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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 and newly added claims 21-26 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 1-26 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 image data descriptive of at least one user-created feature created by a user for quantitatively analyzing at least one characteristic of the at least one user-created feature;
determining a skill level associated with the user; and
based on the analyzing, or the determined skill level, or both, providing feedback on the at least one user-creative feature.
The limitations of processing image data, determining a skill level, and providing feedback, 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 claim 8 and a “computer program” in claim 16, 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”, “determining” and “providing” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually observing and analyzing the image data, making a mental determination of a skill level, and providing feedback for example orally or 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 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 1-7, 9-15 and 17-26 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.
4. Claims 16-20, 25 and 26 are also rejected because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 16 recites a computer program comprising program instructions for the execution of a method. A computer program not claimed as being embodied on a tangible storage medium does not fall under one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter). Therefore, the claim in the broadest reasonable interpretation is not directed to statutory subject matter. Dependent claims 17-20, 25 and 26 inherit the deficiencies of parent claim 16 through their dependencies and are thus rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Objections
5. 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 § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-26 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 1, 8 and 16, Pernblad discloses a method (as per claim 1), system (as per claim 8) 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, at least one image for producing image data descriptive of at least one user-created feature created by the user (see Par. 83 – student uses stylus tool to create image, in this example a sequence of lines that make up a letter or letters);
processing the image data for quantitatively analyzing at least one characteristic of the at least one user-created feature (Par’s. 84-85 – quantitively analyzing for example based on parameter deviation from example line, and percentage of tutorial/letter completed);
based on the analyzing, providing feedback on the at least one user-creative feature (Par. 85 – completion indicator provides feedback regarding how much of the tutorial/letter the student has successfully completed).
Pernblad does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a skill level associated with the user. 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 2-7, 9-15 and 17-26, Pernblad further discloses:
the providing of feedback includes: inferring, based on the user-created 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 to a student) (as per claims 2, 9 and 17),
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 feedback to the user (create modified tutorial – Fig. 14) (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),
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 5, 12 and 20),
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 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 claims 7 and 15), and
suggesting, based on the analyzing, changes or corrections (based on parameter deviations – Par. 84, Fig. 7C) (as per claim 13),
the at least one characteristic comprises line quality or similarity to a style (closeness of student’s lines to writing object 71 – Par’s. 83-85) (as per claims 21, 23 and 25), and
automatically 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).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2025 with respect to the section 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the newly added features of acquiring image data by an input device comprising a sensor, and processing the image data for quantitatively analyzing at least one characteristic of the feature, cannot be performed in the human mind. This is not persuasive. Regarding the acquiring image data by a sensor, as noted in the rejection this limitation is not construed as being encompassed in the claimed abstract idea. Instead, this feature is an additional limitation which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g), which discusses similar examples such as performing clinical tests, testing a system for a response, and determining the level of a biomarker in blood. Regarding the feature of quantitatively analyzing at least one characteristic of the user-created feature, this feature of quantitatively analyzing could be performed merely by observing the image and determining, for example, numeric parameters such as the size of the image or the number of elements in the image. Accordingly, this recitation of quantitatively analyzing a characteristic of the image does not preclude the limitation from being reasonably performed purely in the human mind or using a pen and paper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the section 102 rejection of claims 1, 8 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
11. 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 on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715