Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to correspondence 07/25/25, regarding application 18/352,169, in which Applicant elected Group II: claims 13-20. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and claims 13-20 have been considered, with claims 1-12 withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
While claim 13 is directed to an “electronic book” and therefore appears to be directed to a machine, according to the particular language of the claim, the “electronic book” only comprises “sentences in digital form”. The electronic book does not comprise a processor, display, etc. but merely sentences in digital form, which is digital data per se. Digital data per se does not fall into a category of eligible subject matter, and so the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 14-20 are rejected for similar reasons. Each of these claims depends on parent claim 13 and merely further defines the digital data that makes up the claimed “electronic book”. None of these claims remedy the above deficiency that the claimed electronic book comprises only digital data per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claims 13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood et al. (US 20080059145).
Consider claim 13, Wood discloses an electronic book (a child’s story book electronically provided to the user, [0041-0042], on the display screen of a computer, [0023]), comprising:
a plurality of sentences in digital form (one or more sentences containing a mixture of base language and target foreign language words, [0052], Fig. 13B, [0065]);
a plurality of words that form each of the plurality of sentences, one or more of the plurality of words of one or more of the plurality of sentences being in a first language and a remainder of the plurality of words of the one or more of the plurality of sentences being in a second language (one or more sentences containing a mixture of base language and target foreign language words, [0052], Fig. 13B, [0065]); and
a plurality of attributes associated to the plurality of sentences and the plurality of words, a first quantity of the plurality of words in the first language and a second quantity of the plurality of words in the second language being based at least in part on the plurality of attributes (user proficiency database stores how often words have been presented, and degree of difficulty, Fig 3, [0056], and various weaves are produced with increasing quantities of words substituted with the translated words based on user proficiency, difficulty, etc., [0066], Fig 13C, Fig 13D).
Consider claim 15, Wood discloses at least one of the plurality of words that form each of the plurality of sentences comprises a lemma (root of the word, [0023]), and further comprising one or more basics containing the lemma (the English entries in user proficiency database, Figure 3, e.g. “dog”, [0056]), each of the one or more basics having attributes attached thereto including a unique identifier that identifies the respective basic and a unique identifier that identifies a translation of the respective basic in the second language (e.g. “dog” and “perro”, Fig 3, [0056]).
Consider claim 18, Wood discloses the electronic book comprises one of a plurality of variants of the electronic book based at least in part on an applied rule and the second quantity of the plurality of words in the second language (multiple versions of each of the set of story texts, each successive version having more target foreign language words and less base words based on user proficiency, [0038]).
Consider claim 19, Wood discloses the first quantity of the plurality of words in the first language and the second quantity of the plurality of words in the second language is based at least in part on user skill level (multiple versions of each of the set of story texts, each successive version having more target foreign language words and less base words based on user proficiency, [0038]).
Consider claim 20, Wood discloses the first quantity of the plurality of words in the first language decreases and the second quantity of the plurality of words in the second language increases in a progression from a start of the electronic book to an end of the electronic book (e.g. “Allright, so out with it.” has 5 English and 0 Spanish words, and “Out with que?” has 2 English words and 1 Spanish word, Fig 13C, [0066]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 20080059145) in view of Hollander et al. (US 20060053365).
Consider claim 14, Wood discloses the plurality of sentences comprises one or more paragraphs (paragraphs, [0027]).
Wood does not specifically mention the one or more paragraphs comprises one or more chapters written in a markup language format, and wherein each of the chapters of the one or more chapters is tagged with a unique identifier identifying the electronic book and at least one attribute identifying the location of the respective chapter within the electronic book.
Hollander discloses the one or more paragraphs comprises one or more chapters written in a markup language format (chapter formatted as a particular HTML, [0064], made up of paragraphs, [0056]), and wherein each of the chapters of the one or more chapters is tagged with a unique identifier identifying the electronic book and at least one attribute identifying the location of the respective chapter within the electronic book (location data including a chapter identifier, [0013]).
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 Wood such that one or more paragraphs comprises one or more chapters written in a markup language format, and wherein each of the chapters of the one or more chapters is tagged with a unique identifier identifying the electronic book and at least one attribute identifying the location of the respective chapter within the electronic book in order to increase the level of granularity at which the book can be discussed, as suggested by Hollander ([0007]). Doing so would have led to predictable results of improved flexibility, as suggested by Hollander ([0007]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of text processing.
Consider claim 17, Wood does not, but Hollander discloses the plurality of words of the plurality of sentences are composed of a markup language (pages and chapters formatted as HTML, [0064], with sentences and words having metadata, [0081]) and wherein the plurality of attributes comprise markup language tags or metadata (paragraph identifier tags, [0076]).
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 Wood such that the plurality of words of the plurality of sentences are composed of a markup language and wherein the plurality of attributes comprise markup language tags or metadata for reasons similar to those for claim 14.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 20080059145) in view of Frahling (US 20180061274).
Consider claim 16, Wood discloses each basic of the one or more basics has an associated reference to a translation of the respective basic (Fig 3, column 308 contains a translation of each basic English word, [0056]).
Wood does not specifically mention a translation in multiple languages.
Frahling discloses a translation in multiple languages (multilingual dictionary with words and phrases in at least 3 different languages, [0024]).
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 Wood by including a translation in multiple languages in order to make learning more efficient, predictably maximizing learning, as suggested by Frahling ([00023]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of text processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130073932 Migos discloses interactive content for digital books
US 9323733 McGhee discloses indexed electronic book annotations
US 7236966 Jackson discloses providing a user-customized electronic book
US 10042880 Bodapati discloses automated identification of start-of-reading location for e-books
US 9846688 Weight discloses book version mapping
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jesse Pullias whose telephone number is 571/270-5135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The examiner’s fax number is 571/270-6135.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 10/27/25