates that the device processor is activating the output device to provide a confirmation to the human when the processor determines that the one or more indicated objects are a match with the predetermined template of the discoverable object).
It is worth to note that the limitation, “when the device processor determines that the one or more indicated objects are a mismatch with the predetermined template of the discoverable object, the device processor activates the output device to provide one or more additional cues to the human”, is merely optional and/or conditional. In particular, the claim requires just one of the two actions to be performed; but not necessarily both.
Although Koren already provides—via the output device—one or more visual or audio content items that relate to the discoverable object, Koren does not expressly describe providing a cue to the user to identify the discoverable object prior to the user attempts to identify the discoverable object.
However, Levy discloses a system/method that implements a handheld device in the form of a smartphone ([0082]); and wherein, before the user attempts to identify a discoverable object depicted on a page/screen, the system provides the user with one or more cues related to the discoverable object; such as, prompting the user to highlight at least one relevant word ([0136]); and furthermore, based on comparing the at least one word—which the user has identified above—with a stored template, the system determines whether the highlighted/identified word is correct or incorrect; and thereby the system provides the user with further cue—such as, indicating the word that the user has incorrectly highlighted/identified, etc. ([0138]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Koren in view of Levy; for example, by upgrading the system algorithm, wherein (a) one or more additional instructions are incorporated, including a prompt that informs the user regarding the discoverable object that he/she is required to identify from the page—such as, the particular word/picture—from one or more words/pictures depicted on the page, etc., so that the user would have a better chance to easily identify the object from a plurality of objects; and furthermore, (b) the system is arranged to provide the user—based on the analysis of the accuracy of the user’s response—with one or more additional cues; such as, visually and/or audibly informing the user whether the word/object that he/she identified is correct or incorrect, etc., so that, besides being motivated to progress with his/her learning/reading activity without frustration, the user would have a further option to carefully evaluate and study each of the one or more words/pictures depicted on the page etc.
Note that the modified system above effectively addresses the optional limitation above; namely, “when the device processor determines that the one or more indicated objects are a mismatch with the predetermined template of the discoverable object, the device processor activates the output device to provide one or more additional cues to the human”, even though none of the references is necessarily required to teach an optional limitation.
● Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Koren 2013/0168 954 in view of Levy 2013/0295535 and in view of Kotlarsky 2013/0292475.
Regarding claim 5, Koren in view of Levy teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Koren further teaches, the device light beam source is operatively coupled to the device processor ([0087]; [0106]: e.g., the processor of the device controls the process of generating light; and therefore, it is understood that the light bean source is operatively coupled to the processor).
Koren does not expressly describe turning the device light beam source off when acquiring the camera image.
However, Kotlarsky teaches a handheld device for capturing a discoverable object—such as, a barcode, etc. ([0052]; [0053]); wherein the device projects a liner light beam, which the user aligns on the desired target object; and wherein the device switches off the linear light beam during the image capturing phase; so that the system achieves a successful image output (e.g., the barcode symbol) ([0389]).
Thus, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Koren in view of Kotlarsky; for example, by further upgrading the system’s algorithm, so that it turns off the light beam (e.g., the laser light), which the user used to point/identify the object on the page, once the system has detected the object (e.g., the word), in order to (i) conserve power since turning off the light inherently reduces the power that the device is consuming during operation, and/or (ii) reduce a light interference that may hamper the generation of a successful image output.
● Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Koren 2013/0168 954 in view of Levy 2013/0295535 and in view of Burns 2006/0028457.
Regarding claim 6, Koren in view of Levy teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Koren does not expressly describe, acquiring, by the device camera, a baseline image that includes no reflection by the projected light beam; acquiring, by the device camera, a light beam reflection image that includes one or more reflections produced by the projected light beam; computing, by the device processor, a subtracted pixel intensity image based at least in part on the baseline image subtracted from the light beam reflection image; and assigning to the beam location region, by the device processor, light beam sensed pixels within the subtracted pixel intensity image that exceed a predetermined light intensity threshold.
However, Burns teaches a system that comprises at least one handheld device—such as a stylus—that a user uses to point to—or write on—a page (e.g., a sheet of paper, a notebook, etc.) ([0051]; [0052]); wherein the system further incorporates a light source—such as a LED or a laser—that projects light on a section on the page to illuminate an object, namely the stylus tip ([0053]); and wherein the system determines the position of the stylus tip on the page based on capturing (i) a first set of images with the light source turned on and (ii) a second set of images with the light source turned off; and subsequently the system subtracts—on a pixel-by-pixel basis—the second set of images (i.e., image information captured per ambient light) from the first set of images in order to isolate image information captured per the light emitted from the light source; and thereby, the position of the stylus tip on the page is determined ([0054]).
It is worth to note that such comparison of two different images, i.e., two images with different brightness level, implies that the first image (e.g., the first set of images captured with the light source turned on) has a brightness level (pixel intensity level) that exceeds at least a minimum brightness level (light intensity threshold) when compared to the intensity level of the second image (the second set of images captured with the light source turned off).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Koren in view of Burns; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithm, wherein the algorithm causes the camera to capture, as applied to each of the one or more sections on the page, at least two successive images, namely a first image captured while the light source is turned on (i.e., while the light source illuminating—or pointing to—a section on the page) and a second image captured while the light source is turned off; and wherein the system further subtracts—on pixel-by-pixel basis—the second image from the first image in order to obtain a resulting pixel intensity level; so that the resulting pixel level is utilized as a reference to set the minimum level of light intensity to be detected when determining whether the particular section on the page is being illuminated or not, etc., so that the system would have an additional option to verify the particular section to which the user is pointing using the light source, etc.
Response to Arguments.
10. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 12/02/2025). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, Applicant appears to simply disregard even basic common-sense facts. For instance, Applicant asserts, “Koren reference does not disclose a device that includes a light beam source that generates a narrow beam of light providing a light reflection . . . center of camera images or offset from the center of camera images acquired by the device camera, as recited in each of claims 1, 15, and 18 . . . a smart phone is incapable of generating a narrow light beam producing a light reflection at a beam location that is visible by a user, such as the beam reflection 10b shown in FIG. 1 of the present application” (emphasis modified).
However, Applicant’s argument is not even relevant to challenge, much less negate, the Office’s finding. This is because Koren already teaches a handheld device, namely, a smartphone that incorporates a laser pointer ([0169]; also see claim 33); and wherein the user is using such laser pointer to point to a desired part (e.g., a word) on the page of a book ([0087] lines 1-2; [0088]). Thus, PHOSITA readily recognizes that the smartphone above, besides incorporating a light beam source that generates a narrow beam of light (a laser beam) that provides a light reflection at the beam location, the light beam source and the camera are mounted on the smartphone such that the beam location is located “at a center of camera images or offset from the center of camera images acquired by the device camera”, as currently claimed. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, while referring to some of the paragraphs cited from the reference ([0086]; [0087]), Applicant is asserting that the paragraphs “do not refer to the smart phone but to objects separate from the camera device to point at a word or page location, i.e., the user's finger or a pointer” (emphasis added). However, Applicant’s subjective conclusion above is erroneous. This is because Koren not only identifies the pointer as a laser pointer ([0087] lines 1-2), but also identifies the device that includes the laser pointer as a smartphone ([0169]; claim 33). Thus, regardless of Applicant’s attempt to disregard the facts, the teaching of Koren regarding a smartphone that incorporates a laser pointer remains intact. Consequently, Applicant’s further speculation, “the pointer is not part of the smart phone but is separately held and manipulated by the user to point at a location, similar to pointing with a finger, while the smart phone is mounted on a base to allow the camera to view the page”, is not relevant. Note that Koren‘s system is more robust and superior that it allows the user to use various alternatives, including the user’s finger or a laser pointer of a smartphone to point to a page; however, such implementation does not necessarily mean that Koren is silent regarding such a smartphone that incorporates a laser pointer. Consequently, Applicant’s further attempt to disregard the above basic fact, “[a] person of ordinary skill would readily recognize that a conventional smart phone does not include a laser pointer and that the identified passages from the Koren reference fail to provide any teaching that the disclosed smart phone includes a laser pointer”, is once again not valid.
Secondly, while failing to properly apply even the basics of the obviousness analysis, as set forth per section §103, Applicant is attempting to challenge the teaching of the Koren in a piecemeal fashion while ignoring the teaching incorporated from the secondary reference. Applicant asserts, “Koren reference does not disclose a processor that provides one or more audible (visible or other) cues regarding a target discoverable object” (emphasis added).
However, even basic common sense dictates that a computing device in the form of a smartphone incorporates a processor, which is operatively connected to an audio output device (e.g. a speaker); and thereby, the processor generates audible cues to the user. Of course, the same is true regarding such smartphone that presents one or more visual cues—via a display—to the user.
Regarding the claimed process of providing audible cue to the user regarding a discoverable object (e.g., claim 1), the Office is already using Levy (the secondary reference) to address such limitation. Thus, Applicant’s attempt to challenge Koren in a piecemeal fashion is once again invalid.
Note that Applicant also fails to articulate whether Koren is missing the limitation that relates to template matching, and/or the limitations regrading “isolating one or more indicated objects at a beam location within a camera image . . . indicated objects with the predetermined template of the discoverable object”, etc. Instead, Applicant is making a generic assumption without even considering the cited sections, including the rationale presented in the office-action. Thus, none of Applicant’s assertions is persuasive.
Furthermore, Applicant appears to rely on the same repetitive argument while simply duplicating the recited limitations. Applicant asserts, “Koren reference fails to disclose, teach, or suggest playing one or more audible cues related to the discoverable object; after playing the one or more audible cues, acquiring a camera image when the handheld device . . . with the predetermined template of the discoverable object, as recited in claim 1. The Final Office Action has failed to identify any passages of the Koren reference that expressly disclose manipulated the disclosed appliances in response to audible cues” (emphasis added).
However, once again except for simply listing the recited limitations, Applicant fails to challenge (i) any of the sections cited from the reference(s), and (ii) any of the rationales that the Office presented to support the teaching of the references. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. A proper argument challenges not only the specific sections cited from the reference(s), but also the specific rationale that the Office has presented to support the findings.
Furthermore, while failing to appreciate Koren’s system, Applicant appears to misconstrue the teaching of Koren. Applicant asserts, “the Koren reference discloses that the appliance may allow a user to point at a location, whereupon a reading or recording may be performed, which requires the user to point before the appliance reacts. Thus, the method disclosed in the Koren reference is opposite to the claimed method where the handheld device provides one or more cues, whereupon the human reacts and manipulates the handheld device to point the handheld device at visible objects” (emphasis added).
However, the recording phase, per the teaching of Koren ([0086]), is referring to the process of associating each of one or more words on a book with one or more desired audio and/or visual content items. Of course, Applicant’s claimed method lacks this critical feature since it only relies on predetermined audio already associated with a predetermined book. In particular, if a parent of a child purchases a new book, Applicant’s claimed method would be irrelevant since it does not have the functionality, which allows the parent to associate one or more of the words in the new book with one or more desired audio data. In contrast, given the robust nature of Koren’s device, it incorporates a recording phase that allows the parent to easily associate one or more words with one or more desired audio data.
In addition, unlike Applicant’s generic assertion, Koren’s device does not necessarily require the user to point to a location on the page before the device reacts. For instance, Koren teaches, “. . . In some embodiments, the image is displayed responsive to an event such as a page tum, pointing at a word, or other events such as, for example, sounding a word” ([0091] emphasis added). Thus, as quite evident from the excerpt above, the device generates a cue—such as a visual cue—to the user even before the user points to any point on the page. For instance, the device presents a cue to the user when the user turns the page, or when the user utters a word, etc. Consequently, Applicant’s attempt to disregard Koren, while incorrectly alleging that Koren is “opposite to the claimed method”, is not even valid, much less persuasive.
Applicant is also relying on the same argument, which is presented per claim 1, to challenge the teaching of Koren as applied to claim 23. Applicant asserts, “Koren reference fails to teach or suggest that the user manipulates the smart phone device in response to a cue provided by the device. In particular, ¶¶ [0086]-[0088] identified in the Final Office Action do not involve the appliance providing a cue, whereupon the user manipulates the appliance. Rather, in these passages, the Koren reference merely discloses that a user may point at a location, whereupon the appliance may record or read the location” (emphasis modified).
However, the above argument is also invalid since it fails to consider the teaching of the secondary reference, as required per the basics of section §103. In particular, Applicant is attempting to challenge Koren in a piecemeal fashion, while disregarding the teaching incorporated from Levy. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant is also misapplying the decision regarding ParkerVision Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 903 F. 3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Applicant asserts that “the mere fact that the Koren reference generally discloses that a finger or pointer can be used together with a smart phone cannot be proper basis for concluding it would be obvious to manipulate the smart phone in response to an audible cue, as an affirmative step of the methods recited in the present” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant fails to notice that Koren, as modified per the secondary refence (e.g., Levy, as applied to claims 1, 23, etc.), teaches not only the claimed device but also the claimed steps (see discussion presented under section §103). Consequently, Applicant attempt to disregard the combined teaching of the references, while misapplying ParkerVision Inc. v. Qualcomm, is not relevant, much less persuasive.
Applicant also appears to fail properly construe the role of the secondary reference when conducting obviousness analysis. In particular, while admitting that Levy provides audible cue, Applicant asserts that “Levy reference also fails to disclose, teach, or suggest manipulating a device by a user to direct a narrow light beam at visible objects to identify them in response to such audible cues, as recited in the present claims” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s theory above, the secondary reference is not necessarily required to teach the features that the primary reference is teaching. Instead, the secondary reference is required to teach only the missing element(s) from the primary reference (e.g., see the obviousness finding established per claim 1 above). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Thus, at least for the reasons above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims overcomes the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715