DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 2 recite the steps of “calculat[ing],” “generat[ing],” and/or “display[ing],” which amount to a mental process that can be done using a pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims 6-7 and 9-11 recite the steps of “calculat[ing],” “obtain[ing],” and “calculat[ing],” which amount to a mathematical concept. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) does/do not recite any other steps. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a processor” and “a memory” are merely components of a generic computer. In addition, “a user device” and “a server device” are merely generic computers.
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) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withrow et al. (US 2018/0012008) in view of Topakas et al. (US 2015/0178955) and Chung et al. (US 2003/0138135).
Regarding claim 1, Withrow teaches/suggests: A content evaluation device comprising:
a processor (Withrow [0168] “the typical electronic device is likely to include one or more processors”); and
a memory storing a program that, when executed by the processor (Withrow [0168] “computer programs generally comprise instructions that are stored in machine-readable or computer-readable storage media”), causes the content evaluation device to:
calculate a state feature relating to creation of content (Withrow [0042] “acquiring a digital image data of the object … features are extracted, at block 104, from the digital image data” [0071] “an artist may create a work of art such as an etching, digitally fingerprint the artwork”); and
generate a picture-print that represents the state feature (Withrow [0042] “The extracted features are analyzed and feature vectors are extracted to form a digital fingerprint” [The digital fingerprint meets the picture-print.]).
Withrow does not teach/suggest a state feature relating to a drawing state in a creation period from a start timing to an end timing. Topakas, however, teaches/suggests a state feature relating to a drawing state in a creation period from a start timing to an end timing (Topakas [0097] “the image processing module 350 receives actions performed by the artist in generating a digital art, e.g., paint brush strokes ... records the actions performed by the artist in real-time”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the artwork of Withrow to be generated on a computer as taught/suggested by Topakas to generate a digital art.
Withrow as modified by Topakas does not teach/suggest a set or locus of points on a feature space. Chung, however, teaches/suggests a set or locus of points on a feature space (Chung [0135] “a locus of points ... the locus-based digitized signature is relatively secure because it cannot be reproduced”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital fingerprint of Withrow as modified by Topakas to include the locus of points of the brush strokes as taught/suggested by Chung because it cannot be reproduced.
Regarding claim 2, Withrow, Topakas, and Chung are silent regarding: The content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the program, when executed by the processor, causes the content evaluation device to:
generate an instruction to display picture-print information relating to the picture-print or derived information derived from the picture-print information.
However, the concept and advantages of such displaying are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious for the digital fingerprint (the picture-print) of Withrow as modified by Topakas and Chung to be displayed for information.
Regarding claim 5, Withrow as modified by Topakas and Chung teaches/suggests: The content evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the program, when executed by the processor, causes the content evaluation device to:
evaluate the content by using picture-print data indicating the picture-print (Withrow [0049] “matching a digital fingerprint of a target object to a database of existing digital fingerprints”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withrow et al. (US 2018/0012008) in view of Topakas et al. (US 2015/0178955) and Chung et al. (US 2003/0138135) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schmieder (US 2009/0112564).
Regarding claim 3, Withrow as modified by Topakas and Chung does not teach/suggest: The content evaluation device according to claim 2, wherein the state feature 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. Schmieder, however, teaches/suggests reduction in the number of dimensions to three or less (Schmieder [0096] “They emphasize the usefulness of reducing the dimensionality of complex systems to three”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital fingerprint of Withrow as modified by Topakas and Chung to be reduced to three dimensions as taught/suggested by Schmieder to be useful.
As such, Withrow as modified by Topakas, Chung, and Schmieder teaches/suggests the state feature 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 (Withrow [0042] “The extracted features are analyzed and feature vectors are extracted to form a digital fingerprint” Schmieder [0096] “They emphasize the usefulness of reducing the dimensionality of complex systems to three”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withrow et al. (US 2018/0012008) in view of Topakas et al. (US 2015/0178955) and Chung et al. (US 2003/0138135) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Podgorny et al. (US 11263277).
Regarding claim 4, Withrow as modified by Topakas and Chung does not teach/suggest: The content evaluation device according to claim 2, wherein the derived information is awareness information that gives awareness to a creator of the content. Podgorny, however, teaches/suggests the derived information is awareness information that gives awareness to a creator of the content (Podgorny col. 3 ll. 7-16 “the generation and use of semantic graph data models. A domain-specific context may be a particular area of knowledge” col. 13 ll. 4-12 “Each word in the semantic graph data model has a distance to every other word in the semantic graph data model, as determined by the difference in the coordinates of the words”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital art of Withrow as modified by Topakas and Chung to include the semantic graph of Podgorny for context.
Claim(s) 6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topakas et al. (US 2015/0178955) in view of Hada (US 2011/0043472).
Regarding claim 6, Topakas teaches/suggests: A content evaluation device comprising:
a processor (Topakas Fig. 15: processor 1505); and
a memory storing a program that, when executed by the processor (Topakas Fig. 15: memory 1510), causes the content evaluation device to:
calculate a time series of a state feature relating to a drawing state of content created through a series of operations (Topakas [0097] “the image processing module 350 receives actions performed by the artist in generating a digital art, e.g., paint brush strokes ... records the actions performed by the artist in real-time, e.g., each 'vector' stroke of the pen, including erasers, or other artist tools that the artist uses” [The calculating is an inherent feature of the vectors of the strokes.]);
Topakas does not teach/suggest:
obtain an amount of change in the state feature between before and after a single operation or consecutive operations by using the time series of the state feature; and
calculate an operation feature relating to the single operation or consecutive operations from the amount of change.
Hada, however, teaches/suggests:
obtain an amount of change in the state feature between before and after a single operation or consecutive operations by using the time series of the state feature (Hada [0044] “the CPU 101 calculates an amount of displacement, i.e., a distance from the coordinates P of the starting point to the coordinates C of the current point”); and
calculate an operation feature relating to the single operation or consecutive operations from the amount of change (Hada [0044] “the CPU 101 determines whether a trajectory of a touch input detected by the input unit 105 is a part of the gesture operations (a part of the gesture patterns illustrated in FIG. 2)”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vectors of the strokes of Topakas such that their displacements are calculated as taught/suggested by Hada to determine their patterns.
Regarding claim 9, Topakas as modified by Hada teaches/suggests: The content evaluation device according to claim 6, wherein the program, when executed by the processor, causes the content evaluation device to calculate the time series of the state feature based on at least both raster data and stroke data of the content (Topakas [0096] “the user can watch the image being constructed as the artist constructed it, stroke-by-stroke, and pixel-by-pixel ... each 'vector' stroke of the pen, including erasers, is stored”).
Regarding claim 10, Topakas as modified by Hada teaches/suggests: The content evaluation device according to claim 6, wherein the single operation is a stroke operation for drawing one stroke (Topakas [0097] “the image processing module 350 receives actions performed by the artist in generating a digital art, e.g., paint brush strokes”).
Regarding claim 11, Topakas as modified by Hada teaches/suggests: The content evaluation device according to claim 10, wherein the operation feature is a magnitude or a direction of a vector that has a first drawing state immediately before execution of the stroke operation as an initial point and has a second drawing state immediately after the execution of the stroke operation as a terminal point (Topakas [0096] “the user can watch the image being constructed as the artist constructed it, stroke-by-stroke, and pixel-by-pixel ... each 'vector' stroke of the pen, including erasers, is stored”).
Regarding claim 12, Topakas as modified by Hada teaches/suggests: The content evaluation device according to claim 6, wherein the program, when executed by the processor, causes the content evaluation device to:
identify a kind of creation step corresponding to the drawing state of the content by using the time series of the state feature or the operation feature (Topakas [0097] “the image processing module 350 receives actions performed by the artist in generating a digital art, e.g., paint brush strokes” Hada [0044] “the CPU 101 determines whether a trajectory of a touch input detected by the input unit 105 is a part of the gesture operations (a part of the gesture patterns illustrated in FIG. 2)”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topakas et al. (US 2015/0178955) in view of Hada (US 2011/0043472) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Podgorny et al. (US 11263277).
Regarding claim 7, Topakas as modified by Hada does not teach/suggest: The content evaluation device according to claim 6, wherein the state feature is a coordinate value on a feature space defined by a concept graph indicating a relation between words. Podgorny, however, teaches/suggests the state feature is a coordinate value on a feature space defined by a concept graph indicating a relation between words (Podgorny col. 3 ll. 7-16 “the generation and use of semantic graph data models. A domain-specific context may be a particular area of knowledge” col. 13 ll. 4-12 “Each word in the semantic graph data model has a distance to every other word in the semantic graph data model, as determined by the difference in the coordinates of the words”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital art of Topakas as modified by Hada to include the semantic graph of Podgorny for context.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topakas et al. (US 2015/0178955) in view of Hada (US 2011/0043472) and Podgorny et al. (US 11263277) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2021/0103706).
Regarding claim 8, Topakas as modified by Hada does not teach/suggest: The content evaluation device according to claim 7, wherein the concept graph is made for each of a plurality of kinds of languages, and the program, when executed by the processor, causes the content evaluation device to identify a kind of language from at least one of content data indicating the content or related data relating to creation of the content, and calculate the time series of the state feature by using the concept graph corresponding to the kind of language. Yu, however, teaches/suggest the concept graph is made for each of a plurality of kinds of languages (Yu [0035] “receives multiple knowledge graphs … knowledge graphs may deal with partially overlapping subject matter, but may be written in different languages”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the semantic graph of Topakas as modified by Hada and Podgorny to include multiple ones as taught/suggested by Yu for different languages.
As such, Topakas as modified by Hada, Podgorny, and Yu teaches/suggests identify a kind of language from at least one of content data indicating the content or related data relating to creation of the content, and calculate the time series of the state feature by using the concept graph corresponding to the kind of language (Topakas [0097] “the image processing module 350 receives actions performed by the artist in generating a digital art, e.g., paint brush strokes ... records the actions performed by the artist in real-time, e.g., each 'vector' stroke of the pen, including erasers, or other artist tools that the artist uses” Podgorny col. 13 ll. 4-12 “Each word in the semantic graph data model has a distance to every other word in the semantic graph data model, as determined by the difference in the coordinates of the words” Yu [0035] “receives multiple knowledge graphs … knowledge graphs may deal with partially overlapping subject matter, but may be written in different languages”).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topakas et al. (US 2015/0178955) in view of Hada (US 2011/0043472) and Withrow et al. (US 2018/0012008).
Regarding claim 13, Topakas as modified by Hada teaches/suggests: A content evaluation system comprising:
a user device that, in operation, generates content data indicating content created through a series of operations (Topakas [0097] “the image processing module 350 receives actions performed by the artist in generating a digital art, e.g., paint brush strokes“]); and
calculate a time series of a state feature relating to a drawing state of the content (Topakas [0097] “the image processing module 350 records the actions performed by the artist in real-time, e.g., each 'vector' stroke of the pen, including erasers, or other artist tools that the artist uses” [The calculating is an inherent feature of the vectors of the strokes.]), and
obtain an amount of change in the state feature between before and after a single operation or consecutive operations by using the time series of the state feature (Hada [0044] “the CPU 101 calculates an amount of displacement, i.e., a distance from the coordinates P of the starting point to the coordinates C of the current point”); and
calculating an operation feature relating to the single operation or consecutive operations from the amount of change (Hada [0044] “the CPU 101 determines whether a trajectory of a touch input detected by the input unit 105 is a part of the gesture operations (a part of the gesture patterns illustrated in FIG. 2)”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated herein.
Topakas as modified by Hada does not teach/suggest:
a server device that, in operation, communicates with the user device, wherein the server device includes: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing a program that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the server device to…
Withrow, however, teaches/suggests:
a server device that, in operation, communicates with the user device, wherein the server device includes: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing a program that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the server device (Withrow [0053] “A server 412 may be provisioned to provide identification and/or tracking data analysis and reporting … A mobile user device 410 such as a smartphone, tablet, laptop computer, or dedicated device may be configured for communications with the server 412” [The processor and the memory are inherent features of the server.]) to…
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculating, obtaining, and calculating of Topakas as modified by Hada to be carried out by the server of Withrow to take advantage of the client-server architecture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 9693181 – locus points
US 2016/0171744 – image signature
US 2019/0213488 – semantic vector
US 2022/0019734 – knowledge graph
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619