DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu US 20170344127
Claim 1: The Hu reference provides teaching of a method for performing coding tasks using physical toy blocks (see paragraph 28 and physical toy block FG. 4A item 400), comprising:
capturing at least one image of an assembled arrangement of the toy blocks (see paragraph 99 capturing an image of the physical activity surface item 116)
wherein each toy block comprises a block type associated with a programming code concept (see paragraph 78-79 programming concepts)
analyzing the at least one image to determine one or more block arrangement features (see paragraph 92);
based on the determined arrangement features, determining a coding structure associated with the block arrangement (see paragraph 96 determining if the commands are correct and provide feedback if they are not)
determining if the coding structure satisfies one or more task completion criteria, associated with a coding task (see paragraph 106 detect user’s error for user to review) ; and
if so, generating an output indicating the coding task is completed (see paragraph 106 and 107).
Claim 4: The Hu reference provides a teaching of wherein the programming code concept comprises one or more syntax elements of a logic computational instruction, and the coding structure comprises the logic computational instruction (see paragraph 85 and 89 executing the program of the sequence of physical interface object).
Claim 5: The Hu reference provides a teaching of wherein the programming code concept comprises one or more of a numerical value (see FIG numeral 2 and 3), an operator (see paragraph 117 if command), a control flow statement (see paragraph 115 loop command).
Claim 6: The Hu reference provides a teaching of wherein the block arrangement features include one or more of (i) the block types in the arrangement (see FIG.5 arrangement of block 414, 416 … 422) and (iii) coupling configuration of the toy blocks (paragraph 114 blocks are detachable coupled from each other).
Claim 7: The Hu reference provides a teaching of wherein a coding task comprises instructions to physically arrange the toy blocks in a target assembled configuration corresponding to a target coding structure (see paragraph 41).
Claim 8: The Hu reference provides a teaching of wherein determining if the task completion criteria are satisfied comprises determining that the coding structure associated with the block arrangement, matches the target coding structure (see paragraph 96 detecting error and how to resolve the error).
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 (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 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Chiu et al
Claim 2: The Hu reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the analyzing of the images is performed using a trained object detection model.
However, the Chiu et al reference provides a teaching of wherein the analyzing of the images is performed using a trained object detection model (see page 4 column 2 first paragraph).
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 Hu reference with the feature of analyzing of the images is performed using a trained object detection model, in order to provide an effective image analysis module that can increase the accuracy of the object detection (see page 1 column 1 second paragraph).
Claim 3: The Hu reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the trained object detection model is a trained MobileNetSSD model.
However, the Chiu et al reference provides a teaching of wherein the trained object detection model is a trained MobileNetSSD model (see page 1 column 2 paragraph 3).
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 Hu reference with the feature of wherein the trained object detection model is a trained MobileNetSSD model, in order to provide an effective image analysis module that can increase the accuracy of the object detection (see page 1 column 1 second paragraph).
Claims 9-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu US 20170344127
and Hsieh et al US 20050026537
Claim 11: The Hu reference provides a teaching of an interactive system for performing coding tasks using physical toy blocks (see paragraph 28 and physical toy block FG. 4A item 400), comprising:
- a plurality of toy blocks, each toy block being of a block type that is associated with a
programming code concept (see FIG. 4B item 414, 416, 418… 422 and 430 and paragraph 115 programming concept such as loop command or conditional command (if) paragraph 117);
- an imaging sensor (see paragraph 34 item 110 video capture device);
at least one processor coupled to the imaging sensor (see paragraph 53 processor 312) and configured for:
- capturing, using the imaging sensor, at least one image of an assembled arrangement
of the toy blocks in the plurality of toy blocks (see paragraph 92 detect object from image data),
- analyzing the at least one image to determine one or more block arrangement features (see paragraph 93-94 visually identifying the object and translating them to command) ;
- based on the determined arrangement features, determining a coding structure associated with the block arrangement (see paragraph 96 determining if the commands are correct and provide feedback if they are not);
determining if the coding structure satisfies one or more task completion criteria,
associated with a coding task (see paragraph 106 detect user’s error for user to review).
The Hu reference is silent on the teaching of a non-visual interface for communicating an output; and if so, generating an output indicating the coding task is completed via the non-visual interface.
However, the Hsieh reference provides a teaching of a non-visual interface for communicating an output; and
if so, generating an output indicating the coding task is completed via the non-visual interface (see paragraph 22 controlling the movement of the robot).
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 Hu reference with the feature of a non-visual interface for communicating an output; and if so, generating an output indicating the coding task is completed via the non-visual interface; as taught by the Hsieh reference, in order to provide alternative tangible output (see paragraph 6-7).
Claim 14: The Hu reference provides a teaching of wherein the programming code concept comprises one or more syntax elements of a logic computational instruction, and the coding structure comprises the logic computational instruction (see paragraph 85 and 89 executing the program of the sequence of physical interface object).
Claim 15: The Hu reference provides a teaching of wherein the programming code concept comprises one or more of a numerical value (see FIG numeral 2 and 3) an operator (see paragraph 117 if command), a control flow statement (see paragraph 115 loop command).
Claim 16: The Hu reference provides a teaching of wherein the block arrangement features include one or more of (i) the block types in the arrangement (see FIG.5 arrangement of block 414, 416 … 422) and (iii) coupling configuration of the toy blocks (paragraph 114 blocks are detachable coupled from each other).
Claim 17: The Hu reference provides a teaching of wherein a coding task comprises instructions to physically arrange the toy blocks in a target assembled configuration corresponding to a target coding structure (see paragraph 41).
Claim 18: The Hu reference provides a teaching of wherein determining if the task completion criteria are satisfied comprises determining that the coding structure associated with the block arrangement, matches the target coding structure (see paragraph 96 detecting error and how to resolve the error).
Claim 9 and 19: The Hu reference is silent on the teaching of output comprising non-visual feedback.
However, the Hsieh reference provides a teaching output comprising non-visual feedback (see paragraph 20 controlling the robot).
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 Hu reference with the feature of output comprising non-visual feedback, as taught by the Hsieh reference, in order to provide alternative tangible output (see paragraph 6-7).
Claims 10 and 20: The Hu reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the non-visual feedback comprises an audio prompt or a haptic prompt.
However, the Hsieh reference provides a teaching of wherein the non-visual feedback comprises a haptic prompt (see paragraph 21 movement of the robot based on the programming).
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 Lee reference with the feature of wherein the non-visual feedback comprises a haptic prompt, as taught by the Hsieh reference, in order to provide alternative tangible output (see paragraph 6-7).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu US 20170344127
and Hsieh et al US 20050026537 and further in view of Chiu et al
Claim 12: The Hu reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the analyzing of the images is performed using a trained object detection model.
However, the Chiu et al reference provides a teaching of wherein the analyzing of the images is performed using a trained object detection model (see page 4 column 2 first paragraph).
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 Hu reference with the feature of analyzing of the images is performed using a trained object detection model, in order to provide an effective image analysis module that can increase the accuracy of the object detection (see page 1 column 1 second paragraph).
Claim 13: The Hu reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the trained object detection model is a trained MobileNetSSD model.
However, the Chiu et al reference provides a teaching of wherein the trained object detection model is a trained MobileNetSSD model (see page 1 column 2 paragraph 3).
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 Hu reference with the feature of wherein the trained object detection model is a trained MobileNetSSD model, in order to provide an effective image analysis module that can increase the accuracy of the object detection (see page 1 column 1 second paragraph).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee KR 20220126948
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
