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
Received 04/10/2026
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-15 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, and 10-15 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 has/have been cancelled.
The 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation of claim(s) 1 and 15 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments received on 04/10/2026.
The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection to claim(s) 4-5 and 13-16 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments received on 04/10/2026.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1-3 and 6-15 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 04/10/2026 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 04/10/2026
Regarding independent claim(s) 1 and 13-15:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 8: ¶ 2-4 and Page 12: ¶ 1-3), filed 04/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bowman et al. (US PGPUB No. 20170330479 A1), and further in view of Nakane (US PGPUB No. 20140168697 A1).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2-3 and 6-12:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 12: ¶ 4), filed 04/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-3 and 6-12 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due the dependency upon claims 1 and 13-15 respectively. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art as mentioned above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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) 1-3, 6, and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al., US PGPUB No. 20170330479 A1, hereinafter Bowman, and further in view of Nakane, US PGPUB No. 20140168697 A1, hereinafter Nakane.
Regarding claim 1, Bowman discloses a content evaluation device (Bowman; a content evaluation device [¶ 0016-0017 and ¶ 0035-0036]; moreover, multisensory learning and tutorial process [¶ 0033-0034]), comprising:
a feature calculating computer which, in operation, calculates a state feature amount relating to a drawing state in a creation period from a start timing to an end timing of creation of content (Bowman; device [as addressing above] comprises a feature calculating computer (corresponding to a process/module of the system/application) which calculates a state feature amount relating to a drawing state in a creation period from a start timing to an end timing of creation of content in operation [¶ 0033-0034]; moreover, tutorial module configured as a mobile application [¶ 0005 and ¶ 0035]);
an information generating computer (Bowman; device [as addressing above] comprises an information generating computer ((also) corresponding to a process/module of the system/application) [¶ 0033-0034]; moreover, tutorial module configured as a mobile application [¶ 0005 and ¶ 0035]) which, in operation:
generates picture-print information indicating a picture-print (Bowman; device [as addressing above] comprises generates implicit picture-print information (given data related to forming image/graphic aspects) indicating an implicit picture-print (given generated image/graphics) [¶ 0035-0036], as illustrated within Figs. 3A-B), which is a set or a trace of points in a feature space for representing the state feature amount (Bowman; the implicit picture-print (given generated image/graphics) [as addressed above] is a set or a trace of points in a feature space for representing the state feature amount [¶ 0035-0036], as illustrated within Figs. 3A-B); and
generates derived information derived from the picture-print information and identifies a word corresponding to the state feature amount (Bowman; device [as addressing above] comprises generates derived information derived from the implicit picture-print information (given data related to forming image/graphic aspects) and identifies a word corresponding to the state feature amount [¶ 0040-0042]), wherein the derived information includes visible information (Bowman; the derived information [as addressed above] includes visible information [¶ 0035, ¶ 0040, and ¶ 0042]), which includes a symbol that indicates strength of a characteristic of the word or includes another word relating to the word (Bowman; includes a symbol (i.e. score) that indicates strength of a characteristic of the word or includes another word relating to the word [¶ 0035-0036], as illustrated within Figs. 3A-B); and
a display instructing computer which, in operation, instructs displaying of the derived information including the visible information (Bowman; a display instructing computer ((also) corresponding to a process/module of the system/application) which instructs displaying of the derived information including the visible information in operation [¶ 0035-0036], as illustrated within Figs. 3A-B; wherein, a user is instructed about a current exercise [¶ 0039-0042]).
Bowman fails to disclose picture-print information indicating a picture-print.
However, Nakane teaches generates picture-print information indicating a picture-print (Nakane; generates/generating picture-print information indicating a picture-print [¶ 0061-0063]); and
generates derived information derived from the picture-print information and identifies a word corresponding to the state feature amount (Nakane; generates derived information derived from the picture-print information and identifies a word corresponding to the state feature amount [¶ 0062-0065], as illustrated within Fig. 3).
Bowman and Nakane are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Bowman, to incorporate generates picture-print information indicating a picture-print; and generates derived information derived from the picture-print information and identifies a word corresponding to the state feature amount (as taught by Nakane), in order to provide an improved performance for image processing in relation with reducing bottlenecks (Nakane; [¶ 0005-0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Bowman in view of Nakane further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the visible information is useful to a creator or a viewer of the content (Bowman; the visible information is (subjectively) useful to a creator or a viewer of the content [¶ 0035-0036]; wherein, usefulness correlates to learning [¶ 0004-0005 and ¶ 0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Bowman in view of Nakane further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1,wherein the display instructing computer, in operation, displays the picture-print information (Bowman; the display instructing computer [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] displays the implicit picture-print information (given data related to forming image/graphic aspects) [¶ 0035-0036]).
Nakane teaches the display instructing computer, in operation, displays the picture-print information (Nakane; the display instructing computer displays the picture-print information in operation [¶ 0062-0063 and ¶ 0070]; moreover, values of attribute information [¶ 0064-0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Bowman as modified by Nakane, to incorporate the display instructing computer, in operation, displays the picture-print information (as taught by Nakane), in order to provide an improved performance for image processing in relation with reducing bottlenecks (Nakane; [¶ 0005-0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Bowman in view of Nakane further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1,wherein the another word is an abstract word having an abstract meaning (Nakane; the another word is an abstract word having an abstract meaning [¶ 0078 and ¶ 0080]; moreover, commands [¶ 0062-0063]; wherein, commands are abstract [¶ 0129-0130], such as path shape, operand, and operator info [¶ 0131-0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Bowman as modified by Nakane, to incorporate the another word is an abstract word having an abstract meaning (as taught by Nakane), in order to provide an improved performance for image processing in relation with reducing bottlenecks (Nakane; [¶ 0005-0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Bowman in view of Nakane further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the state feature amount has a number of dimensions larger than three (Nakane; the state feature amount has a number of dimensions larger than three [¶ 0059-0060]; wherein, image and attribute information is larger than 3 [¶ 0070-0071]), and the picture-print information is the picture-print resulting from reduction in the number of dimensions to three or less (Nakane; the picture-print information is the picture-print resulting from reduction/compression in the number of dimensions to three or less [¶ 0069-0071]; moreover, multiple attributes inverted into a background [¶ 0082-0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Bowman as modified by Nakane, to incorporate the state feature amount has a number of dimensions larger than three, and the picture-print information is the picture-print resulting from reduction in the number of dimensions to three or less (as taught by Nakane), in order to provide an improved performance for image processing in relation with reducing bottlenecks (Nakane; [¶ 0005-0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Bowman in view of Nakane further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the display instructing computer, in operation, instructs display of the derived information in association with the content (Bowman; the display instructing computer (corresponding to a process/module of the system/application) [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] instructs display of the derived information in association with the content in operation [¶ 0039-0042]; wherein, the GUI instructs display of information and results [¶ 0035-0036], as illustrated within Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 11, Bowman in view of Nakane further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 10, wherein the derived information is a mark that partially highlights an image region formed by the content (Bowman; the derived information is a mark that partially highlights an image region formed by the content [¶ 0042]; additionally, determined results can cause highlighting to be displayed [¶ 0055]), and the display instructing computer, in operation, instructs display of the mark at a position corresponding to the state feature amount (Bowman; the display instructing computer (corresponding to a process/module of the system/application) [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] instructs display of the mark at an implicit position (given a GUI and input there on) corresponding to the state feature amount in operation [¶ 0042-0043]).
Nakane further teaches the display instructing computer, in operation, instructs display of the mark at a position corresponding to the state feature amount (Nakane; the display instructing computer instructs display of the mark at a position corresponding to the state feature amount in operation [¶ 0131 and ¶ 0158-0159]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Bowman as modified by Nakane, to incorporate the display instructing computer, in operation, instructs display of the mark at a position corresponding to the state feature amount (as taught by Nakane), in order to provide an improved performance for image processing in relation with reducing bottlenecks (Nakane; [¶ 0005-0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Bowman in view of Nakane further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a content evaluating computer which, in operation, evaluates the content by use of the state feature amount calculated by the feature calculating computer (Bowman; a content evaluating computer ((also) corresponding to a process/module of the system/application) which evaluates the content by use of the state feature amount calculated by the feature calculating computer (corresponding to a process/module of the system/application) in operation [¶ 0033-0036]), wherein the derived information includes an evaluation result of the content evaluating computer (Bowman; the derived information [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] includes an evaluation result (i.e. score and/or threshold value) of the content evaluating computer (corresponding to a process/module of the system/application) [¶ 0033-0035]; moreover, recognition response score [¶ 0009 and ¶ 0054-0056]).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 13 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 13 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 13. Although, claim 13 and claim 1 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 1 is/are addressed below.
Bowman discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including content evaluation program that causes one or multiple computers to execute (Bowman; a non-transitory CRM including content evaluation program that causes one or multiple computers to execute [¶ 0007-0008]; i.e. computer program [¶ 0016-0017]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 14 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 14 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 14. Although, claim 14 and claim 1 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 14 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 15 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 15 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 15. Although, claim 15 and claim 1 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 1 is/are addressed below.;
Bowman discloses a user device having a display section that displays an image or video (Bowman; a user device having a display section that displays an image or video [¶ 0016-0017 and ¶ 0035]; e.g. a mobile tablet or smartphone [id.]); and
a server device configured to be capable of communicating with the user device (Bowman; a server device configured to be capable of communicating with the user device [¶ 0017]), wherein the server device includes (Bowman; the server device includes (a learning and tutorial process) [¶ 0016-0017 and ¶ 0033]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 1)
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman in view of Nakane as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Hirabayashi et al., US PGPUB No. 20150135065 A1, hereinafter Hirabayashi.
Regarding claim 7, Bowman in view of Nakane further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1, the state feature amount (Bowman; the state feature amount [as addressed within parent claim(s)]).
Bowman as modified by Nakane fails to disclose the state feature amount is a word group composed of one or multiple words.
However, Hirabayashi teaches wherein the state feature amount is a word group composed of one or multiple words (Hirabayashi; the state feature amount is a word group composed of one or multiple words [¶ 0052-0054]; moreover, strokes constitute candidate character string(s) [¶ 0061-0062]).
Bowman in view Nakane and Hirabayashi are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Bowman as modified by Nakane, to incorporate wherein the state feature amount is a word group composed of one or multiple words (as taught by Hirabayashi), in order to provide improved dynamically create documents that allows a user freehand inputs (Hirabayashi; [¶ 0003-0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Bowman in view Nakane and Hirabayashi further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 7, wherein the feature calculating computer, in operation, converts raster data of the content to a first word group, converts stroke data of the content to a second word group, and calculates the state feature amount by synthesizing the first word group and the second word group (Hirabayashi; the feature calculating computer converts raster data of the content to a 1st word group, converts stroke data of the content to a 2nd word group, and calculates the state feature amount by synthesizing the 1st word group and the 2nd word group in operation [¶ 0061-0062 and ¶ 0077-0079]; wherein, strokes constitute words [¶ 0030-0031 and ¶ 0053-0054]; additionally, calculating degree(s) of similarity [¶ 0081-0083 and ¶ 0085-0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Bowman as modified by Nakane and Hirabayashi, to incorporate the feature calculating computer, in operation, converts raster data of the content to a first word group, converts stroke data of the content to a second word group, and calculates the state feature amount by synthesizing the first word group and the second word group (as taught by Hirabayashi), in order to provide improved dynamically create documents that allows a user freehand inputs (Hirabayashi; [¶ 0003-0004]).
Conclusion
The claimed subject matter is broad, the Examiner suggests further limiting the claims in order overcome the applied prior art as well as distinguish the sought after invention from additional prior art related to text-to-image (as mentioned below).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang (US PGPUB No. 20180293908 A1); and
Sarnoff et al. (US PGPUB No. 20120206471 A1).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5: 00 PM, alternate Fridays EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights