DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/2/2024.
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-18 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 17-18 are independent.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: "Recognizing Calculation Expressions And Generating Electronic Sticky Notes For the Recognized Calculation Expressions"
Claim Interpretation
Herein, the term “calculation expression” is broadly interpreted as including one or more of: (1) a mathematical expression, equation, or textual string indicating that a calculation or solution is required (e.g., a query for which an answer can be calculated); and (2) one or more calculation or solution steps for an expression requiring resolution. See ¶¶ 32, 34 and 94, Instant Specification, as published.
Claim Interpretation – 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “An information generation apparatus configured to perform a process of:” in the preamble of claim 1 and functions recited the limitations of claims 1-16. Notice that the phrase "An information generation apparatus configured to" invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because "apparatus" is a generic placeholder (nonce term) that, without further structural description, primarily recites a function. When a claim limitation uses a generic term and is modified by a function using "configured to," it is interpreted under § 112(f) as limited to the specific structure (and its equivalents) described in the specification that performs the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The representative independent claim 1 recites a process of: receiving a user’s operation that designates a range in a first display area in which information that is input in accordance with a user’s operation is displayed (this step can be accomplished in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., when a person focuses attention on a specific section of a document or whiteboard, or draws a box around a specific section of displayed content) and recognizing a calculation expression from displayed elements included in the designated range (this step involves pattern recognition and interpretation, which can be accomplished in the human mind), and generating a first sticky note that can be arranged and displayed at a designated position in a designated display area and to which a first calculation expression, which is the recognized calculation expression, is input (this step relates to working memory, transcription, and information organization, which can be done in the human mind. After being organized in the mind, the information can be transcribed onto a sticky paper with a pen to generate a “sticky note”). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea grouped under “Mental Processes”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because other elements of the claim are not indicative of limitations reflective of integration into a practical application. The limitations include “An information generation apparatus configured to perform” the steps, and that the sticky note is “electronic”. These are representative of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which are not are not indicative of limitations reflective of integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as, a whole, abstract ideas combined with elements that are not reflective of a practical application cannot result in an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 further recite the abstract idea of displaying and/or generating information/note, and implementing such abstract idea on one or more terminals (herein interpreted as including a computer capable of performing the pertinent function(s)). Displaying or generating information/notes can be processed with the aid of pen and paper because they serve as external tools to visually represent, organize, and structure complex mental concepts, facilitating clearer thought processes and memory recall. Therefore, these claims are not eligible under 101.
Claim 2 also recites transmitting information based on certain criteria. This is not indicative of integration into a practical application. The courts have recognized “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d).II.i. Therefore, claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 5 involves copying information and generating a note. Both copying information and generating a note can be accomplished in the mind with the aid of pen and paper because these tools serve as an external support system for the brain's working memory, allowing the mind to offload information, process complex thoughts, and visually organize data beyond its inherent short-term capacity. Therefore, this claim is ineligible under 101.
Claim 8 involve converting displayed elements and inputting them into a note. The action described is a high-level description of a process that can be mentally simulated or manually performed using pen and paper because it involves fundamental human cognitive and manual abilities, rather than relying on complex, non-intuitive, or abstract machine processes. Therefore, this claim is ineligible under 101.
Claim 10 involves functions of a mathematical tool performing a calculation. The described process can be done in the mind with the aid of pen and paper because a human, using pen and paper, can function as both the apparatus and the mathematical tool described in the scenario. Therefore, this claim is ineligible under 101.
Claim 11 includes activating a tool. This describes a cognitive process that is possible in the mind because humans have the cognitive ability to visually recognize and mentally process a calculation expression [activating/engaging the mind], using the external tools as an extension of their working memory and processing power to perform the necessary computations . Therefore, this claim is ineligible under 101.
Claim 12 describes functions generate notebooks, and associating notes with a designated position on a display, and managing the note. These functions are can be replicated using the mind with the aid of pen and paper because the entire process involves only the basic cognitive actions of organizing, recording, and relocating information, which are fundamental human mental processes supplemented by simple physical tools. Therefore, this claim is ineligible under 101.
Claims 12, 15 and 16 further includes description(s) of type of data/information, e.g., “wherein the first display area is a display area managed as a first notebook”. This is involves generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, these claims are ineligible under 101.
Claims 13 and 14 involve arranging and displaying information, which are that can be done in the mind with the aid of pen and paper because a human's spatial reasoning and planning abilities allow for the mental visualization of a layout, while the pen and paper act as external memory to sketch and test potential positions before committing to a final arrangement. Therefore, these claims are ineligible under 101.
Claim 15 further involves editing information, which can be performed as a mental process of editing an electronic sticky note and inputting a calculation expression using a pen and paper because a physical medium can be used to simulate any logical process or state that a digital interface can represent. Therefore, this claim is ineligible under 101.
Claim 16 further involves generating a note, which as explained above is a mental process. Therefore, this claim is ineligible under 101.
Independent claims 17-18 are directed to a method and storage medium for performing the functions of the apparatus of claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 17-18:
Claim 1 recite “generating a…sticky note…to which a…calculation expression…is input”. This phrasing is unclear; inputting information “into” a note is more precise than inputting it “to” a note, which only implies direction rather than entry. Claims 2, 6, and 17-18 have similar issues. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets these limitations as referring to notes into which information is input. Correction required.
Claim 2 also recites “displaying in the first display area a calculation expression” and “if a range is designated in which the calculation expression that is input as an answer is encircled”. However, claim 1, on which claim 2 depends already introduces “a calculation expression” (which displayed in the “first display area”) which is displayed in the “first display area”, and a designated “range” which is in “the designated range”. Therefore, it is unclear if Claim 2’s “a calculation expression” and “a range” are the same or different from “a calculation expression” and “a range” of claim 1.
Claim 2 also recites the limitations “the first mathematical expression” and “the calculation expression” (in the phrases “transmitting to the first terminal the first electronic sticky note to which the first mathematical expression is input”, and “the calculation expression being displayed in the first display area”, respectively). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that, in claim 1, “a first calculation expression” is defined as being “the recognized calculation expression”, and in claim 2, “the first mathematical expression” is defined as “being a result of recognition of the calculation expression that is input as an answer”. Nevertheless, while both “a first calculation expression” and “the recognized calculation expression” are defined in related terms, this isn’t sufficient to fix the clarity issue, because claim 2 seems to introduce a separate instance of “a calculation expression” (as discussed above). This introduces subjectively concerning whether or not the “result of recognition of the calculation expression”, in claim 2, refers to the step of “recognizing a calculation expression” in claim 1.
Claim 2 is also unclear because it introduces “first” and “second” terminals without establishing a direct connection to the claimed “apparatus”, leaving its structural role (as part of, or separate from, the terminals) ambiguous.
For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that a “first display area” of claim 1 includes one or more calculation expressions, including one or more calculation expressions representing a “mathematical problem”, and/or one or more calculation expressions representing “an answer” of, or calculation step for, the problem, wherein one or more of the calculation expressions can be selected by a user designating a range that includes the one or more calculation expressions (See ¶¶ 32, 34 and 94, Instant Specification, as published), and wherein the claimed “information generation apparatus” is one of two terminals operated by the first and second user, respectively. Correction required.
Claims 6 and 16:
Claims 6 and 16 recite “generating a plurality of the first electronic sticky notes” and “perform a process of generating the first electronic sticky note as an electronic sticky note differing from the second electronic sticky note”, respectively. Here it is unclear whether or not the step of generating in “generating a plurality of the first electronic sticky notes” and the process of generating in “perform a process of generating the first electronic sticky note as an electronic sticky note differing from the second electronic sticky note” (claim 16) refer to the step of “generating a first electronic sticky note” in claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to the step of “generating a first electronic sticky note” in claim 1. Correction required.
Claims 8 and 11:
Claims 8 and 11 also recites “a calculation expression” in one or more instances each, and is unclear for similar reason(s) as explained for claim 2, for not being clear whether it refers to “a calculation expression” of claim 1. These are interpreted similar to claim 2, as referring to “a calculation expression” of claim 1.
Claim 11 also recites “activating the mathematical tool in response to a recognition of a calculation expression from displayed elements included in the designated range”. Herein, it is unclear whether or not the “a recognition of a calculation expression”, refers to the step of “recognizing a calculation expression” in claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as referring to the recognition in claim 1. Correction required.
Claims 15 and 16:
Claim 15 recites “the first display area is a display area of the first electronic sticky note, and the information generation apparatus is configured to perform a process of editing the first electronic sticky note in such a manner that the first calculation expression is input into the display area of the first electronic sticky note”. Here, there is an ambiguity regarding the spatial relationship between the claimed areas. Claim 15 recites editing a "first electronic sticky note" within a "first display area" (presumably the first note's own area). However, Claim 15 depends on Claim 1, which defines a "first display area" as a broader workspace inside which a user designates a range to generate the first electronic sticky note. It is unclear if the "first display area" of Claim 15 is intended to be the same as the "designated display area" (the first electronic sticky note itself) or the first display area (broader workspace area) inside which the range is designated in Claim 1, or how these two distinct areas relate to each other. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as meaning that the first electronic sticky note, which is displayed inside the broader first display area (workspace area) of claim 1, can be selected and edited after being generated. Correction required.
Claim 16, recites “wherein the first display area is a display area of a second electronic sticky note displaying information that has been input in response to a user’s operation, and the information generation apparatus is configured to perform a process of generating the first electronic sticky note as an electronic sticky note differing from the second electronic sticky note”. This claim is unclear for related reason(s) as explained above for claim 15, expect that “the first display area” here tied to display area of “a second electronic sticky note” (presumably the second note's own area), whereas in claim 1 defines a "first display area" as a broader workspace inside which a user designates a range to generate the first electronic sticky note. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as meaning that the second electronic sticky note, which is displayed inside the broader first display area (workspace area) of claim 1, can be selected and the edited after being generated. Correction required.
Claim 16 limitation “perform a process of generating the first electronic sticky note as an electronic sticky note differing from the second electronic sticky note” is also unclear because it fails to clearly link the “a process of generating” to the antecedent step of “generating a first electronic sticky note” recited in Claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) of “perform a process of generating the first electronic sticky note” as referring to the “a process of generating” of claim 1. Correction required.
Claims 2-16:
Claims 2-16 are also rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vukosavljevic; Magdalena et al. (hereinafter Vukosavljevic – US 20110307535 A1) in view of Ono; Manato (hereinafter Ono – US 20190317981 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Vukosavljevic teaches:
An information generation apparatus configured to perform a process of: (computing device, Abstract and figs. 1-2)
receiving a user’s operation that designates a range in a first display area in which information that is input in accordance with a user’s operation is displayed; (An input is recognized [receiving] as a freeform selection of an area of the user interface [a user’s operation that designates a range in a first display area] , ¶ 51 and figs 3 and 7:704. “ink strokes” are based on input received from a user [“information that is input in accordance with a user’s operation”], ¶ 50 and fig. 7:702, for example, handwritten ink drawn into a user interface, see ¶ 17)
recognizing a calculation expression from displayed elements included in the designated range; (one or more numbers and related computation for the selection is recognized [calculation expression], ¶¶ 52-53 and fig. 7:706-708)
and generating a first electronic [display region] that can be arranged and displayed at a designated position in a designated display area and to which a first calculation expression, which is the recognized calculation expression, is input. (a region [designated display area] of the display is generated on the display and includes the recognized calculation expression [expression “inputted” in the region], in a verification step, ¶¶ 38 and 54 and figs. 4 and 7:710)
Vukosavljevic does not appear to expressly teach, but Ono teaches:
that the generated display region is a “sticky note” (expressions, such as mathematical and arithmetic tags, are inputted and displayed in display regions referred to as “tags” or “sticky notes”, ¶¶ 33-34 and 49)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Vukosavljevic to include that the generated display section is a “sticky note”, as taught by Ono.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the apparatus by displaying information in independent, flexible, and scalable presentation of different data types within separate, movable, and zoomable frames that can be freely arranged on the display screen, Ono ¶¶ 33 and 45.
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono further teaches:
configured to perform a process of:
converting, among a plurality of displayed elements included in the designated range, a plurality of displayed elements distinguished to be display elements relating to a calculation expression into a format calculatable as a calculation expression (converting ink strokes within the designated area into a text format, so that it calculatable, ¶ 24)
and displayable in a display mode of a math natural display, (Ono further teaches the expressions are displayable in a display mode of a math natural display, because the equations are displayed in the format y=x2, see figs. 4A and 4B, as they would naturally appear in textbooks, instead of in a linear format, e.g., y=x^2, and the display is inherently achievable using one or more keys of the keyboard 204, see fig. 4A, and/or other input concept(s), e.g., input masks)
and inputting the converted displayed elements to the first electronic sticky note. (As discussed above for claim 1, Ono teaches that the mathematical expressions inputted and displayed in display regions referred to as “tags” or “sticky notes”, ¶¶ 33-34. Naturally, the expressions are converted to be calculatable and in math natural display, using one or more of the concepts in Vukosavljevic and Ono)
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono further teaches:
configured to perform a process of:
displaying the calculation expression that has been input to the first electronic sticky note in a display mode of a math natural display; (Ono further teaches the expressions are displayable in a display mode of a math natural display, because the equations are displayed in the format y=x2, see figs. 4A and 4B, as they would naturally appear in textbooks, instead of in a linear format, e.g., y=x^2, and the display is inherently achievable using one or more keys of the keyboard 204, see fig. 4A, and/or other input concept(s), e.g., input masks)
and displaying information based on a calculation result of the calculation expression that has been input to the first electronic sticky note, in association with the calculation expression. (Ono teaches a solution for an inputted expression can be calculated and displayed, ¶ 49)
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono further teaches:
wherein the apparatus has a function of a mathematical tool with which calculation of a designated calculation expression is possible, (Ono teaches a solution for an inputted expression can be calculated and displayed [function of a mathematical tool], ¶ 49)
and the apparatus is configured to perform a process of causing the mathematical tool to perform calculation relating to the first calculation expression that has been input to the first electronic sticky note if the mathematical tool is activated for the first electronic sticky note as a target. (Ono teaches a result of a calculation for the expression can be initiate [causing the mathematical tool to perform calculation relating to the first calculation expression… if the mathematical tool is activated for the first electronic sticky note as a target], e.g., by clicking on an “EXE” key 241, ¶¶ 53-56 and fig. 4A-4B).
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono further teaches:
configured to perform a process of:
activating the mathematical tool in response to a recognition of a calculation expression from displayed elements included in the designated range. (Ono teaches that the calculation and display of the solution can be done automatically, once the expression is input, ¶ 59, which is analogous to recognizing the calculation expression, which in Vukosavljevic is done based on the designation of the range, see mapping in claim 1)
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono further teaches:
configured to perform a process of:
arranging and displaying the recognized first calculation expression at a position that does not overlap displayed elements corresponding to the recognized calculation expression in the first display area. (display regions/tags on the screen do not overlap with one another, Ono ¶ 75)
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono further teaches:
configured to perform a process of:
arranging and displaying the generated first electronic sticky note at a user’s designated position in the user’s designated display area. (the user may move the tags to desired place on the screen, e.g., by dragging and dropping [a user’s designated position], Ono ¶ 45)
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono further teaches:
wherein the first display area is a display area of the first electronic sticky note, and the information generation apparatus is configured to perform a process of editing the first electronic sticky note in such a manner that the first calculation expression is input into the display area of the first electronic sticky note. (Ono further teaches that contents of a selected sticky notes [tags] can be updated [editing] based on input operations, ¶ 52. As explained in the 112(b) rejection above, for purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as meaning that the first electronic sticky note, which is displayed inside the broader first display area (workspace area) of claim 1, can be selected and edited after being generated. Correction required.)
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono further teaches:
wherein the first display area is a display area of a second electronic sticky note displaying information that has been input in response to a user’s operation, and the information generation apparatus is configured to perform a process of generating the first electronic sticky note as an electronic sticky note differing from the second electronic sticky note. (Vukosavljevic teaches the selection of item using a range, as explained above for claim 1. Ono teaches the display of information using sticky notes, as explained above for claim 1, including tags in which freeform drawings can be represented, e.g., lines drawn using line in a geometry tag, ¶ 94, and that a new sticky note [tag] can be created that is associated with a different selected tag [generating the first electronic sticky note as an electronic sticky note differing from the second electronic sticky note], ¶¶ 58-59)
Independent Claims 17-18:
Claims 17-18 are directed to a method and storage medium for performing the functions of the apparatus of claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vukosavljevic (US 20110307535 A1) in view of Ono (US 20190317981 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carney; Donald P. et al. (hereinafter Carney1 – US 20170147277 A1) and Won; Joonhee et al. (hereinafter Won – US 20220415205 A1).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono does not appear to expressly teach, but Carney1 teaches:
configured to perform a process of:
displaying in the first display area a mathematical problem that is input by a first user [teacher] who operates a first terminal; (A computerized collaborative system enables teachers and students to solve STEM problems [including mathematical problem] using a network of interconnected devices [e.g., first and second terminal] that function as a single shared workspace, Abstract and ¶ 3. E.g., a problem can be displayed by the teacher and presented to the students, ¶ 65 and fig. 5, and the problem could be a problem spontaneously drawn by the teach or accessed from the teacher’s computer memory, ¶ 65)
displaying in the first display area a calculation expression that is input as an answer to the mathematical problem by a second user [student] who operates a second terminal; (the student can enter an answer to the problem, e.g., in box 46, as reflected in fig. 6 and ¶¶ 21 and 66)
and with the mathematical problem and the calculation expression being displayed in the first display area, transmitting to the first terminal the first electronic sticky note to which the first mathematical expression is input, if [an answer] is designated (after the student enters [“designates”] an answer to the problem, e.g., in box 46, as reflected in fig. 6 and ¶¶ 21 and 66, the teacher can see the answer submitted/entered by students, as it is received/displayed and display on the teacher’s device, e.g., as explained in the whiteboard feature for simultaneously displaying, to all connected devices, annotations by the connected users, ¶¶ 48 and 61).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Vukosavljevic to include configured to perform a process of: displaying in the first display area a mathematical problem that is input by a first user who operates a first terminal; displaying in the first display area a calculation expression that is input as an answer to the mathematical problem by a second user who operates a second terminal; and with the mathematical problem and the calculation expression being displayed in the first display area, transmitting to the first terminal the first electronic sticky note to which the first mathematical expression is input, if [an answer] is designate, as taught by Carney1.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and versatility of the apparatus to enable remote tutoring and learning, Carney1 ¶ 36, using easy, efficient touchscreen and stylus/fingertip, Carney1 ¶ 6.
Vukosavljevic-Ono-Carney1 does not appear to expressly teach, but Won teaches:
that the designation of the answer is by designating “a range…in which the calculation expression that is input as an answer is encircled, the first mathematical expression being a result of recognition of the calculation expression that is input as an answer” (that a user circles an answer to identify [designate] the answer, ¶¶ 53-54 and 124 and fig. 1B, which is recognized through OCR [mathematical expression being a result of recognition of the calculation expression that is input as an answer], ¶¶ 75, 176 and 187 ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Vukosavljevic to include that the designation is of “a range…in which the calculation expression that is input as an answer is encircled, the first mathematical expression being a result of recognition of the calculation expression that is input as an answer”, as taught by Won.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility and versatility of the apparatus by designating answers in additional, effective manners, that where known in the art, Won ¶¶ 53-54, 124 and 187.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vukosavljevic (US 20110307535 A1) in view of Ono (US 20190317981 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carney; Donald P. et al. (hereinafter Carney2 – US 20150269868 A1).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono does not appear to expressly teach, but Carney2 teaches:
configured to perform a process of:
if a calculation element of the recognized calculation expression includes an equal sign, generating the first electronic sticky note, with information indicating a result of comparison between a left side and a right side of the equal sign being added to the first calculation expression (A system evaluates and automatically color codes each step in accordance with a color coding protocol, which coding provides visual feedback which identifies correct steps, erroneous steps, and intermediate steps in a solution [calculation expression], Abstract and ¶¶ 115-116, and figs. 4A-4G. Here, the color-coded visual feedback (identifying correct, erroneous, or intermediate steps) suggests the claimed limitation because this allows the system to immediately provide a targeted, real-time assessment of the correctness for a step that includes an equal sign, as illustrated in figs. 4A-4F. Although it doesn’t explicitly state that equality between left and right sides are not checked, correct equality of equation left and right sides [or equation balance] is a fundamental algebraic concept, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a color denoting incorrectness would be applied to an equation(s) in the algebraic calculation steps that are not balanced. For electronic sticky notes, see Ono, as explained for claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Vukosavljevic to include configured to perform a process of: if a calculation element of the recognized calculation expression includes an equal sign, generating the first electronic sticky note, with information indicating a result of comparison between a left side and a right side of the equal sign being added to the first calculation expression, as taught by Carney2.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the learning/teaching functionalities of the apparatus, since the color-coding enables teachers and students to instantly verify the accuracy of each step in a math solution while fostering deeper understanding through a clear visual, handwritten, and step-by-step breakdown of STEM problems, Carney2 ¶ 23. STEM includes “mathematics”, as shown in Carney2 ¶ 3
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono does not appear to expressly teach, but Carney2 teaches:
configured to perform a process of:
if a calculation element of the recognized calculation expression includes a plurality of equal signs, generating the first electronic sticky note, with information indicating a result of comparison between a left side and a right side of each of the equal signs being added to the first calculation expression (A system evaluates and automatically color codes each step in accordance with a color coding protocol, which coding provides visual feedback which identifies correct steps, erroneous steps, and intermediate steps in a solution [calculation expression], Abstract and ¶¶ 115-116, and figs. 4A-4G. Here, the color-coded visual feedback (identifying correct, erroneous, or intermediate steps) suggests the claimed limitation because this allows the system to immediately provide a targeted, real-time assessment of the correctness for a step that includes a plurality of equal signs, as illustrated in figs. 4A-4F. Although it doesn’t explicitly state that equality between left and right sides are not checked, correct equality of equation left and right sides [or equation balance] is a fundamental algebraic concept, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a color denoting incorrectness would be applied to an equation(s) in the algebraic calculation steps that are not balanced. For electronic sticky notes, see Ono, as explained for claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Vukosavljevic to include configured to perform a process of: if a calculation element of the recognized calculation expression includes a plurality of equal signs, generating the first electronic sticky note, with information indicating a result of comparison between a left side and a right side of each of the equal signs being added to the first calculation expression, as taught by Carney2.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the learning/teaching functionalities of the apparatus, since the color-coding enables teachers and students to instantly verify the accuracy of each step in a math solution while fostering deeper understanding through a clear visual, handwritten, and step-by-step breakdown of STEM problems, Carney2 ¶ 23. STEM includes “mathematics”, as shown in Carney2 ¶ 3
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono further teaches:
and generating the first electronic sticky note by inputting a plurality of equations divided at the plurality of equal signs (Ono describes “a tag where a mathematical expression(s) representing a function(s) is input”, which reflects that one or more mathematical expressions can be input into each expression tag [also called “sticky notes”], ¶¶ 33-34, and that these expressions can be equations, e.g., y=x2, see ¶¶ 37 and figs. 4A-4B. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that equations are expressions that by definition divided at the plurality of equal signs. Specifically, equations are defined as mathematical statements where two separate expressions are balanced and divided by an equal sign [=], asserting that the left-hand side and right-hand side represent the same value.)
Vukosavljevic does not appear to expressly teach, but Carney2 also suggests:
configured to perform a process of: if each of the plurality of equal signs included in the recognized calculation expression corresponds to a stage of expression transformation, copying a right side of an immediately previous stage to a left side of a stage in which the left side is omitted (a teacher can discuss why an equation entered by a student is not correct, ¶ 110 and fig. 4B, and in the prior art, it is known that that a graphing calculator can provide students with step by step information about a solution to a problem by notifying them when rules of arithmetic and mathematics are violated, ¶ 19. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that any sort of combination of the concepts of teacher manually explaining why a question is wrong, and known concepts of automated feedback notifying when students violate arithmetic and mathematics rules was herein suggested, since both of these features are known and help aid student understanding. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are suggested by the combination of Carney2 with the other cited references, as they describe a mechanical implementation of a basic mathematical rule. Specifically, the references teach implementations of the transitive property of equality, wherein the result of a preceding step serves as the starting point for the subsequent step. This, method results in a visually direct chain of equality, removing the requirement for a separate logical step to link disparate (a=b) and (b=c) statements to conclude that (a=c) [copying a right side of an immediately previous stage to a left side of a stage]. This approach is standard, represented either horizontal, as a=b=c, or vertically, as a, =b, and =c, each in separate lines in vertical chain format, which naturally omits the lefthand side on steps after the first step [that is, in which the left side is omitted]. Therefore, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that the limitations reflects such implementations of this mathematics rule, and that teaching/learning be enhanced by pointing to rules of mathematics while explaining why certain steps are or art not correct).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Vukosavljevic to include configured to perform a process of: if each of the plurality of equal signs included in the recognized calculation expression corresponds to a stage of expression transformation, copying a right side of an immediately previous stage to a left side of a stage in which the left side is omitted, as suggested by Carney2 .
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to further improve the apparatus for enhanced teaching and learning, by including a combination of known techniques and rules, Carney2 ¶¶ 5, 19 and 110.
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono further teaches:
configured to perform a process of:
generating a plurality of the first electronic sticky notes to which a plurality of equations respectively divided at the plurality of equal signs are respectively input. (Ono further teaches that these tags also called mathematical expression input frames/areas, ¶ 33, and describes that “the numbers of mathematical expression input areas…increase or decrease according to the number of mathematical expressions to be input” ¶ 35, which is reflective of plurality of…sticky notes to which a plurality of equations…are respectively input, and that the inputted expressions can be equations, e.g., like quadratic equation y=x2, see ¶¶ 37 and figs. 4A-4B. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that equations are expressions that by definition divided at the plurality of equal signs. Specifically, equations are defined as mathematical statements where two separate expressions are balanced and divided by an equal sign [=], asserting that the left-hand side and right-hand side represent the same value.)
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono-Carney2 further teaches:
configured to perform a process of:
if a user’s operation for updating the first calculation expression that has been input to the first electronic sticky note is received, generating the first electronic sticky note, (Ono further teaches that contents of the sticky notes [tags] can be updated based on input operations, ¶ 52)
with information indicating a result of comparison between a left side and a right side of the equal sign of the updated first calculation expression being added thereto. (As explained for claim 4, Carney2 teaches that the system evaluates and automatically color codes each step in accordance with a color coding protocol, which coding provides visual feedback which identifies correct steps, erroneous steps, and intermediate steps in a solution [calculation expression], Abstract and ¶¶ 115-116, and figs. 4A-4G. Here, the color-coded visual feedback (identifying correct, erroneous, or intermediate steps) suggests the claimed limitation because this allows the system to immediately provide a targeted, real-time assessment of the correctness for a step that includes an equal sign, as illustrated in figs. 4A-4F. Although it doesn’t explicitly state that equality between left and right sides are not checked, correct equality of equation left and right sides [or equation balance] is a fundamental algebraic concept, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a color denoting incorrectness would be applied to an equation(s) in the algebraic calculation steps that are not balanced. For electronic sticky notes, see Ono, as explained for claim 1)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vukosavljevic (US 20110307535 A1) in view of Ono (US 20190317981 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Windl, Helmut et al. (hereinafter Windl – US 20020196271 A1).
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vukosavljevic-Ono does not appear to expressly teach, but Windl teaches:
wherein the apparatus has a function of generating a plurality of notebooks each having different displayed areas, the notebooks managing content of an electronic sticky note arranged in each display area (Tabbed dialogues or notebooks are a common graphical user interface technique that organizes complex information into stacked, selectable "sheets" (panels) identified by labeled tabs, allowing users to switch between different content views while hiding others., ¶ 3. Here, the different display areas, or sheets, within tabbed dialogues represent a function of generating a plurality of notebooks by allowing distinct, user-selected, and contextually organized data sets to be presented in the foreground while obscuring others, effectively organizing complex interfaces into separate functional pages. Tabbed dialogues are broadly interpreted as "notebooks" because they utilize a physical metaphor where visually projecting tabs act as separators for a stacked, interactive collection of "sheets" (panels or pages), allowing users to organize complex content and bring a specific, distinct page to the front, similar to flipping through a tabbed binder or address book. For electronic sticky note type content, see Ono, as explained for claim 1.)
and a position at which the electronic sticky note is arranged within each display area, (different object/content can be positions in different locations within the tabs, ¶ 35)
wherein the first display area is a display area managed as a first notebook, and wherein the information generation apparatus is configured to perform a process of associating the generated first electronic sticky note with a user’s designated position within a display area of a user’s designated notebook differing from the first notebook and managing the first electronic sticky note. (different tabs are associate with different contents, ¶ 3-4)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Vukosavljevic to include wherein the apparatus has a function of generating a plurality of notebooks each having different displayed areas, the notebooks managing content of an electronic sticky note arranged in each display area and a position at which the electronic sticky note is arranged within each display area, wherein the first display area is a display area managed as a first notebook, and wherein the information generation apparatus is configured to perform a process of associating the generated first electronic sticky note with a user’s designated position within a display area of a user’s designated notebook differing from the first notebook and managing the first electronic sticky note, as taught by Windl.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to simply navigation of complex user interfaces by providing a space-efficient, intuitively organized, and highly accessible structure that enables users to manage, scan, and switch between large amounts of related content within a single window, Windl ¶¶ 3, 6-7 and 34.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
HIROSE TADASHI JP 2011053986 A, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a computing device aims to simplify calculations by allowing users to reuse portions of handwritten mathematical formulas through a combination of handwriting recognition and gesture interaction. The device identifies written formulas, recognizes gestures for area selection and operation designation, and automatically generates a new formula for calculation based on the selected parts and the indicated operation, See Abstract.
Suzuki, Masakazu et al. US 20020126905 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a device for recognizing characters in an image, e.g., belong to mathematical expression, Abstract.
Canton; Christian et al. US 20200257852 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing solving equations for selected range, ¶ 78 and fig. 11A.
Coda; Christian US 20120256822 A1, is pertinent to claim 2 for disclosing a whiteboard feature where in which students can select answers to question on a whiteboard, ¶ 4.
Cui; Chengwu US 20060252023 A1, is pertinent to claim 2 for disclosing a user selecting answers to a problem by circling the answer, ¶¶ 15 and 17 and figs. 1 and 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171