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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Application as filed on October 2, 2024. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on October 2, 2024, April 2, 2025, and June 15, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification, ¶8 includes bolded text with no apparent purpose. The bolding should be removed to improve readability of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 is awkwardly worded and/or confusing. The examiner suggests language such as --the processor causes the first terminal to display a graph of the derived result in which a horizontal axis of the graph represents a period of time and a vertical axis of the graph represents the total number of the electronic sticky notes created -- or other suitable language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 4 include the language “the processor derives numbers of the electronic sticky note.” This should read --the processor derives numbers of the electronic sticky notes --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5 and 6 include the language “a number of the electronic sticky note created by the learner.” This should read -- a number of the electronic sticky notes created by the learner --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 includes the language “the numbers of the electronic sticky note.” This should read -- the numbers of the electronic sticky notes --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the electronic sticky note created by the plurality of learners via the plurality of second terminals” at lines 9-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim previously mentions that the plurality of second terminals each include an electronic sticky note function for creating an electronic sticky note related to learning; however, no sticky notes are previously recited as being created in the claim.
Claim 1, also recites “in response to a school being designated as an analysis unit of usage status of the electronic sticky note function by the learning instructor or the administrator via the first terminal.” The sentence structure and use of “by” in the claim is unclear and ambiguous. It is unclear whether the instructor/teacher is doing the designating or whether the usage of the sticky note corresponds to the use of the sticky note by the instructor teacher. The examiner suggests amending the claim to read -- in response to the learning instructor or the administrator via the first terminal designating a school as an analysis unit of usage status of the electronic sticky note function -- or other appropriate clarifying language.
In re claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the electronic sticky note includes a plurality of types of electronic sticky notes.” This language is confusing. It is unclear whether the “sticky note” includes additional sticky notes or whether the sticky note has a type, which may be one of many. The examiner suggests amending the claim to read -- the electronic sticky note includes a type corresponding to one of a plurality of types -- or other appropriate clarifying language.
In re claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the electronic sticky note includes an electronic sticky note created using an electronic dictionary” suggests the electronic sticky note is created using an electronic dictionary. However, the claim also recites “when the electronic sticky note includes a plurality of electronic sticky notes created using a plurality of electronic dictionaries in a single course” which is confusing within the context of the claim. It is unclear how a sticky note includes a plurality of stick notes. In addition, it is unclear whether the sticky note is created from a plurality of dictionaries or whether each sticky note corresponds to a dictionary (of which there are a plurality). Moreover, the language “in a single course” is ambiguous. For example, do the plurality of dictionaries correspond to a single course or do the sticky notes correspond to a single course.
Claims 2-9 depend from a rejected base claim and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1-9 are directed to an apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, use of the information processing apparatus allows an administrator or teacher to analyze how sticky notes are used by students (e.g., types used, dictionaries used, how often they are used, see ¶¶66-68).
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
An information processing apparatus that is configured to be communicably connected to a first terminal configured to be used by a learning instructor or an administrator and a plurality of second terminals configured to be used by a plurality of learners, the plurality of second terminals each including an electronic sticky note function for creating an electronic sticky note related to learning, comprising
a processor that:
acquires creation history information of the electronic sticky note created by the plurality of learners via the plurality of second terminals; and
in response to a school being designated as an analysis unit of usage status of the electronic sticky note function by the learning instructor or the administrator via the first terminal, derives a total number of the electronic sticky note created by the plurality of learners of a same school as a school associated with the learning instructor or the administrator based on the creation history information, and causes the first terminal to display a derived result.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features in claim 9. Claims 2-8 further define the abstract idea such as by further defining the output and/or depiction of the derived result (e.g., graph for time, type of note, dictionary usage, etc.). Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
The use of statistics to determine usage of resources is basic to the accounting process. The system and CRM in the instant application simply seek to automate this well-known process for a specific type of data (sticky notes) in a particular environment (learning or a school) using generic computers recited at a high level of generality. In particular, the claims recite operations to determine how students use sticky notes based on data organized in a database. However, considering historical usage information while inputting data using generic computer components has been determined to be an example of managing personal behavior, see, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Therefore, the claims recite the abstract concept managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
In addition, the claims recite operations that are mental in nature (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). For example, deriving a total number from historical usage data.
The limitation of “in response to a school being designated as an analysis unit of usage status of the electronic sticky note function by the learning instructor or the administrator via the first terminal, derives a total number of the electronic sticky note created by the plurality of learners of a same school as a school associated with the learning instructor or the administrator based on the creation history information” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of computer implemented or generic computer components. For example, a user, such as an administrator, may read the history information, perform a mental calculation and/or use pen and paper to count a total number of sticky notes created for a school and write down the answer. But for the recitation of apparatus, terminal, processor, and computer readable recording medium storing a program executed by a computer, nothing in the claimed method or operations precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain ways of organizing human activity.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. To be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer or network as a network. Applicant’s invention does not meet these requirements. Applicant’s invention uses computers and networks to determine present store, analyze, and present data. This does not improve the computer qua computer or the network qua network. Instead, Applicant’s invention uses generic computers and networks as a tool to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not eligible under Section 101.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: an apparatus or system having a plurality of terminals, a processor and a program stored by memory configured to perform the abstract idea when executed by a processor.
The specification in paragraph 7 identifies “the information processing system 1 includes a server 10, which is an information processing apparatus, a first terminal 20A, and a plurality of second terminals 20B. The server 10, the first terminal 20A, and the second terminals 20B are communicatively connected via a network 30. The network 30 is, for example, an arbitrary communication network such as the Internet, a wireless local area network (LAN), a wired LAN, a mobile communication network.” In paragraph 8, “the server 10 is a web server that provides a learning support service to the first terminal 20A and second terminals 20B via the web. As shown in FIG. 1, the server 10 includes a controller (processor) 11, a storage 12, and a communicator 13.” Paragraph 9 continues, “The controller 11 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a random-access memory (RAM), and the like. The CPU of the controller 11 is a processor that controls behavior of each unit of the server 10 by reading and executing programs stored in the storage 12 and performing various arithmetic processing. The controller 11 may include a plurality of processors, for example, a plurality of CPUs. The plurality of processors may execute a plurality of processes executed by the controller 11 of the present embodiment.” The first terminal 20A is a terminal device used by the administrator or a teacher. The first terminal 20A may be any of a personal computer, a portable terminal device such as a tablet, and a mobile communication device such as a smartphone. The first terminal 20A includes a controller 21A, a storage 22A, an operation unit 23A, a display 24A, a communicator 25A, and an image capturer 27A. The controller 21A, storage 22A, operation unit 23A, display 24A, communicator 25A, and image capturer 27A are connected to each other via a system bus 29A (See, e.g., ¶¶21-25). Therefore, the specification describes the server and terminals in generic and functional terms, which illustrates that these are merely off-the-shelf computer components arranged in conventional ways. As a result, nothing in Applicant’s specification indicates the computer system performs anything other than well understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving, storing, processing, and presenting information. See, Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (ed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the [S]pecification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”); see also Alice, 573 US. at 224—26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1340, 1355 (ed. Cir, 2014) (That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). At best, Applicant’s claimed subject matter simply uses generic processing circuitry to perform the abstract idea of converting input data from one form to another (e.g., sticky note data from a DB to a display result of usage). As noted above, the use of a generic computer system does not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court has observed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223).
In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claimed features relating to “acquiring creation historical information of the electronic sticky note created by the plurality of learners via the plurality of second terminals” represents data gathering used by the abstract concept and “causing the first terminal to display a derived result” represents insignificant post solution activity, both of which are not particular and are recited at a high level of generality.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1-9 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Publication No. JP 7147280 by Teramura et al. (“Teramura”) in view of US Publication No. 2014/0335497 by Gal et al. (“Gal”).
In re claims 1 and 9, Teramura discloses an information processing apparatus a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus [Fig. 1 shows information processing apparatus #12 ¶¶11-29] that is configured to be communicably connected to a first terminal configured to be used by a learning instructor or an administrator [Fig. 1 shows second information processing device 14 is operated by user "Z" who is a teacher. The information processing devices 14/10 and the server device 12 are communicably connected via a network 13. ¶¶11, 16-18] and a plurality of second terminals configured to be used by a plurality of learners [Fig. 1 shows first information processing apparatus 10A-10C operated by users with the first attribute. A user of the first attribute is, for example, a student who is taught a class or lecture, a student, a learner, or the like ¶18], the plurality of second terminals each including an electronic sticky note function for creating an electronic sticky note related to learning [Fig. 21, ¶84 describes the content display screen 203 includes an area 203a for displaying content an add button 203c for receiving information about the content to be displayed. The add button 203c includes a sticky note button 203d used for writing a question or the like], comprising a processor that: acquires creation history information of the electronic sticky note created by the plurality of learners via the plurality of second terminals [Figs. 3 and 9 shows databases, ¶43 describes a sticky note DB 108 is a database of sticky notes used for memo writing. FIG. 9 is a diagram showing a data configuration example of the tag DB 108. As shown in FIG. 9, the tag DB 108 stores content ID 108a, page number 108b, position information 108c, image data 108d, user ID 108e, and time 108f. The position information 108c is position information related to the pasting position of the sticky note. The image data 108d is memo information for the sticky note]; and in response to a school being designated as an analysis unit of usage status of the electronic sticky note function by the learning instructor or the administrator via the first terminal, derives a total number of the electronic sticky note created by the plurality of learners of a same school as a school associated with the learning instructor or the administrator based on the creation history information, and causes the first terminal to display a derived result [Figs. 21-24, ¶¶11, 17, 43, 52, 84, 88As shown in FIG. 22, the control unit 50 first displays the lesson analysis result display screen 204 (see FIG. 23) (step S81 ). FIG. 23 is a front view showing the lesson analysis result display screen 204. As shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 23, the lesson analysis result display screen 204 includes thumbnails 204a of individual pages of the content, evaluation 204b by the evaluation button for each page, the number of bookmark button presses 204c for each page, The number of sticky note button presses 204d for each page and the sticky note list button 204e are displayed. An analysis button 204f for displaying an analysis screen of each page is displayed on the thumbnail of each page of the content. When the individual page analysis button 204f is selected (Yes in step S82), the control unit 50 displays the individual page analysis screen 205 (see FIG. 25) (step S83). FIG. 24 is a front view showing an analysis screen 205 for individual pages. As shown in FIG. 24, the individual page analysis screen 205 displays thumbnails 205a of individual pages of content, the number of evaluation stages 205b, the number of bookmarks 205c, and the number of sticky notes 205d .. Note that, as shown in FIG. 24, the number of tags 205d may be aggregated according to usage, such as "for questions" and "others." When the sticky note list button 204e on the lesson analysis result display screen 204 is pressed (Yes in step S84), the control unit 50 displays the sticky note list screen 206 (see FIG. 25) (step S85)." §88 - §92].
Teramura teaches use of the system by a teacher and students, in addition to determining sticky note usage by the students through an aggregation function. Presumably the students are the teacher’s students and thus are in the same school as the teacher. Teramura does explicitly teach a school being designated as an analysis unit of usage status. However, Gal teaches a learning management system that includes a server connected to teachers, administrators, and a plurality of students. Gal also teaches databases for storing information regarding the usage of the learning management system by students and teachers. In particular, Gal teaches the system 300 generates reports at various times and using various methods, for example, based on the choice of the teacher utilizing the teacher station 310. For example, the teacher station 310 may generate one or more types of reports, e.g., individual student reports, group reports, class reports, at the request or command of a teacher utilizing the teacher station. Learning activities are monitored, recorded and stored in a format that allows subsequent searching, querying and retrieval. Data mining processes in combination with reporting tools may perform research and may generate reports on various educational, pedagogic and administrative entities, for example: on students (single student, a group of students, all students in a class, a grade, a school, or the like); teachers (a single teacher, a group of teachers that teach the same grade and/or in the same school and/or the same discipline); learning activities and related content; and for conducting research and formative assessment for improvement of teaching methodologies, flow or sequence of learning activities, or the like [¶¶131-142].
Teramura and Gal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated learning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Teramura and use the data mining techniques, such as specifying a designated school as an analysis unit, for deriving sticky note usage, as taught by Gal, in order to improve understanding of the learning process, for example, providing analysis results of resources that may be used to compare among teaching and/or learning at international level, national level, district level, school level, grade level, class level, group level, student level, or the like, see, e.g., ¶137.
In re claim 3, Teramura discloses the processor derives numbers of the electronic sticky note created by the respective plurality of learners based on the creation history information and causes the first terminal to display a derived result as pointed about above.
Teramura does explicitly teach a homeroom or course designated as an analysis unit of usage status. Teramura teaches use of the system by a teacher and students, in addition to determining sticky note usage by the students through an aggregation function. Presumably the students are the teacher’s students and thus are in the same school as the teacher. Teramura does explicitly teach a school being designated as an analysis unit of usage status. However, Gal teaches a learning management system that includes a server connected to teachers, administrators, and a plurality of students. Gal also teaches databases for storing information regarding the usage of the learning management system by students and teachers. In particular, Gal teaches the system 300 generates reports at various times and using various methods, for example, based on the choice of the teacher utilizing the teacher station 310. For example, the teacher station 310 may generate one or more types of reports, e.g., individual student reports, group reports, class reports, at the request or command of a teacher utilizing the teacher station. Learning activities are monitored, recorded and stored in a format that allows subsequent searching, querying and retrieval. Data mining processes in combination with reporting tools may perform research and may generate reports on various educational, pedagogic and administrative entities, for example: on students (single student, a group of students, all students in a class, a grade, a school, or the like); teachers (a single teacher, a group of teachers that teach the same grade and/or in the same school and/or the same discipline); learning activities and related content; and for conducting research and formative assessment for improvement of teaching methodologies, flow or sequence of learning activities, or the like [¶¶131-142].
Teramura and Gal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated learning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Teramura and use the data mining techniques, such as specifying a designated classroom as an analysis unit, for deriving sticky note usage, as taught by Gal, in order to improve understanding of the learning process, for example, providing analysis results of resources that may be used to compare among teaching and/or learning at international level, national level, district level, school level, grade level, class level, group level, student level, or the like, see, e.g., ¶137.
In re claim4, Teramura discloses wherein the electronic sticky note includes a plurality of types of electronic sticky notes, and the processor derives the numbers of the electronic sticky note created by the respective plurality of learners with respect to each type of the plurality of types of electronic sticky notes [Paragraphs [0043] and [0091] and Fig. 9,24 of Cited Document 1 describe "a sticky note DB108" in paragraph [0043] and "Fig. 24 is a front view showing an analysis screen 205 of each page. As shown in Fig. 24, the analysis screen 205 of each page displays a thumbnail 205a of each page of the content, a number 205b for each evaluation stage, a number 205c of bookmarks, and a number 205d of sticky notes. In addition, as shown in Fig. 24, the number 205d of sticky notes may be aggregated by use, such as" for question "or" other ". 0091The "sticky note" corresponds to the "electronic sticky note", and may be aggregated by use, such as "for question" or "other". "corresponds to" deriving the number of created electronic sticky notes for each learner for each type of the electronic sticky notes].
In re claim 8, Teramura discloses the first terminal and the plurality of second terminals communicably connected to the information processing apparatus [Fig. 1 shows second information processing device 14 is operated by user "Z" who is a teacher. The information processing devices 14/10 and the server device 12 are communicably connected via a network 13. ¶¶11, 16-18].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Teramura in view of Gal and further in view of web publication “Visualizing Time Series Data: 7 Types of Temporal Visualizations” by Humans of data (“Humans”).
In re claim 2, Teramura discloses aggregating or counting the number of sticky notes used. In addition, the sticky note DB stores a creation time 108f (e.g., 3/20 at 9:15AM) for each sticky note. Fig. 23 also shows and analysis result display screen 204 with a line graph 204d displaying total sticky note usage. While Teramura doesn’t explicitly teach the graph in which a horizontal axis represents a period and a vertical axis represents the total number of the electronic sticky note created, it is respectfully submitted that time series line graphs are notoriously well known in which time is depicted on the horizontal axis and number metrics (such as totals) are shown in the vertical axis [see, e.g., 1. Line Graph (Fig showing Population) A line graph is the simplest way to represent time series data. It is intuitive, easy to create, and helps the viewer get a quick sense of how something has changed over time. A line graph uses points connected by lines (also called trend lines) to show how a dependent variable and independent variable changed. For temporal visualizations, time is always the independent variable, which is plotted on the horizontal axis. Then the dependent variable is plotted on the vertical axis (e.g., a count of something like population)].
Teramura and Gal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated education systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graph of Teramura to be a time series graph showing usage as metric vs time, as taught by Humans, in order to improve visualization of data as temporal visualizations are one of the simplest, quickest ways to represent important data, see, e.g., p. 1.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Teramura in view of Gal and further in view of Japanese Patent No. JP 6761996 by Katuski et al. (“Katuski”).
In re claim 5, Teramura in view of Gal discloses a derived result for students of a designated class for display, as explained above for claim 1. Teramura also discloses displaying the results as a graph. Teramura lacks a teaching that a horizontal axis of the graph represents the learner, and a vertical axis represents a number of the electronic sticky note created by the learner.
Katsuki teaches a work database system for tracking data associated with individual workers and evaluating different types of productivity associated with each worker derived from information stored in the database and associated tags including totals for each worker [¶¶11, 46, 48]. Katsuki teaches the display screen 29c shows two bar graphs 61a and 61b that indicate the evaluation results. Bar graph 61a corresponds to worker W１, and bar graph 61b corresponds to worker W２. Areas 62a and 62b represent the time corresponding to the third classification, namely data matching and hypothesis testing work; areas 63a and 63b represent the time corresponding to the first classification, namely data entry work; and areas 64a and 64b represent the time corresponding to the second classification, namely data editing work [Fig. 13 and ¶¶58, 59].
Teramura and Katsuki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of databased management and user evaluation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graph of Teramura to be a bar graph corresponding to induvial learners as taught for workers by Katsuki, in order to improve visualization of data as temporal visualizations are one of the simplest, quickest ways to represent important data, see, e.g., p. 1.
In re claim 6, Teramura in view of Gal disclose a derived result for students of a designated class for display, as explained above for claim 1. Teramura also discloses displaying the results as a graph. Teramura lacks a teaching that a horizontal axis of the graph represents the learner and a vertical axis represents a number of the electronic sticky note created by the learner, showing the numbers of the electronic sticky note created in a different manner with respect to each type of the plurality of types of electronic sticky notes.
Katsuki teaches a work database system for tracking data associated with individual workers and evaluating different types of productivity associated with each worker derived from information stored in the database and associated tags including totals for each worker [¶¶11, 46, 48]. Katsuki teaches the display screen 29c shows two bar graphs 61a and 61b that indicate the evaluation results. Bar graph 61a corresponds to worker W１, and bar graph 61b corresponds to worker W２. Areas 62a and 62b represent the time corresponding to the third classification, namely data matching and hypothesis testing work; areas 63a and 63b represent the time corresponding to the first classification, namely data entry work; and areas 64a and 64b represent the time corresponding to the second classification, namely data editing work [Fig. 13 and ¶¶58, 59 show different classifications for each worker in graph].
Teramura and Katsuki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of databased management and user evaluation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graph of Teramura to be a bar graph corresponding to induvial learners with different classifications for each type of data displayed for the learners, as taught for workers by Katsuki, in order to improve visualization of data as temporal visualizations are one of the simplest, quickest ways to represent important data, see, e.g., p. 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Teramura in view of Gal and further in view of Japanese Patent No. JP 6536214 by Sato (“Sato”).
In re claim 7, Teramura discloses an electronic sticky note includes a plurality of electronic sticky notes and a processor to acquires creation history information of the electronic sticky note and adds up numbers of the electronic sticky note to derive the total number of the electronic sticky note, as explained above for claim 1. However, Teramura does not teach that the sticky notes a created from a dictionary.
Sato teaches creation of sticky notes from a plurality of dictionaries and storing associated data in a DB for use by students [¶¶23-29].
Teramura and Katsuki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated learning systems with sticky note features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Teramura to include an electronic sticky note created using an electronic dictionary, as taught by Sato, in order to improve user experience, for example, by intuitively recognizing usage of headwords, see, e.g., ¶8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
US 20110016375 describes a plurality of sticky notes can be associated with contextual information corresponding to a first context in which the virtual sticky note was posted. A request to access at least one of the virtual sticky notes can be received. A second context in which the request was generated can be identified. At least one of the virtual sticky notes that is associated with contextual information that corresponds to the second context can be identified. The identified virtual sticky note(s) can be communicated for presentation to a user
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights