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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 08/09/2023 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, 11 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 4, the claim recites “wherein the notes enhance understanding of the book to the reader”, which is unclear since it is subjective with respect to ‘enhance understanding’, and it is unclear if the applicant is reciting an intent or whether there is an assessment that is made to achieve a level of ‘enhanced understanding’. The examiner for purposes of examination, will interpret the limitation as an intent of use , however if the applicant intended that the enhanced understanding is somehow implemented through an act, the examiner suggests the applicant consider clarifying the claim language to include an objective way to meet a threshold for ‘enhanced understanding’.
With regards to claim 11 and 18, they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 4 above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
A method performed by a computational device, the method comprising: detecting an emotion of a reader while reading a printed version of a book via a virtual reality device; determining notes made by other readers of the book with a similar emotion to the reader, wherein the notes have been stored in association with an electronic version of the book; and displaying the notes on a virtual reality interface of the virtual reality device to the reader.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they
cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation,
judgement and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example, the particular limitations encompass: 1) observing an emotion of a reader and making a judgment as to the observed emotion, 2) evaluating other readers that share similar emotion and making a judgment on notes that are associated with those other readers.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“performed by a computational device”, “ … wherein the notes have been stored in association with an electronic version of the book” - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, these elements apply a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions (execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“displaying the notes on a virtual reality interface of the virtual reality device to the reader” - adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated
to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts
have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial
exception into a practical application.
“virtual reality device” - these additional elements are considered merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (virtual reality). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception:
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“performed by a computational device”, “ … wherein the notes have been stored in association with an electronic version of the book” - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, these elements apply a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions (execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“displaying the notes on a virtual reality interface of the virtual reality device to the reader” - adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated
to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“virtual reality device” - these additional elements are considered merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (virtual reality). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-7:
Claims 2-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example aside from common additional elements mentioned in claim 1, these claims recite additional elements including :
“controlling the virtual reality device to enable the reader to read the printed version of the book and the electronic version of the book simultaneously with the notes being highlighted on the virtual reality interface” – these additional elements are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“wherein different electronic versions of the book are generated …”, - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 8
With regards to claim 8, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1. It is noted that it recites additional elements of ‘memory’ and ‘processor’ - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 9-14
Claims 9-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example aside from common additional elements mentioned in claim 8, these claims recite additional elements including :
“controlling the virtual reality device to enable the reader to read the printed version of the book and the electronic version of the book simultaneously with the notes being highlighted on the virtual reality interface” – these additional elements are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“wherein different electronic versions of the book are generated …”, - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claim 15
With regards to claim 15, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1. It is noted that it recites additional elements of ‘computer readable storage medium’, ‘executing …’ - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 16-20
Claims 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example aside from common additional elements mentioned in claim 8, these claims recite additional elements including :
“controlling the virtual reality device to enable the reader to read the printed version of the book and the electronic version of the book simultaneously with the notes being highlighted on the virtual reality interface” – these additional elements are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“wherein different electronic versions of the book are generated …”, - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
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, 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) 1-4, 7-11 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US Application: US 20210303779, published: Sep. 30, 2021, filed: Mar. 30, 2020) in view of Wu (US Application: US 2020/0036659, published: Jan . 30, 2020, filed: Mar. 31, 2017).
With regards to claim 1, Sun et al teaches a method performed by a computational device (Fig. 1 and Fig 2: a computation device with processor and memory is implemented), the method comprising:
detecting … [context information] … of a reader while reading a printed version of a book via a virtual reality device (paragraph 0022, 0023, Fig 6: a printed version is displayed on a device, the device representing a device that virtually simulates the printed version as well as simulate physical and digital note/annotations made by the current reader and other readers);
determining notes made by other readers of the book with a similar [context information] to the reader, wherein the notes have been stored in association with an electronic version of the book; and displaying the notes on a virtual reality interface of the virtual reality device to the reader (paragraph 0022, 0023, Fig 4B, Fig 6: a printed version is displayed on a device, the device representing a device that virtually simulates the printed version as well as simulate physical and digital note/annotations made by the current reader and other readers. The notes /markings are stored on local and central database(s)).
However although Sun et al teaches detecting user context information of a reader and determining notes associated with the reader context, Sun et al does not expressly teach the detected context includes detecting an emotion of a reader … determining notes … with a similar emotion to the reader.
Yet Wu teaches detecting an emotion of a reader … determining [content] … with a similar emotion to the reader (paragraphs 0113, 0125, and 0126: a user/reader’s emotion/sentiment is identified/detected through a user’s preference list and content from other sources are determined based upon sentiment being in alignment with the user’s sentiment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sun et al’s ability to process user context data to retrieve content/note information from other sources (readers), such that the context data would have further included emotion as context data in order to determine the content from the available sources, as taught by Wu. The combination would have allowed Sun et al to have provided display of personalized content to the user.
With regards to claim 2. The method of claim 1, Sun et al teaches the method further comprising: controlling the virtual reality device to enable the reader to read the printed version of the book and the electronic version of the book simultaneously with the notes being highlighted on the virtual reality interface based on the emotion of the reader (paragraph 0022, 0023, Fig. 6: ahead mounted device is a type of virtual reality interface device that is implemented to enable the reader to read the printed version and electronic version simultaneously in composited format with the notes highlighted/overlaid/augmented/marked).
With regards to claim 3. The method of claim 1, Sun et al teaches the method further comprising: adding new notes made by the reader on the printed version of the book to the electronic version of the book, wherein the new notes are associated with the emotion of the reader in the electronic version of the book (paragraph 0023, 0138: each new note/marking is scanned and can be associated to the digital version of the book).
With regards to claim 4. The method of claim 1, Sun et al teaches wherein the notes include comments and annotations made by the other readers while reading the printed version of the book or the electronic version of the book, and wherein the notes enhance understanding of the book to the reader (Fig. 6: comments and annotations are depicted to help the reader understand the book).
With regards to claim 7. The method of claim 1, Sun et al teaches wherein reading experience of both the electronic version of the book and the printed version of the book are enhanced over reading the printed version of the book and the electronic version of the book separately without sharing the notes, and wherein a personalized reading experience is provided to the reader (paragraph 0020, 0023: the user can efficiently view printed notes and digital notes simultaneously, but also separately apply markup/notes to the printed copy prior to synchronization (notes not yet shared)).
With regards to claim 8. Sun et al teaches a system, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor performs operations, the operations comprising: detecting an emotion of a reader while reading a printed version of a book via a virtual reality device; determining notes made by other readers of the book with a similar emotion to the reader, wherein the notes have been stored in association with an electronic version of the book; and displaying the notes on a virtual reality interface of the virtual reality device to the reader, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 9. The system of claim 8, Sun et al teaches the operations further comprising: controlling the virtual reality device to enable the reader to read the printed version of the book and the electronic version of the book simultaneously with the notes being highlighted on the virtual reality interface based on the emotion of the reader, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The system of claim 8, Sun et al teaches the operations further comprising: adding new notes made by the reader on the printed version of the book to the electronic version of the book, wherein the new notes are associated with the emotion of the reader in the electronic version of the book, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11. The system of claim 8, Sun et al teaches wherein the notes include comments and annotations made by the other readers while reading the printed version of the book or the electronic version of the book, and wherein the notes enhance understanding of the book to the reader, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. The system of claim 8, Sun et al teaches wherein reading experience of both the electronic version of the book and the printed version of the book are enhanced over reading the printed version of the book and the electronic version of the book separately without sharing the notes, and wherein a personalized reading experience is provided to the reader, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15, Sun et al teaches a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the computer readable program code when executed is configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: detecting an emotion of a reader while reading a printed version of a book via a virtual reality device; determining notes made by other readers of the book with a similar emotion to the reader, wherein the notes have been stored in association with an electronic version of the book; and displaying the notes on a virtual reality interface of the virtual reality device to the reader, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The computer program product of claim 15, Sun et al teaches the operations further comprising: controlling the virtual reality device to enable the reader to read the printed version of the book and the electronic version of the book simultaneously with the notes being highlighted on the virtual reality interface based on the emotion of the reader, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. The computer program product of claim 15, Sun et al teaches the operations further comprising: adding new notes made by the reader on the printed version of the book to the electronic version of the book, wherein the new notes are associated with the emotion of the reader in the electronic version of the book, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The computer program product of claim 15, Sun et al teaches wherein the notes include comments and annotations made by the other readers while reading the printed version of the book or the electronic version of the book, and wherein the notes enhance understanding of the book to the reader, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US Application: US 20210303779, published: Sep. 30, 2021, filed: Mar. 30, 2020) in view of Wu (US Application: US 2020/0036659, published: Jan . 30, 2020, filed: Mar. 31, 2017) in view of Wilson (US Application: US 20160162500, published: June 9, 2016, filed: Dec. 08, 2014).
With regards to claim 5. The method of claim 1, Sun et al and Wu teaches … a version of the book … generated from the notes of other readers based on emotions of the other readers while reading the book, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Sun et al and Wu does not teach wherein different electronic versions of the book are generated from the notes of the other readers based on emotions of the other readers while reading the book.
Yet Wilson teaches wherein different electronic versions of the [published content] are generated from the notes of the other readers based on emotions of the other readers while reading the book (Fig. 2, paragraph 0022, 0065: display variations of the published content is presented based upon user/reader sentiment/disposition/preference by applying sentiment/disposition filter(s) to isolate desired content from other users/readers that offered content having similar sentiment/disposition as the instant reader).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sun et al and Wu’s ability to present a version of a book with notes from other users based on emotions of other readers and the instant reader, such that the presentations can vary in accordance with user selection(s) /filter criteria of the reader’s sentiment/disposition, as taught by Wilson. The combination would have allowed Sun et al and Wu to have allowed a user to efficiently viewed comments about a subportion of an article based upon sentiment.
With regards to claim 6. The method of claim 1, the combination of Sun et al, Wu and Wilson teaches the method further comprising: filtering the notes corresponding to a request by the reader for additional content corresponding to a section of the printed version of the book, wherein filtered notes are those made by the other readers with the similar emotion to the reader, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The system of claim 8, the combination of Sun et al, Wu and Wilson teaches wherein different electronic versions of the book are generated from the notes of the other readers based on emotions of the other readers while reading the book, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The system of claim 8, the combination of Sun et al, Wu and Wilson teaches the operations further comprising: filtering the notes corresponding to a request by the reader for additional content corresponding to a section of the printed version of the book, wherein filtered notes are those made by the other readers with the similar emotion to the reader, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19. The computer program product of claim 15, the combination of Sun et al, Wu and Wilson teaches wherein different electronic versions of the book are generated from the notes of the other readers based on emotions of the other readers while reading the book, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20. The computer program product of claim 15, the combination of Sun et al, Wu and Wilson teaches the operations further comprising: filtering the notes corresponding to a request by the reader for additional content corresponding to a section of the printed version of the book, wherein filtered notes are those made by the other readers with the similar emotion to the reader, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brunn et al (US Application: US 20190208370): This reference teaches connected interest group (based on sentiment) formation.
Arshad et al (US Application: US 20180300575): This reference teaches synchronizing states from a physical to digital book.
Williams et al (US Patent: 9584526): This reference teaches implementing an anonymous discussion forum.
Story, Jr. et al (US Patent: 9317486): This reference teaches synchronizing playback content through digital means based upon physical captured book content.
Shah (US Patent: 9116654): This reference teaches controlling rendering of supplemental content associated with books.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights