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 .
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.
Claim limitation “feature calculating section which, in operation, calculates” (claim 1 & claim 15), “display instructing section which, in operation, instructs” (claim 1 & claim 15), “feature calculating section, in operation, converts” (claim 8), “display instructing section, in operation, instructs” (claim 10), “the display instructing section, in operation, instructs” (claim 11), “content evaluating section which, in operation, evaluates” (claim 12), “calculated by the feature calculating section” (claim 12) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “feature calculating section”, “display instructing section”, and “content evaluating section” coupled with functional language “calculates”, “displaying”, “converts”, “instructs”, “evaluates”, and “calculated by” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-12 and 15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a processor (Page 4, lines 16-20 and Page 5, line 29 to Page 6, line 2).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 2-6 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.
The term “inspiration” in claims 2 and 3 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “inspiration” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao et al., US PGPUB No. 20180040257 A1, hereinafter Hsiao, and further in view of Angelov et al., US PGPUB No. 20150371417 A1, hereinafter Angelov.
Regarding claim 1, Hsiao discloses a content evaluation device (Hsiao; a content evaluation device [¶ 0043-0044]; moreover, electronic device [¶ 0038]; wherein, content corresponds to input strokes [¶ 0045-0047]), comprising:
a feature calculating section 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 (Hsiao; the content evaluation device [as addressed above] comprise a feature calculating section which in operation (i.e. processor functioning in relation with the touch interface) [¶ 0038-0039] calculates a state feature amount (i.e. input data) relating to a drawing state in a creation from a start to an end of creation of content [¶ 0051-0054]; moreover, sets of coordinates recorded between a touch event and release event [¶ 0054-0055]; and moreover, standard stroke [¶ 0057-0058]); and
a display instructing section which, in operation, instructs displaying of picture-print information indicating a picture-print (Hsiao; the content evaluation device [as addressed above] comprise a display instructing section which in operation (i.e. processor functioning in relation with the display unit) [¶ 0038-0039] implicitly instructs displaying (given the rendered input) of picture-print (i.e. output/resulting imaging) information indicating a picture-print (i.e. output/resulting image) [¶ 0056-0057], as illustrated within Fig. 7; additionally, generating imitating strokes [¶ 0055]), which is a set or a trace of points in a feature space for representing the state feature amount calculated by the feature calculating section (Hsiao; which is a set or a trace of points in a feature space (i.e. writing space) for representing the state feature amount (i.e. input data) calculated by the feature calculating section (i.e. processor in relation with the touch interface) [¶ 0051-0054], as illustrated within Fig. 7; additionally, trace points [¶ 0083-0085]), or displaying of derived information derived from the picture-print (Hsiao; or displaying of derived information (i.e. standard word character) derived from the picture-print (i.e. output/resulting imaging) [¶ 0046-0047], as illustrated within Fig. 3 and Fig. 7).
Hsiao fails to disclose a creation period from a start timing to an end timing of creation.
However, Angelov teaches a drawing state in a creation period from a start timing to an end timing of creation of content (Angelov; a drawing state in a creation period from a start timing to an end timing of creation of content [¶ 0238 and ¶ 0250-0253]; additionally, ink data generation defining time for point data [¶ 0399]).
Hsiao and Angelov 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 effect.
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 Hsiao, to incorporate a drawing state in a creation period from a start timing to an end timing of creation of content (as taught by Angelov), in order to provide an improved input performance for drawing applications in real-time (Angelov; [¶ 0034-0035 and ¶ 0186-0187]).
Regarding claim 2, Hsiao in view of Angelov further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the derived information is inspiration information for giving inspiration to a creator or a viewer of the content (Hsiao; the derived information is inspiration information (i.e. guiding/instruction information) for giving subjective inspiration to a creator or a viewer of the content [¶ 0044-0046 and ¶ 0048]; wherein, a user is informed of a standard manner to input one or more stokes [¶ 0047]; additionally, notification info [¶ 0058]).
Regarding claim 3, Hsiao in view of Angelov further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 2, wherein the inspiration information includes visible information obtained by making a word corresponding to the state feature amount abstract or indirect (Hsiao; the inspiration information [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] includes visible information (i.e. notification) obtained by making a word (i.e. correct or incorrect) corresponding to the state feature amount (i.e. input data) abstract or indirect [¶ 0058-0060]; additionally, imitating standard word character [¶ 0061-0062] associated with guiding/instruction info [¶ 0044-0046 and ¶ 0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Hsiao in view of Angelov further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 3, wherein the visible information includes a symbol indicating strength of a characteristic of the word (Hsiao; the visible information [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] includes a symbol indicating strength of a characteristic of the word (i.e. correct or incorrect) [¶ 0058-0060]; moreover, standard word character [¶ 0042-0043 and ¶ 0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Hsiao in view of Angelov further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 3, wherein the visible information includes another word relating to the word (Hsiao; the visible information includes another word (i.e. incorrect or correct) relating to the word (i.e. correct or incorrect) [¶ 0058-0060])
Regarding claim 6, Hsiao in view of Angelov further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 5, wherein the another word is an abstract word having an abstract meaning (Hsiao; the another word (i.e. incorrect or correct) is an abstract word having an abstract meaning [¶ 0058-0060]; additionally, imitating standard word character [¶ 0061-0062] associated with guiding/instruction info [¶ 0044-0046 and ¶ 0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Hsiao in view of Angelov further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the state feature amount is a word group composed of one or multiple words (Angelov; the state feature amount (i.e. input (ink) data) [¶ 0365-0366] is a word group composed of one or multiple words [¶ 0337-0338 and ¶ 0340-0341]; wherein, ink data can be formatted [¶ 0346-0347 and ¶ 0351-0353]).
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 Hsiao as modified by Angelov, to incorporate the state feature amount is a word group composed of one or multiple words (as taught by Angelov), in order to provide an improved input performance for drawing applications in real-time (Angelov; [¶ 0034-0035 and ¶ 0186-0187]).
Regarding claim 8, Hsiao in view of Angelov further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 7, wherein the feature calculating section, 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 (Angelov; the feature calculating section in operation (i.e. processor functioning in relation with the touch interface) converts [¶ 0335-0337 and ¶ 0339] 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 (i.e. input (ink) data) by synthesizing the 1st word group and the 2nd word group [¶ 0338, ¶ 0340-0341, ¶ 0346-0347, and ¶ 0365-0366], as illustrated within Fig. 20 and Figs. 21A-D; moreover, ink formatting determines a regular stroke object or a manipulation object [¶ 0351-0353 and ¶ 0355]).
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 Hsiao as modified by Angelov, to incorporate the feature calculating section, 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 Angelov), in order to provide an improved input performance for drawing applications in real-time (Angelov; [¶ 0034-0035 and ¶ 0186-0187]).
Regarding claim 9, Hsiao in view of Angelov further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the state feature amount has a number of dimensions larger than three (Angelov; the state feature amount (i.e. input (ink) data) [¶ 0365-0366] has a number of dimensions/layers larger than three [¶ 0427-0428 and ¶ 0432]; moreover, ink data from devices are different layers that are superimposed on one another [¶ 0363 and ¶ 0371]; additionally, stroke object [¶ 0200 and ¶ 0227-0230] and parameters [¶ 0257]), and the picture-print information is the picture-print resulting from reduction in the number of dimensions to three or less (Angelov; the picture-print information (i.e. output imaging) is the picture-print (i.e. output imaging) resulting from reduction in the number of dimensions to three or less (corresponding to a combination of ink data) [¶ 0198-0199 and ¶ 0371]).
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 Hsiao as modified by Angelov, 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 Angelov), in order to provide an improved input performance for drawing applications in real-time (Angelov; [¶ 0034-0035 and ¶ 0186-0187]).
Regarding claim 10, Hsiao in view of Angelov further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the display instructing section, in operation, instructs display of the picture-print information or the derived information in association with the content (Hsiao; the display instructing section in operation (i.e. processor functioning in relation with the display unit) instructs display of the picture-print (i.e. output/resulting imaging) information or the derived information in association with the content [¶ 0046-0047 and ¶ 0051-0054]; additionally, derived information corresponds to trace points [¶ 0083-0085]),
Regarding claim 11, Hsiao in view of Angelov 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 (Hsiao; the derived information [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is a mark that partially highlights an image region formed by the content [¶ 0056-0058]; wherein strokes coverage is determined [¶ 0085-0087] associated with highlighting inputs [¶ 0090, ¶ 0098, and ¶ 0106]), and the display instructing section, in operation, instructs display of the mark at a position corresponding to the state feature amount (Hsiao; the display instructing section in operation (i.e. processor functioning in relation with the display unit) instructs display of the mark at a position corresponding to the state feature amount (i.e. input data) [¶ 0085-0087, ¶ 0090, and ¶ 0098]).
Regarding claim 12, Hsiao in view of Angelov further discloses the content evaluation device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a content evaluating section which, in operation, evaluates the content by use of the state feature amount calculated by the feature calculating section (Hsiao; a content evaluating section which in operation (i.e. processor functioning) evaluates the content by use of the state feature amount (i.e. input data) calculated by the feature calculating section (i.e. processor functioning in relation with the touch interface) [¶ 0083-0086]; Wherein, determining strokes [¶ 0046 and ¶ 0056-0058], as illustrated within Fig. 2; moreover, length determination [¶ 0059-0060]), wherein the derived information includes an evaluation result of the content evaluating section (Hsiao; the derived information includes an evaluation result of the content evaluating section (i.e. processor functioning) [¶ 0058-0060]; moreover, derived information corresponding to determining input coordinates [¶ 0051-0054] in relation with trace points [¶ 0083-0085]).
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; however, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 1 is/are addressed below.
Hsiao discloses content evaluation program that causes one or multiple computers to execute (Hsiao; content evaluation program/application that causes one or multiple computers to execute [¶ 0038-0040 and ¶ 0043]).
Hsiao fails to disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
However, Angelov teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium including content evaluation program that causes one or multiple computers to execute (Angelov; a non-transitory CRM including content evaluation program that causes one or multiple computers to execute [¶ 0608-0610 and ¶ 0615]).
Hsiao and Angelov 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 effect.
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 Hsiao, to incorporate a non-transitory computer-readable medium including content evaluation program that causes one or multiple computers to execute (as taught by Angelov), in order to provide an improved input performance for drawing applications in real-time (Angelov; [¶ 0034-0035 and ¶ 0186-0187]).
(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; however, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 1 is/are addressed below.
Hsiao discloses a user device having a display section that displays an image or video (Hsiao; a user device having a display section that displays an image or video [¶ 0038-0039 and ¶ 0046]).
Hsiao fails to disclose a server device configured to be capable of communicating with the user device.
However, Angelov teaches a content evaluation system (Angelov; a content evaluation system [¶ 0195]), comprising:
a user device having a display section that displays an image or video (Angelov; a user device having a display section that displays an image or video [¶ 0378-0379 and ¶ 0381-0382]; moreover, one or more devices [¶0196-0198] configured for displaying an image (i.e. graphics) [¶ 0204 and ¶ 0280]); and
a server device configured to be capable of communicating with the user device (Angelov; a server device configured to be capable of communicating with the user device [¶ 0378-0379 and ¶ 0381-0382]).
Hsiao and Angelov 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 effect.
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 Hsiao, to incorporate a content evaluation system, comprising: a user device having a display section that displays an image or video; and a server device configured to be capable of communicating with the user device (as taught by Angelov), in order to provide an improved input performance for drawing applications in real-time (Angelov; [¶ 0034-0035 and ¶ 0186-0187]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 1)
Conclusion
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.
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