DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 2, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, and 12-14 are noted as amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all previous objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 2, 2025 and all objections therein have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some of the previous 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, specifically, the 112(a) rejection of claim 9, though the claim is still rejected under 112(a) by virtue of its dependency, and the 112(b) rejection(s) of claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 13, though claims 5, 8, 12, and 13 are still rejected under 112(b) by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 assembly module” in claim 1; “a control module” in claim 1; “a speech recognition part” in claim 2; “a speech information reception module” in claim 2; “an execution menu search module” in claim 2; “an application confirmation module” in claim 2; “a control command reception module” in claim 2; “a control application module” in claim 2; “an interface part” in claim 3; “a coding processing part” in claim 3; “a compile processing module” in claim 4; “a control code transmission module” in claim 4; “a flaw analysis module” in claim 6; “a flaw display module” in claim 6; “an execution processing part” in claim 7; “an ID module” in claim 8; “a coding target specifying module” in claim 8; “an identification information display module” in claim 8; “an identification information selection module” in claim 8; “an identification information designation module” in claim 8; “a switching part” in claim 10; “an input block” in claim 12; “an output block” in claim 12; "a logic block" in claim 12; “a pairing module” in claim 13; “a function module” in claim 13; “a sequence control module” in claim 13; “a pairing control module” in claim 14; and “a function control module” in claim 14.
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.
The following interpretations are presented for the sake of compact prosecution and based on the Examiner’s best efforts in view of the specification. Several of the limitations/recitations, while listed below, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or (b) as further discussed in the corresponding sections of this Office Action.
“an assembly module” – Interpreted as a playing block with various functional features executed by a processor/processing part based on the configuration wherein the assembly module is attachable and detachable from other playing blocks per paragraphs 55, 57, 84, and 93 and figure 8.
“a control module” – Interpreted as the control system/processor for controlling the assembly module and for implementing the user code and embodied on a computing device such as a personal computer per paragraph 58.
“a speech recognition part” – Interpreted as a software module of the control module configured to perform the function of speech recognition and inputs per paragraphs 58 and 78.
“a speech information reception module” – Interpreted as a software module to perform the function of speech recognition per paragraphs 79-80.
“an execution menu search module” – Interpreted as a software module of the speech recognition part of the control module configured to search for an applicable menu based on recognized speech per paragraphs 78 and 80.
“an application confirmation module” – Interpreted as a software module of the speech recognition part of the control module configured to confirm user selection via displayed messages per paragraphs 78 and 81.
“a control command reception module” – Interpreted as a software module of the speech recognition part of the control module configured to receive the speech to select menus/commands to move to a second area of the work screen per paragraphs 78 and 82.
“a control application module” – Interpreted as a software module of the speech recognition part of the control module configured to move/process menus/commands into coding per paragraphs 78 and 83.
“an interface part” – Interpreted as a user interface and display of the control module for displaying the working screen per paragraphs 58-59.
“a coding processing part” – Interpreted as a software module of the control module configured as a compiler for processing the selected menus/commands into a control code including flaw analysis per paragraphs 58 and 63.
“a compile processing module” – Interpreted as a software module of the coding processing part of the control module configured to compile the entries to create the control code per paragraphs 63 and 65.
“a control code transmission module” – Interpreted as a software module of the coding processing part of the control module configured to transmit the control code to the assembly module per paragraphs 63 and 68.
“a flaw analysis module” – Interpreted as a software module of the coding processing part of the control module configured to analyze flaws in the control code that result in compiling/coding errors per paragraphs 63 and 66-67.
“a flaw display module” – Interpreted as a software module of the coding processing part of the control module configured to display the flaws determine by the flaw analysis module on the working screen per paragraphs 63 and 67.
“an execution processing part” – Interpreted as a processor/controller of the assembly module configured to analyze the control code and control the hardware elements per paragraphs 84 and 86.
“an ID module” – Interpreted as a software module of the controller of the assembly module configured to provide a unique identification information for each of a plurality of assembly modules per paragraphs 93 and 98.
“a coding target specifying module” – Interpreted as a software module of the coding processing part of the control module configured to specify which assembly module performs the coded function/operation per paragraphs 63 and 69.
“an identification information display module” – Interpreted as a software module of the coding target specifying module configured to display the assembly module identification information on the working screen for a plurality of assembly modules per paragraphs 75-76.
“an identification information selection module” – Interpreted as a software module of the coding target specifying module configured to write the selected identification information to an object item based on the user selection per paragraphs 63 and 76.
“an identification information designation module” – Interpreted as a software module of the coding target specifying module configured to register and store the identification information as information of a “control target” per paragraphs 63 and 76.
“a switching part” – Interpreted as a hardware piece of the assembly module in the form of a pressure switch to complete the circuit including the battery of the assembly module per paragraphs 84 and 91.
“an input block” – Interpreted as a configuration of an assembly module in the form of an assembly module/block including input functionality including a temperature/humidity sensor, a camera, a switch, or a dial per paragraphs 93-94.
“an output block” – Interpreted as a configuration of an assembly module in the form of an assembly module/block including output functionality including a speaker, and LED, or a motor per paragraphs 93 and 95.
"a logic block" – Interpreted as a configuration of an assembly module in the form of an assembly module/block including functionality to perform logic operations such as mathematical operations, if operations, and true/false operations per paragraphs 93 and 96
“a pairing module” – Interpreted as a software module of the controller of the assembly module configured to connect an assembly module to a plurality of other assembly modules to perform a particular function by connecting the modules using Bluetooth per paragraphs 97 and 99.
“a function module” – Interpreted as a software module of the controller of the assembly module configured to enable setting or modifying the function of the assembly module per paragraphs 97, 100, and 102.
“a sequence control module” – Interpreted as a software module of the control module configured to set the sequence of operation for each assembly module of a plurality of modules for performing a series of functions per paragraphs 93 and 103.
“a pairing control module” – Interpreted as a software module of the control module configured to control the pairing modules of a plurality of assembly modules to control pairing and connecting the plurality of modules per paragraphs 93 and 101.
“a function control module” – Interpreted as a software module of the control module configured to control/set the function of the function module of the particular assembly module per paragraphs 93 and 102.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description as the specification fails to provide sufficient detail of the hardware to perform all of the claimed functions and the algorithm for performing the claimed limitations. Specifically, Applicant fails to disclose any hardware and has chosen to omit such structure from the specification per paragraph 54 of the specification. Applicant’s recitation that the part or modules mean a “unit of processing at least one function or operation and may be implemented by hardware or software or a combination thereof” in paragraph 54 lacks specific hardware for performing the functions and is insufficient to support the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) per MPEP 2161.01 and 2181. Due to the replete recitations of “modules” and lack of further description in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 1 recites “enable coding of a control command for the assembly module through speech recognition” but the specification fails to provide the hardware and algorithm for performing the speech recognition. While claim 2 and the specification recite a “speech recognition part”, the part is not defined in the specification and reads as a pure software module thereby lacking the hardware for performing the claimed function.
Claim 2 recites “a speech recognition part” and “a speech information reception module” which are not sufficiently described in the specification to determine if the limitations are software modules or contain the necessary hardware for performing the function of speech recognition. Similarly, “a control application module” recited in claim 2 is not sufficiently described in the specification or claim to determine how the limitation performs the function of moving/processing menus commands into coding thereby lacking a sufficient algorithm to perform the claimed function. Further, as discussed more below, it is unclear what applicant means by a “menu” and under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the Examiner treats the limitation as a computer/code command.
Claim 4 recites “a control code transmission module” which lacks the sufficient hardware in the claim and specification to perform the claimed function as it is not described or discussed how the control code is transmitted to the assembly modules and what corresponding hardware is used.
Claim 13 recites “a function module” and “a sequence control module” which are not described in the specification or the claim in sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill to understand the intended function of the modules as it is unclear what “function” is being set or modified and what the “set a sequence” is referring to within the claim or specification. Further, the specification lacks a sufficient algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
Claims 3, 5-8, 9-12, and 14 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from the claims discussed above.
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.
Claims 2-14 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.
Claims 2, 4, 9, and 13 recite the following limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): “a speech recognition part”, “a speech information reception module”, “a control application module”, “a control code transmission module”, “an identification information designation module”, “a function module”, and “a sequence control module”. The limitations are indefinite as the limitations are not sufficiently defined and described in the specification thereby failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention as one of ordinary skill in the art would find the limitations unclear.
Claims 3, 5-8, and 10-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from the claims discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creamo TV (YouTube Videos from Channel Creamo TV; Published October 22, 2019 and December 11, 2018; see PTO-892 for full citations and attached screenshots) in view of Yoon (US PGPub 20200026488).
With regard to claim 1, Creamo TV teaches a coding algorithm training tool, comprising:
a playing block that has a set of specifications about attaching thereto and detaching therefrom (Figures 2, 7, and 8 show a plurality of playing blocks that the assembly modules can be attached to and detached from);
a plurality of assembly modules, each of which is formed according to specifications of the playing block to be attachable to or detachable from the playing block, and each of which can be mounted onto and demounted from the playing block (Figures 1, 2, 7, and 8 show a plurality of assembly modules which can be attached to or detached from one or more playing blocks); and
a control module configured to set operation of the plurality of assembly modules through coding and modify or change the operation (Figures 3-5);
wherein each of the plurality of assembly modules is formed of a plurality of blocks, and/or a plurality of modules, and each of the plurality of assembly modules is formed independently from an external power supply and independently from the control module, and each of the plurality of assembly modules is communicatively paired with the control module and with each other via respective communication parts therein (Figures 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 show the system can include a plurality of modules composed of blocks and modules with independent power supplies and can communicate with the control module and each other via wireless interactions/network technology (communication parts)).
Creamo TV may not explicitly teach enable coding of a control command for the plurality of assembly modules through speech recognition. However, Yoon teaches a system and method for coding using various programming languages wherein the coding is performed via receiving and recognizing oral commands spoken by the user (Abstract; Paragraphs 0053-0054).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creamo TV to incorporate the teachings of Yoon by incorporating the technique of coding by recognizing oral command of a user of Yoon to the coding language and system of Creamo TV, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to coding/programming educational systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Creamo TV by coding the system to receive oral commands from the user and convert them into programming code for the smart blocks of Creamo TV. Upon such modification, the method and system of Creamo TV would include enable coding of a control command for the plurality of assembly modules through speech recognition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Yoon with Creamo TV’s system and method in order to allow a user to more easily process coding work and make it possible for disabled people to program (Yoon Paragraphs 0001, 0010, 0023, 0120).
With regard to claim 2, Creamo TV further teaches an execution menu search module configured to select a menu to be applied to coding, wherein the menu lists a list of selectable code/command that can be selected and dragged/input by a user (Figures 4-5 show a coding interface with selectable menus with various draggable coding blocks/commands); and a control application module configured to apply the received control command to coding (Figures 4-5), but may not explicitly teach wherein the control module comprises a speech recognition part configured to recognize speech and apply the speech to coding, wherein the speech recognition part comprises: a speech information reception module configured to receive the speech from outside; selecting according to the received speech; an application confirmation module configured to output a confirmation signal for the found menu; a control command reception module configured to receive the control command according to the speech when the menu is confirmed. However, as discussed above, Yoon teaches a system and method for coding using various programming languages wherein the coding is performed via receiving and recognizing oral commands spoken by the user and provides verification and confirmation of the created programming code including the selected commands (Abstract; Paragraphs 0053-0054, 0056, 0063-0064).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creamo TV to incorporate the teachings of Yoon by incorporating the technique of coding by recognizing oral command of a user of Yoon to the coding language and system of Creamo TV, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to coding/programming educational systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Creamo TV by coding the system to receive oral commands from the user and convert them into programming code for the smart blocks of Creamo TV including verifying and confirming the code creation. Upon such modification, the method and system of Creamo TV would include wherein the control module comprises a speech recognition part configured to recognize speech and apply the speech to coding, wherein the speech recognition part comprises: a speech information reception module configured to receive the speech from outside; selecting according to the received speech; an application confirmation module configured to output a confirmation signal for the found menu; a control command reception module configured to receive the control command according to the speech when the menu is confirmed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Yoon with Creamo TV’s system and method in order to allow a user to more easily process coding work and make it possible for disabled people to program (Yoon Paragraphs 0001, 0010, 0023, 0120).
With regard to claim 3, Creamo TV further teaches wherein the control module comprises: an interface part configured to provide a working screen for coding the control command for the assembly module (Figures 3-5); and a coding processing part configured to compile content coded on the working screen of the interface part, and transmit a control code resulting from compiling to a particular assembly module so that operation according to the control code is performed (Figures 3-5).
With regard to claim 4, Creamo TV further teaches wherein the interface part comprises: a first area in which a plurality of selectable command entries are displayed on the working screen; and a second area to which the entries selected in the first area are dragged and dropped (Figures 4-5), the coding processing part comprises: a compile processing module configured to compile the entries according to arrangement order of the plurality of entries arranged in the second area; and a control code transmission module configured to transmit the control code resulting from compiling by the compile processing module to the assembly module, and the control command reception module is configured to enable the entries in the first area to be dragged and dropped to the second area (Figures 3-5) but may not explicitly teach according to the command based on the speech. As discussed above, Yoon teaches a system and method for coding using various programming languages wherein the coding is performed via receiving and recognizing oral commands spoken by the user (Abstract; Paragraphs 0053-0054).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creamo TV to incorporate the teachings of Yoon by incorporating the technique of coding by recognizing oral command of a user of Yoon to the coding language and system of Creamo TV, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to coding/programming educational systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Creamo TV by coding the system to receive oral commands from the user and convert them into programming code for the smart blocks of Creamo TV. Upon such modification, the method and system of Creamo TV would include according to the command based on the speech. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Yoon with Creamo TV’s system and method in order to allow a user to more easily process coding work and make it possible for disabled people to program (Yoon Paragraphs 0001, 0010, 0023, 0120).
With regard to claim 5, Creamo TV further teaches wherein the interface part is configured to display the entries in natural language terms in the first area, and the coding processing part comprises a conversion processing module configured to convert the natural language terms into programming language for compiling by the compile processing module (Figures 4-5 show the coding blocks/commands in natural language terms in Korean). For the sake of compact prosecution, if Applicant means the natural language terms are spoken language, Creamo TV may not explicitly teach this, but Yoon teaches a system and method for coding using various programming languages wherein the coding is performed via receiving and recognizing oral commands spoken by the user (Abstract; Paragraphs 0053-0054, 0110).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creamo TV to incorporate the teachings of Yoon by incorporating the technique of coding by recognizing oral command of a user of Yoon to the coding language and system of Creamo TV, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to coding/programming educational systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Creamo TV by coding the system to receive oral commands from the user and convert them into programming code for the smart blocks of Creamo TV. Upon such modification, the method and system of Creamo TV would include everyday spoken language. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Yoon with Creamo TV’s system and method in order to allow a user to more easily process coding work and make it possible for disabled people to program (Yoon Paragraphs 0001, 0010, 0023, 0120).
With regard to claim 6, Creamo TV may not explicitly teach wherein the coding processing part comprises: a flaw analysis module configured to analyze a flaw in the control code resulting from compiling by the compile processing module; and a flaw display module configured to display the flaw on the working screen when the flaw exists as a result of analysis by the flaw analysis module, and the control code transmission module is configured to transmit the control code resulting from compiling to the assembly module when the flaw analysis module determines that there is no flaw. However, Yoon further teaches the system and method include error identification and verification such that the program will only execute if there is no error (flaw) in the code during compiling (Paragraphs 0064-0065, 0080).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creamo TV to incorporate the teachings of Yoon by incorporating the technique of coding by recognizing oral command of a user including debugging the program/code of Yoon to the coding language and system of Creamo TV, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to coding/programming educational systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Creamo TV by coding the system to receive oral commands from the user and convert them into programming code for the smart blocks of Creamo TV including compiling and debugging the code including identifying any errors (flaws) and displaying said errors. Upon such modification, the method and system of Creamo TV would include wherein the coding processing part comprises: a flaw analysis module configured to analyze a flaw in the control code resulting from compiling by the compile processing module; and a flaw display module configured to display the flaw on the working screen when the flaw exists as a result of analysis by the flaw analysis module, and the control code transmission module is configured to transmit the control code resulting from compiling to the assembly module when the flaw analysis module determines that there is no flaw. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Yoon with Creamo TV’s system and method in order to allow a user to more easily process coding work and make it possible for disabled people to program (Yoon Paragraphs 0001, 0010, 0023, 0120).
With regard to claim 7, Creamo TV further teaches wherein the assembly module comprises: a casing formed to be attachable to or detachable from the playing block (Figures 1-2); an execution processing part configured to receive the control code from the control module so that operation according to the control code is performed (Figure 1); and a battery configured to supply power to the assembly module (Figures 1 and 7).
With regard to claim 12, Creamo TV further teaches wherein each of the assembly modules comprises: an input block configured to generate and transmit various input signals (Figure 1); an output block configured to output various output signals (Figure 1); and a logic block configured to generate and transmit control signals required for various logical operations (Figure 1).
With regard to claim 13, Creamo TV further teaches wherein each of the assembly modules comprises: a pairing module configured to enable information to be transmitted and received through pairing between the plurality of assembly modules (Figures 4 and 7); a function module configured to enable a particular function to be set or modified (Figures 4 and 7); and a sequence control module configured to set a sequence related to an operating condition, operating order, and repetition for each of the plurality of the assembly modules (Figures 4 and 7).
With regard to claim 14, Creamo TV further teaches wherein the control module comprises: a pairing control module configured to transmit a control signal related to pairing connection among the plurality of the assembly modules (Figures 4 and 7); and a function control module configured to set or modify a particular function for the function module of a particular assembly module of the plurality of assembly modules(Figures 4 and 7).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creamo TV in view of Yoon as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US PGPub 20180095732), hereinafter referred to as Hong.
With regard to claim 8, Creamo TV further teaches coding a target module or assembly module via the control panel wherein the module or assembly module is remote/communicating wirelessly with the control device/panel (Figures 7 and 9), but Creamo TV in view of Yoon may not explicitly teach wherein the assembly module comprises an ID module configured to store identification information of each assembly module, and transmit the stored identification information to the control module, and a coding processing part comprises a coding target specifying module configured to specify a coding target according to selection of the identification information transmitted by the ID module, wherein the coding target is a target assembly module of the plurality of assembly modules. However, Hong teaches a system and method for providing coding education using blocks wherein each block includes identification and location information that is transmitted/communicated to the main controller and the controller identifies/selects coding targets based on the identification information (Paragraphs 0070-0075, 0199-0201).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creamo TV in view of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Hong by incorporating the block having and transmitting identification information of Hong to the blocks/assembly modules of Creamo TV, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to coding/programming educational systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Creamo TV by coding the blocks to transmit identification information to the main controller/device such that the controller/user can select which blocks to target with the corresponding code/commands thereby designating a target block/assembly module to program among the plurality of assembly modules as Creamo TV figure 9 shows the system already allowing for programming a module/block remotely among a plurality of modules which would require some form of designation by the user which after modification could be done using block ID information transmitted between the blocks and control panel/device. Upon such modification, the method and system of Creamo TV in view of Yoon would include wherein the assembly module comprises an ID module configured to store identification information of each assembly module, and transmit the stored identification information to the control module, and a coding processing part comprises a coding target specifying module configured to specify a coding target according to selection of the identification information transmitted by the ID module, wherein the coding target is a target assembly module of the plurality of assembly modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Hong with Creamo TV in view of Yoon’s system and method in order to allow a user to more easily select a coding target and program the blocks to perform the desired functions.
With regard to claim 9, Creamo TV in view of Yoon teaches coding via reception of a speech command (see prior art rejections of claims 1 and 2 above) but may not teach wherein the coding target specifying module comprises: an identification information display module configured to display the identification information transmitted by the ID module on the working screen; an identification information selection module configured to enable, when the identification information displayed by the identification information display module is selected for an object item of entries or dragged and dropped to the object item, the identification information to be selected as the coding target; and an identification information designation module configured to designate the selected identification information as the coding target for the entries, and the control application module is configured to enable the identification information to be selected for or to be dragged and dropped to the object item according to reception of a speech command. However, Hong further teaches a system and method for providing coding education using blocks wherein each block includes identification and location information that is transmitted/communicated to the main controller and the controller identifies/selects coding targets based on the identification information wherein the coding “mission” including the coding blocks and target blocks are displayed on a screen of the user terminal wherein coding blocks can be dragged to code (Paragraphs 0007, 0070-0075, 0122-0128, 0199-0201; Fig. 9).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creamo TV in view of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Hong by incorporating the block having and transmitting identification information of Hong to the blocks/assembly modules of Creamo TV, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to coding/programming educational systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Creamo TV by coding the blocks to transmit identification information to the main controller/device such that the controller/user can select which blocks to target with the corresponding code/commands based on the user dragging coding blocks (or corresponding speech commands as taught by Yoon) to the corresponding block based on the identification information thereby designating a target block/assembly module to program among the plurality of assembly modules as Creamo TV figure 9 shows the system already allowing for programming a module/block remotely among a plurality of modules which would require some form of designation by the user which after modification could be done using block ID information transmitted between the blocks and control panel/device. Upon such modification, the method and system of Creamo TV in view of Yoon would include wherein the coding target specifying module comprises: an identification information display module configured to display the identification information transmitted by the ID module on a working screen; an identification information selection module configured to enable, when the identification information displayed by the identification information display module is selected for an object item of entries or dragged and dropped to the object item, the identification information to be selected as the coding target; and an identification information designation module configured to designate the selected identification information as the coding target for the entries, and the control application module is configured to enable the identification information to be selected for or to be dragged and dropped to the object item according to reception of a speech command. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Hong with Creamo TV in view of Yoon’s system and method in order to allow a user to more easily select a coding target and program the blocks to perform the desired functions.
With regard to claim 10, Creamo TV further teaches wherein the assembly module comprises a switching part configured to enable power to be supplied from the battery to the assembly module according to combination of the casing to the block (Figure 6), but may not explicitly teach the ID module is configured to operate automatically as the power is supplied from the battery by the switching part, and transmit the identification information to the control module. However, Hong further teaches the main controller supplies power to the blocks and thereby obtains/receives the identification information from the blocks (Paragraphs 0062, 0072, 0074).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creamo TV in view of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Hong by incorporating the block having and transmitting identification information of Hong to the blocks/assembly modules of Creamo TV, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to coding/programming educational systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Creamo TV by coding the blocks to transmit identification information to the main controller/device upon receiving power when the pressure switch of Creamo TV is triggered such that upon powering on the identification information is transmitted to the controller. Upon such modification, the method and system of Creamo TV in view of Yoon would include the ID module is configured to operate automatically as the power is supplied from the battery by the switching part, and transmit the identification information to the control module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Hong with Creamo TV in view of Yoon’s system and method in order to automate the process of connecting the blocks to the controller and improve user interaction and efficiency.
With regard to claim 11, Creamo TV further teaches wherein the switching part comprises a pressure switch configured to be physically pressed to make electrical connection to the battery when the casing is mounted on the block, and configured to return to an original state to break the electrical connection when the casing is separated from the block (Figure 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed September 2, 2025, with regard to the rejection(s) of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that the rejections should be withdrawn as Applicant claims one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. However, Applicant admits on page 8 of the arguments and in page 54 of the specification that detailed description was omitted from the specification which thereby fails to meet the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) per MPEP 2161. Applicant cannot simply elect to omit key features required to support written description requirements and support the claimed limitations. Applicant’s recitation of the term meaning “a unit of processing at least one unction or operation and may be implemented by hardware or software or a combination thereof” is insufficient as “a unit of processing” is not specific or further defined and fails to provide sufficient hardware and algorithms for performing the claimed limitations. Applicant further agreed, on page 7 of the remarks, that the limitations are intended to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the limitations require sufficient support in the specification for the hardware and algorithms for performing the functions per MPEP 2161.01 and 2181. The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) as discussed above.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed September 2, 2025, with regard to the rejection(s) of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, with regard to applicant’s claim the office failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the cited YouTube videos, Examiner notes that the cited references were cited, with their publication dates, on the PTO-892 form which was stated in the previous action and the URLs for the videos were provided such that one could readily visit the addresses and confirm the supplied dates. Examiner has reattached the NPL document with the action with additional figures to address the amended limitations and further clarity. With regard to claims 1-7 and 12-14, the previously cited combination of prior art teaches all of the amended features and limitations as discussed above. With regard to claims 8-11, Applicant argues the combination of Creamo TV, Yoon, and Hong does not teach all the limitations, specifically “specifying a coding target according to selection of the ID information” and the amended limitations of claim 9 are not taught by the Hong reference. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner notes that Hong is teachi