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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-11 describe a computer-readable recording medium.
Further, Applicant's specification, at paragraph [0182], fails to explicitly define the scope of computer-readable recording medium to exclude transitory signals. Thus, in giving the term its plain meaning (see MPEP 2111.01), the claimed computer-readable recording medium is considered to include data signals per se. Data signals per se are not statutory as they fail to fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer readable media excludes data signals (data signals are transitory computer readable media).
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, 6-8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duffy et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0309945, “Duffy”, hereinafter).
As per claim 1, as shown in Fig. 5, Duffy teaches a computer-readable recording medium storing therein a learning support program causing a computer to execute a process comprising:
receiving input of a character that a user is requested to write, the character being handwritten and input by the user (Fig. 4 and 5, ¶ [63], “…the handwriting digitization system 14 is configured to calculate written characters produced by the user and associated user techniques used for writing the characters”);
recognizing the input character or strokes of the input character (¶ [63], “…the handwriting digitization system 14 is configured to apply trajectory recognition, character recognition…”);
judging the recognized character or a stroke order of the strokes of the recognized character (¶ [79], ranking and evaluating handwriting skills, and “For instance, where an identified character is overly ‘flattened’ while the corresponding ideal characters is rounded, a problem area may be identified in fine motor skills, specifically in rotational fine motor skills. In examples, problem areas may be identified by examining a user fluency level and comparing it to known fluency levels from the ideal techniques database 29”); and
outputting information concerning a result of the judging (¶ [80], outputting either negative or positive feedback. See also ¶ [77]).
As per claim 6, Duffy further teaches wherein the outputting includes outputting the information concerning the result of the judging by displaying the recognized character or the strokes of the recognized character and the character or the stroke order of the strokes of the character (Fig. 5, box 1, ¶ [93]).
As per claim 7, Duffy also teaches wherein the outputting includes outputting the information concerning the result of the judging by displaying information in which the recognized character or the strokes of the recognized character (addressed in claim 6) are correlated with a handwriting pressure of the recognized character or handwriting pressures of the strokes of the recognized character (¶ [62], ¶ [72], i.e., tracking handwriting performance by the input force data applied to the writing instrument).
As per claim 8, as addressed in claims 6 and 7 above, Duffy does teach wherein the outputting includes playing a presentation in which the recognized character or strokes of the recognized character are correlated with the result of judging the stroke order and handwriting pressures of the strokes of the recognized character (It is not clear what is meant by playing a presentation claimed here. Thus, broadly interpreted as outputting feedback as addressed in claim 1).
As per claim 11, Duffy does also teach wherein the outputting includes outputting a voice notifying the user of the result of the judging (¶ [64] and ¶ [88], using the auditory feedback).
Claim 12, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0309945).
As per claim 9, Duffy does not explicitly teach wherein, the judging includes judging the recognized character or the strokes of the recognized character by comparing handwriting pressures of the strokes of the recognized character to predetermined handwriting pressures at a plurality of points, and the outputting includes outputting a display indicating a point where a handwriting pressure of the handwriting pressures of the strokes of the recognized character is low. However, as addressed in claims 6 and 7 above, Duffy does teach the handwriting skill is relied on and evaluated with the force data of the pen tip. Duffy further teaches at ¶ [77], “the handwriting skills are determined by comparing writing instrument tip path data and user techniques of the identified character with respective data, e.g. ideal writing instrument tip path data and ideal techniques, of the ideal character”, and that “Based on the comparison, handwriting skills used for a respective character may be determined “low” when the respective data of the identified character does not match with the ideal character within the defined threshold…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Duffy such that the comparison is comparing handwriting pressures of the strokes of the recognized character to predetermined handwriting pressures at a plurality of points since this the force data is also taken into consideration while comparing with the ideal character, and thus, if the force data is not strong enough (handwriting pressure is low), the identified character will not match with the ideal character recited above.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0309945) in view of Yui (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0229341).
As per claim 2, Duffy does not expressly teach the process further comprising: displaying a guiding object that provides guidance regarding the stroke order of the character when the user is requested to write the character. However, Duffy does teach a guiding method to assist a user to practice fine rotational motor skills using projected light (see ¶ [83], and [86]).
Yui teaches a very method of learning support by recognizing character input by a user as shown in Fig. 6, wherein the method further includes a guiding process having the above features, i.e., displaying a guiding object that provides guidance regarding the stroke order of the character when the user is requested to write the character (see Fig. 7A-E, ¶ [58-62], displaying guiding objects G001, G002, providing guidance to write characters as shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method as taught by Yui into the method as taught by Duffy as addressed above, the advantage of which is to efficiently assist user with writing skills.
As per claim 3, the combined teachings of Duffy and Yui impliedly include wherein the guiding object includes guidance information displayed superimposed on the character, the guidance information providing guidance regarding a position for tracing the character between a writing start position and a writing end position (i.e., with the guiding method taught by Duffy at ¶ [83] and [86], and Yui (addressed above) being superimposed on the character as shown in Fig. 7A-E (of Yui), the tracing of character between the start point and end point taught by Duffy (at ¶ [73]) can be supported. Thus, claim 3 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
As per claim 5, the combined Duffy-Yui also teaches wherein the guiding object includes direction information displayed on a side portion of the character, the direction information indicating a direction of the stroke order of the character (see Yui, ¶ [71-72], referring to Fig. 9).
As per claim 10, as addressed in claim 9, Duffy impliedly teaches wherein the judging includes judging the handwriting pressures with respect to the recognized character or the strokes of the recognized character by comparing the handwriting pressures of the strokes of the recognized character with predetermined threshold values set for the character or strokes of the character (addressed in claim 9, referring to Duffy, ¶ [77]).
Although not expressly taught by Duffy, Yui, in combination with Duffy, does impliedly teach the outputting includes erasing display of a most-recently input character or stroke and outputting information requesting rewriting of the most-recently input character or stroke, when the handwriting pressures of the strokes of the recognized character are lower than the predetermined threshold values (Yui, Fig. 5, step S11, erasing guide figure, in combining with the teaching of comparing handwriting pressure to a threshold addressed in claim 9 by Duffy).
Thus, claim 10 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken singly or in combination does not teach or suggest, a computer-readable recording medium storing therein a learning support program causing a computer to execute a process, among other things, comprising:
…wherein the guidance information provides guidance for sequentially tracing through a plurality of points to trace the character between the writing start position and the writing end position, and
the displaying includes, for each of the plurality of points, displaying a next point of the plurality of points depending on a state of the tracing of the character, by the user, at the position of the guidance information for the each of the plurality of points, the next point being subsequent to the each of the plurality of points.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hau H. Nguyen whose telephone number is: 571-272-7787. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI from 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard, can be reached on (571) 272-7773.
The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HAU H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights