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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to application filed 09/20/2024. Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the application.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In regard to independent claim 1 analyzed as representative claim:
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Independent Claim 1 recites “An information processing apparatus comprising:”. Independent claim 1 falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The Revised 2019 Memorandum is applied as shown in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table below to identify in italics the specific claim limitations found to recite an abstract idea and in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations.
Independent Claim 1
Revised 2019 Guidance
An information processing apparatus comprising:
An apparatus falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 35 U.S.C.§ 101 (“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.”).
[L1] an estimation unit that estimates a level of attention of a user,
Estimating a level of attention of a user to output information of a certain type on a basis of a physical state of the user could be performed alternatively as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and may also be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The estimation unit is an additional element – generic component.
[L2] to output information of a certain type on a basis of a physical state of the user,
Outputting information of a certain type on a basis of a physical state of the user is insignificant extra-solution activity (data presentation). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[L3] wherein the estimation unit estimates the level of attention using an estimation model that determines a degree of change in an output mode of the output information on a basis of a physical state of a trainer and an experience of whether or not the trainer has perceived a change in an output mode of training information of a same type as that of the output information in a case where the output mode has been changed
Determining a degree of change in an output mode of the output information on a basis of a physical state of a trainer could be performed alternatively as a mental process, i.e., concept performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and may also be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The estimation unit and estimation model are additional elements – generic components.
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) and activities that can be performed in the human mind, such as making observations, evaluations, judgements, or forming opinions. For example, as shown above in the Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table, a human could readily estimate a level of attention of a user (by observation, evaluation and opinion), and determine a degree of change in an output mode of the output information on a basis of a physical state of a trainer (by evaluation and opinion). It is apparent that, other than reciting the additional non-abstract limitations of the “estimation unit” and “estimation model” noted above, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human, in the mind, and/or using pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of the “estimation unit” and “estimation model” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The claimed computer element(s), namely the “estimation unit” and “estimation model” are recited at a high level of generality (see originally filed Specification, at least ¶ 44: A deep reinforcement learning method with a neural network, for example, is used to learn the estimation model 155; ¶ 71: the information processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment may be a personal computer (PC), a smartphone, a tablet, a head-mounted device, a gaming machine, or the like; ¶ 84: one of the features of the estimation unit 150 according to the present embodiment is to estimate a level of attention of a user using the estimation model 155 generated through deep reinforcement learning; ¶ 89: The output control unit 170 according to the present embodiment controls output of various types of information. For example, the output control unit 170 according to the present embodiment may control output of output information on the basis of the level of attention estimated by the estimation unit 150; ¶ 103: … the estimation model 155 included in the estimation unit 150 …; ¶ 195: As illustrated in FIG. 12, the information processing apparatus 90 includes, for example, a processor 871, a ROM 872, a RAM 873, a host bus 874, a bridge 875, an external bus 876, an interface 877, an input device 878, an output device 879, a storage 880, a drive 881, a connection port 882, and a communication device 883. Note that the hardware configuration illustrated here is an example, and a subset of the components may be omitted. In addition, components other than those illustrated here may be further included. The lack of details about the claimed computer element(s) indicates that these additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions to “estimate”, “output”, and “determine”. Any improvements provided by the claim are in the abstract realm, and they are insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. “A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claimed invention merely implements the abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer components, as shown in bold type above, and as supported in the above noted pertinent portions of the Specification. Thus, the instant claim merely uses a programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Step [L2] “output information of a certain type on a basis of a physical state of the user” (i.e., data presentation) as shown above, reflects the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Although presentation of data may not be done purely mentally, such a step “does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.” Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355. The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Hence, the claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Hence, as per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), the additional elements in representative claim 1 do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the Specification, as noted above (for example ¶¶ 44, 71, 84, 89, 103 and 195) describes the “estimation unit” and “estimation model” in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the published Specification sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.” The generic description of the “estimation unit” and “estimation model” indicates the steps are well-known enough that no further description is required for a skilled artisan to understand the process. That is, the recited data presentation (i.e., [L2] “output information of a certain type on a basis of a physical state of the user”) is nothing more than a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because data display is a primitive generic conventional computer operation. No technological implementation details are recited. Hence, the additional element(s) is/are generic, well-known, and conventional computing element(s). The use of the additional element(s) either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent claim 18:
The claim is an information processing method comprising using a processor (generic computer component), steps comparable to those performed by the computer components of representative claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 11 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 1.
[Claim 19] The claim is a program causing a computer to function as: an information processing apparatus comprising steps comparable to those performed by the computer components of representative claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 11 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 1.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2-17 include all the limitations of independent claim 1 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for claim 1. Claims 2-17 only provide more detailed limitations of the abstract idea, which do not make the abstract idea(s) any less abstract. For example, the recitation in each of claims 3-5 of an objective function, a mathematical concept (by definition “an objective function is a mathematical expression that defines the goal or criterion to be optimized in a problem, such as maximizing profit or minimizing”1), in addition to the abstract concept(s) noted earlier in independent claim 1, does not render the claims non-abstract. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326–27 (determining that the claim’s recitation of a mathematical formula in addition to the abstract concept of encoding and decoding did not render the claim non-abstract). Any additional claim element is recited as a generic component being used according to its conventional purpose in a conventional manner. See Spec., ¶¶ 44, 71, 84, 89, 95 and 103. The Examiner fails to see any claim activity used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. An invocation to use known technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and conventional. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2-17 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. While dependent claims 2-17 may have a narrower scope than the representative claims, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2-17 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over BOTRASHVIL (US 20220117548 A1) in view of ABOU SHOUSHA (US 20220125299 A1).
Re claims 1, 18 and 19:
[Claim 1] BOTRASHVIL discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: an estimation unit that estimates a level of attention of a user to output information of a certain type on a basis of a physical state of the user, wherein the estimation unit estimates the level of attention using an estimation model that determines a degree of change in an output mode of the output information on a basis of a physical state of a trainer and an experience of whether or not the trainer has perceived a change in an output mode of training information of a same type as that of the output information in a case where the output mode has been changed (at least ¶¶ 10, 20, 21, 26, 28, 30, 31, 44, 46, 60: automatic adapting a literacy system for a specific individual … monitoring said individual's attentiveness during/while usage thereof by monitoring any one of: individual's eye movement … determining individual's attentiveness level; and (c) providing biofeedback and/or adjusting specific conditions of said literacy system according to the determined individual's attentiveness level by any one of: modifying visual characteristics on a display screen … and subsequently monitoring individual's eye reaction to such modification(s), wherein: if the individual's attentiveness level is within a predefined threshold range, no adjustments are needed; and if the individual's attentiveness level is outside said predefined threshold range, specific conditions are adjusted until the individual's attentiveness level is determined to be within said predefined threshold range; ¶ 46: … Based on that learning status, which may be in the form of an input from a camera to a processing unit, the display screen may adjust the visual images presented to the individual and this adjustment may be constantly revised and updated; ¶ 59: determining a nature of a visual impairment or a learning ability status from among two, three, four or more types of learning disability or impairment; and subsequently displaying learning material visually on a screen to a student/learning impaired individual, wherein the material is presented in one visual form tailored to one particular learning impairment selected from a plurality of visual forms each of which is tailored to a different form of learning impairment (for example amongst a range of visual formats that it can be presented in for learning impaired individuals; ¶ 64: an image generator to modify the visual image based on various factors including, but not limited to, one or a combination of the following: brightness, contrast, amount of whiteness, size of letters, distribution of letters, size of the active portion of the screen, shading, layout, spacing and/or other visual cues).
BOTRASHVIL may be silent on but ABOU SHOUSHA teaches or at least suggests an experience of whether or not the trainer has perceived a change in an output mode of training information of a same type as that of the output information in a case where the output mode has been changed (at least ¶ 304: during one or more portions of a visual test, one or more locations may be tested with one or more default starting characteristics (e.g., default starting contrast levels, brightness levels, contrast levels, sharpness levels, saturation levels, etc.) under which one or more stimuli may initially be presented to a user (e.g., after which the stimuli characteristic for a location may be dynamically adjusted if it is detected that the user is unable to see a stimulus presented at the location)). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the dynamic stimulus presentation features of ABOU SHOUSHA and to have modified BOTRASHVIL as claimed, because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 18] The claim is an information processing method comprising using a processor, steps comparable to those performed by the computer components of representative claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 18 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 1.
[Claim 19] The claim is a program causing a computer to function as: an information processing apparatus comprising steps comparable to those performed by the computer components of representative claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 11 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 1.
Re claims 2-3:
[Claim 2] BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA teaches or at least suggests wherein the estimation model determines, on a basis of the experience, a degree of change in the output mode of the training information such that the trainer will not perceive the change in the output mode of the training information (at least ABOU SHOUSHA: ¶ 304: during one or more portions of a visual test, one or more locations may be tested with one or more default starting characteristics (e.g., default starting contrast levels, brightness levels, contrast levels, sharpness levels, saturation levels, etc.) under which one or more stimuli may initially be presented to a user (e.g., after which the stimuli characteristic for a location may be dynamically adjusted if it is detected that the user is unable to see a stimulus presented at the location). In this way, for example, initial visual defect information or additional visual defect information may be determined and provided to a prediction model to obtain one or more predicted characteristics for one or more additional locations to be tested. As an example, when it is known that additional visual defect information is needed to increase accuracy of predictions for a visual field region to a sufficient accuracy level, one or more default starting characteristics may be used to initially present stimuli at one or more locations (e.g., corresponding to locations in the visual field region) to obtain and provide the visual defect information for those locations to the prediction model to increase the prediction model's accuracy when predicting characteristics for one or more other locations). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further utilized the dynamic stimulus presentation features of ABOU SHOUSHA and to have modified BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA as claimed, because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 3] BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA appears to be silent on wherein the estimation model determines the degree of change in the output mode of the training information using an objective function that differs depending on whether or not the trainer has perceived the change in the output mode of the training information. However, as noted earlier, “an objective function is a mathematical expression that defines the goal or criterion to be optimized in a problem, such as maximizing profit or minimizing”. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention ABOU SHOUSHA and to have further utilized the dynamic stimulus presentation features of ABOU SHOUSHA and to have modified BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA as claimed, because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claims 6 and 11:
[Claims 6 and 11] BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA teaches or at least suggests wherein in a case where a feature value extracted from sensor information indicating the physical state of the user is input to the estimation model, the estimation unit calculates the level of attention on a basis of the degree of change in the output mode of the output information output from the estimation model, wherein the sensor information includes an image obtained by capturing an image of the user's face (at least BOTRASHVIL: at least ¶¶ 10, 20, 21, 26, 28, 31, 44, 60: automatic adapting a literacy system for a specific individual … monitoring said individual's attentiveness during/while usage thereof by monitoring any one of: individual's eye movement … determining individual's attentiveness level; and (c) providing biofeedback and/or adjusting specific conditions of said literacy system according to the determined individual's attentiveness level by any one of: modifying visual characteristics on a display screen …; ¶ 30: a personalized automatic-adapting cognitive process system designed to improve individual's focus/attention/awareness and literacy capabilities, the system comprising: (a) at least one sensor, e.g., a camera, designed to track said individual's sense(s); and (b) a literacy and cognitive-tracking system comprising a computing system comprising: a processor, a memory, an artificial intelligence (AI) module and a display screen, wherein: the sensor is designed to monitor individual's sense(s) and transmit data to the AI module; ¶ 46: The camera may obtain video data of the individual's face including the individual's eyes; ABOU SHOUSHA: ¶ 304: during one or more portions of a visual test, one or more locations may be tested with one or more default starting characteristics (e.g., default starting contrast levels, brightness levels, contrast levels, sharpness levels, saturation levels, etc.) under which one or more stimuli may initially be presented to a user (e.g., after which the stimuli characteristic for a location may be dynamically adjusted if it is detected that the user is unable to see a stimulus presented at the location). In this way, for example, initial visual defect information or additional visual defect information may be determined and provided to a prediction model to obtain one or more predicted characteristics for one or more additional locations to be tested. As an example, when it is known that additional visual defect information is needed to increase accuracy of predictions for a visual field region to a sufficient accuracy level, one or more default starting characteristics may be used to initially present stimuli at one or more locations (e.g., corresponding to locations in the visual field region) to obtain and provide the visual defect information for those locations to the prediction model to increase the prediction model's accuracy when predicting characteristics for one or more other locations). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further utilized the dynamic stimulus presentation features of ABOU SHOUSHA and to have modified BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA as claimed, because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claims 8-10:
[Claims 8-10] BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA teaches or at least suggests wherein the output information includes visual information, wherein the estimation model determines the degree of change in the output mode of the training information also on a basis of a display position of the training information, wherein the output mode of the training information includes a display position (at least ABOU SHOUSHA: ¶ 304: during one or more portions of a visual test, one or more locations may be tested with one or more default starting characteristics (e.g., default starting contrast levels, brightness levels, contrast levels, sharpness levels, saturation levels, etc.) under which one or more stimuli may initially be presented to a user (e.g., after which the stimuli characteristic for a location may be dynamically adjusted if it is detected that the user is unable to see a stimulus presented at the location). In this way, for example, initial visual defect information or additional visual defect information may be determined and provided to a prediction model to obtain one or more predicted characteristics for one or more additional locations to be tested. As an example, when it is known that additional visual defect information is needed to increase accuracy of predictions for a visual field region to a sufficient accuracy level, one or more default starting characteristics may be used to initially present stimuli at one or more locations (e.g., corresponding to locations in the visual field region) to obtain and provide the visual defect information for those locations to the prediction model to increase the prediction model's accuracy when predicting characteristics for one or more other locations. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further utilized the dynamic stimulus presentation features of ABOU SHOUSHA and to have modified BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA as claimed, because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claims 12-13:
[Claims 12-13] BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA teaches or at least suggests an output control unit that controls output of the output information on a basis of the level of attention estimated by the estimation unit, wherein the output control unit controls an output position of the output information on a basis of the level of attention (at least BOTRASHVIL: at least ¶¶ 10, 20, 21, 26, 28, 31, 44, 60: automatic adapting a literacy system for a specific individual … monitoring said individual's attentiveness during/while usage thereof by monitoring any one of: individual's eye movement … determining individual's attentiveness level; and (c) providing biofeedback and/or adjusting specific conditions of said literacy system according to the determined individual's attentiveness level by any one of: modifying visual characteristics on a display screen …; ABOU SHOUSHA: ¶ 304: during one or more portions of a visual test, one or more locations may be tested with one or more default starting characteristics (e.g., default starting contrast levels, brightness levels, contrast levels, sharpness levels, saturation levels, etc.) under which one or more stimuli may initially be presented to a user (e.g., after which the stimuli characteristic for a location may be dynamically adjusted if it is detected that the user is unable to see a stimulus presented at the location). In this way, for example, initial visual defect information or additional visual defect information may be determined and provided to a prediction model to obtain one or more predicted characteristics for one or more additional locations to be tested. As an example, when it is known that additional visual defect information is needed to increase accuracy of predictions for a visual field region to a sufficient accuracy level, one or more default starting characteristics may be used to initially present stimuli at one or more locations (e.g., corresponding to locations in the visual field region) to obtain and provide the visual defect information for those locations to the prediction model to increase the prediction model's accuracy when predicting characteristics for one or more other locations. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further utilized the dynamic stimulus presentation features of ABOU SHOUSHA and to have modified BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA as claimed, because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claims 14-15:
[Claims 14-15] BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA teaches or at least suggests wherein the output control unit controls behavior of a display object on a basis of the level of attention, wherein the output control unit controls, on a basis of the level of attention to each of a plurality of pieces of content that is being output, output of the piece of content (at least BOTRASHVIL: at least ¶¶ 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 64: providing biofeedback and/or adjusting specific conditions means any one of: modifying visual characteristics on a display screen, such as brightness, background, color, word- and line-spacing, font size, shape and color, etc., or any combination thereof … an image generator to modify the visual image based on various factors including, but not limited to, one or a combination of the following: brightness, contrast, amount of whiteness, size of letters, distribution of letters, size of the active portion of the screen, shading, layout, spacing and/or other visual cues).
Re claims 16-17:
[Claim 16] BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA teaches or at least suggests wherein the output control unit controls dynamic display of levels of attention continuously estimated by the estimation unit (at least BOTRASHVIL: at least ¶ 31: monitoring can be continuous or in predefined time intervals determined according to need and/or according to the identified focus level).
[Claim 17] BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA teaches or at least suggests wherein the output control unit controls the output of the output information on a basis of the level of attention of each of a plurality of users (at least BOTRASHVIL: at least ¶¶ 2, 10, 11, 19-21, 28-36, 44-4, 63, 656: custom and automatic adjustment in accordance to an individual's specific cognition level for improving the overall focus, learning ability, reading and other related matters of the individua … automatic adapting a literacy system for a specific individual, the method comprising the steps of: (a) after activation of the system by said individual, monitoring said individual's attentiveness during/while usage thereof; (b) determining individual's attentiveness level; and (c) providing biofeedback and/or adjusting specific conditions of said literacy system according to the determined individual's attentiveness level …).
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA, as applied to claim 3, further in view of HOLTOM (US 20240117791 A1).
Re claims 4-5 and 7:
[Claims 4-5] BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA appears to be silent on but HOLTOM teaches or at least suggests wherein in a case where the trainer has not perceived the change in the output mode of the training information, the estimation model determines the degree of change in the output mode of the training information such that an objective function corresponding to a positive number proportional to the degree of change in the output mode of the training information is maximized, wherein in a case where the trainer has perceived the change in the output mode of the training information, the estimation model determines the degree of change in the output mode of the training information such that an objective function corresponding to a negative number proportional to the degree of change in the output mode of the training information is maximized (at least ¶ 101: an objective parameter may be a function of more than one parameter, each such parameter being possibly controllable or else not controllable, and each such parameter being possibly measurable (or known) or else not measurable (or not known). It will be appreciated that minimising or maximising an objective function is an equivalent process, taking note of the positive or negative sign of changes in parameters). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized common features associated with objective functions and to have modified BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA as claimed, because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 7] BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA appears to be silent on but HOLTOM teaches or at least suggests wherein the estimation unit calculates the level of attention on a basis of the degree of change in the output mode of the output information output from the estimation model and a maximum amount of change relating to the output mode (at least ¶ 101: an objective parameter may be a function of more than one parameter, each such parameter being possibly controllable or else not controllable, and each such parameter being possibly measurable (or known) or else not measurable (or not known). It will be appreciated that minimising or maximising an objective function is an equivalent process, taking note of the positive or negative sign of changes in parameters). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized common features associated with objective functions and to have modified BOTRASHVIL in view of ABOU SHOUSHA as claimed, because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22objective+function%22+synoinym&cvid=2cda2f666a544f32a0d48003562f6b91&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQ6QcY_FXSAQkyMTc0OGowajeoAgiwAgE&FORM=ANAB01&adppc=EDGEINJP&PC=EDGEINJP
Prosecution Insights