DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendment filed 14 April 2026, claims 1-20, 22, 24, 26 and newly added claims 27-29 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-20, 22, 24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1,8 and 16 recite a method comprising:
processing first image data for analyzing the at least one user-created feature;
based on the processing, generating second image data that are different from the first image data and descriptive of at least one future prospective artwork creation; and
presenting to the user the at least one future prospective artwork creation.
The limitations of processing image data, generating second image data, and presenting a future prospective artwork creation, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processor” in claims 1 and 8 and a “computer program” in claim 16, and “display device”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” and “computer program” language, “processing” and “generating” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually observing and analyzing the first image data for example as a purely mental step, and generating a second image, using a pen and paper. Furthermore, but for the “output device” language, “presenting” in the context of these claims encompasses a user for example presenting the second image data using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 8 and 16 recite acquiring, by at least one input device comprising at least one sensor, at least one image for producing the first image data. This constitutes no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 8 further recites using a processor to perform the claimed steps, and claim 16 recites using a computer program to perform the claimed steps. The processor and computer program in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor or computer program performing generic computer functions of receiving information, analyzing it, and providing) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of acquiring an image using a sensor constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, and using a processor or generic computer program to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, 17-20, 22, 24 and 26-29 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional details of the abstract idea, such as inferring an artwork product, receiving and providing data, details of the feedback, etc. Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a least one sensor” in line 4. It appears this should recite “at least one sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-16, 18-20, 22, 24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pernblad et al. (US 2021/0217325 A1)
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Pernblad discloses a method (as per claim 1) and computer program (as per claim 16) for providing a user with a lesson (tutorial) for creating an object of the visual arts (e.g. artwork, drawings, etc. – Par. 75), the method comprising:
acquiring, by at least one input device comprising at least one sensor (stylus), at least one image for producing image data descriptive of at least one user-created feature created by the user (see Par’s. 83-84, which describe the process in detail with respect to drawing letters; however, the same process is used for example in Par. 86, Fig. 8A – where a student is performing artwork creations; in either case, the student in an initial step uses a stylus tool to create an image of the visual arts, such as the initial two lines in Fig. 8A);
processing, by at least one processor, the first image data for analyzing the at least one characteristic user-created feature (Par’s. 84-85 – for example determining whether the user has exceeded parameter deviation from the example lines, or percentage of tutorial/letter completed);
based on the processing, generating second image data that are different from the first image data and descriptive of at least one future prospective artwork creation (upon determining student successfully drew for example the initial two line in Fig. 8A, determining and generating a second set of two lines to display, that constitute a future prospective artwork or are descriptive of the entire future prospective artwork creation the student is working to create); and
presenting to the user, by the at least one output device, the at least one future prospective artwork creation (see Fig’s 8A-8B).
Regarding claim 8, Pernblad discloses a system for providing a user with a lesson for creating an object of the visual arts, the system comprising:
at least one input device that comprises at least one sensor (stylus 111);
at least one output device (touch screen); and at least one processor that is operably coupled with the at least one input device and the at least one output device (see abstract); and
at least one memory configured to store data and software code portions executable by the at least one processor to allow the execution of the following:
acquiring, by the at least one sensor, at least one image for producing first image data descriptive of at least one user-created assistive feature created by the user, wherein the at least one user- created assistive feature assists the user in the creation of at least one object of the visual arts; and receiving at the at least one memory, from the at least one input device, the first image data produced by the at least one input device; (see e.g. 75, Par’s. 83-86, Fig. 8A);
processing the first image data for analyzing the at least one user-created assistive feature; and based on the analyzing, providing feedback on the at least one user-created assistive feature (for example determining whether user successfully drew the first two lines, and if so, moving on to next step – Par’s. 84-85); wherein the providing of the feedback comprises:
generating second image data that are different from the first image data and descriptive of at least one inferred prospective artwork creation (according to Applicant’s specification, for example Par. 86, last two lines, and Par. 154, an inferred prospective artwork creation may refer to a future or forthcoming intermediate stage and/or final prospective inferred artwork creation; Pernblad similarly generates a next line or lines corresponding to future or forthcoming intermediate stages of the artwork in response to the student successfully drawing the first line or lines – see e.g. Par 86); and
displaying, by the at least one output device, the at least one inferred prospective artwork creation (display intermediate or future completed creation – Fig’s. 8A-8B).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6, 9-15, 18-20, 22, 24 and 26-29, Pernblad further discloses:
receiving image data descriptive of an adapted user-created feature; and providing, based on the received image data descriptive of adapted user-created assistive feature, an updated at least one future prospective artwork creation to the user (create modified or customized tutorial – Fig. 14, Par, 88) (as per claims 3, 10 and 18),
the at least one user-created feature is produced in association with an intermediate stage of creating a final artwork (each of a sequence of steps from start to finish – see e.g. Par. 30) (as per claims 4, 11 and 19),
analyzing a plurality of intermediate stages for producing an artwork creation; and providing collective feedback on the plurality of intermediate stages (e.g. completion indicator provides feedback regarding how many of the plurality of intermediate stages have been completed successfully – Par. 83) (as per claims 6 and 14),
the providing of feedback includes inferring, based on the at least one user-created assistive feature, a prospective artwork product; and presenting the inferred prospective artwork product (see Fig. 12 – system recognizes drawing, breaks it into steps and packages the tutorial for display) (as per claim 9).
the feedback indicates insufficient erasure of the at least one user-created feature, or indicates sufficient erasure of the at least one feature (tutorial may include undos and erases - see Par’s. 73, 75) (as per claims 12 and 20),
suggesting, based on the analyzing, changes or corrections (based on parameter deviations – Par. 84, Fig. 7C) (as per claim 13),
the feedback is provided independent of target reference artwork information (regarding data such as angle of stylus, pressure, distance and/or speed – Par. 16A) (as per claim 15),
adapting a threshold relating to one or more criteria employed for analyzing the user-created feature (threshold parameter deviation is set by teacher during lesson creation, and then applied to the lines in the writing object – Par. 84) (as per claims 22, 24 and 26), and
prompting the user to generate an object of the visual arts (tutorial prompts patient to redraw an object such as a drawing that is displayed on a touch screen – see abstract, Fig. 8B) (as per claims 27-29).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 2, 5, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pernblad et al. (US 2021/0217325 A1) in view of Marggraff (US 2009/0253107 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Pernblad does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a skill level of the user; and providing, based on the determined skill level, feedback. However, Marggraff discloses a similar system for obtaining and analyzing a student’s writing of target gestures (Par. 16) that determines the student’s skill level based on analysis of the writing and provides feedback accordingly (Par. 42). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Pernblad by determining skill level and providing feedback, as taught by Marggraff, to obtain predictable results of determining whether the user should progress to a more or less difficult symbol, as suggested by Marggraff.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Pernblad further discloses the feedback indicates insufficient erasure of the at least one user-created feature, or indicates sufficient erasure of the at least one feature (tutorial may include undoes and erases - see Par’s. 73, 75) (as per claims 5), and
the feedback is provided independent of target reference artwork information (regarding data such as angle of stylus, pressure, distance and/or speed – Par. 16A) (as per claim 7).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments filed 14 April 2026 with respect to the section 101 rejection of claims 1-20, 22, 24 and 26-29 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the newly added features of based on the processing, generating second image data, and presenting at least one future prospective artwork creation by at least one output device, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, Applicant’s arguments are merely conclusory in nature and are not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the rejection above.
Applicant further argues that the features of receiving image data, generating second image data which predicts the outcome of a user’s drawing process, allows a user’s learning process to be significantly accelerated, and therefore improves the technology related to teaching creation of an object of the visual arts. This is not persuasive. To the extent that Applicant’s prediction of an outcome of a drawing process, and output of a piece of art, provides an improvement to a learning process, this type of improvement to a learning process is to the abstract idea itself; i.e. to the area of teaching a student, which is a judicial exception. Applicant has not shown how analyzing image data and determining other image data to display to a student improves for example the functioning of the sensor, processor, or output device. Rather, the claims merely utilize these generic computer components to perform the abstract idea of analyzing image data and determining a subsequent image to display to a user, in a manner that could practically be performed by a person making mental determinations and using a pen and paper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the section 103 rejection of claims 1, 8 and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant points to the newly added limitations in claims 1, 8 and 16 of generating second image data different from the first image data and descriptive of at least one future prospective artwork creation; and presenting the creation. Applicant appears to argue that Pernblad’s predetermined teacher-created tutorial does not generate second image data descriptive of at least one future/inferred prospective artwork creation based on analysis of the first input. However, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in view of Applicant’s specification, a “future prospective artwork creation” does not preclude an upcoming portion of an artwork creation (e.g. the next two lines in Fig. 8A of Pernblad), displayed in response to successful input of previous image data input by the user. In other words, the claims do not explicitly recite that the future creation is somehow customized to the user’s input in some way beyond merely responding to a correct initial artistic input by displaying a future artwork creation for the student to attempt. Furthermore, as discussed below, a “future” creation may be a forthcoming intermediate stage of a creation.
Regarding the “inferred” prospective artwork creation in claim 8, Applicant is directed to the detailed analysis in the rejection above, which points to Par. 86, last two lines, and Par. 154, of Applicant’s specification. These sections disclose that an inferred prospective artwork creation may refer to a future or forthcoming intermediate stage and/or final prospective inferred artwork creation.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday Eastern.
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, Xuan Thai, can be reached at 571-272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights