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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to an “information process device” (i.e., a machine), claim 19 is directed to a “generation method” (i.e., a process), and claim 20 is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (i.e., a machine) hence these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes” for claims 1, 19, and 20.
The independent claims recite the following limitations:
Per Claim 1:
“An information processing device comprising: circuitry to generate information for reproduction assistance, depending on importance levels determined for each section of a plurality of predetermined sections generated by dividing data including a video and a sound of a lecture, the importance levels being determined based on information associated with the lecture, wherein the circuitry generates, as the information for reproduction assistance, meta-information indicating an importance level for each respective section to be supplied to an output device together with a frame image representative of the respective section.”
Per Claim 19:
“A generation method, executed by at least one processor, the method comprising: generating information for reproduction assistance, depending on importance levels determined for each section of a plurality of predetermined sections generated by dividing data including a video and a sound of a lecture, the importance levels being determined based on information associated with the lecture, wherein meta-information indicating an importance level for each respective section is generated as the information for reproduction assistance to be supplied to an output device together with a frame image representative of the respective section.”
Per Claim 20:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, which when executed by a computer causes the computer to execute a method, the method comprising: generating information for reproduction assistance, depending on importance levels determined for each section of a plurality of predetermined sections generated by dividing data including a video and a sound of a lecture, the importance levels being determined based on information associated with the lecture, wherein meta-information indicating an importance level for each respective section is generated as the information for reproduction assistance to be supplied to an output device together with a frame image representative of the respective section.”
The non-highlighted sections of the above limitations, as drafted, define a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the recitation of “circuitry”, ”non-transitory computer-readable storage”, “processor”, “computer”, and “output device”, nothing in the above limitations precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the recited language, the limitations above encompass observing the various video section, evaluating each section’s importance based on its content, and providing the results of this evaluation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Hence, the limitations of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are drawn to an abstract idea of “generating information for reproductive assistance” which falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in terms of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed elements of a “circuitry”, ”non-transitory computer-readable storage”, “processor”, “computer”, and “output device” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed abstract idea, generating information for reproductive assistance, is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Furthermore, the claimed “circuitry” (described in para. [0025] and para. [0142]-[0146]), ”non-transitory computer-readable storage” (described in para. [0144]-[0145]), “processor” (described in para. [0143]-[0145]), “computer” (described in para. [0025] and para. [0142]-[0146]), and “output device” (described in para. [0144]) are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Claims 2-18 are dependent from independent claim 1. The dependent claims 2-18 include all the limitations of independent claim 1. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitation of the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For Example:
The limitations of claims 1-6, 17, and 18 clarify the types of data input into the system pertaining to the data contained in the lecture video and user preferences. As such, these claims merely further recite the type of data included in the method and are therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 9, 10, and 15 clarify the contents of information output by the system. As such, this claim merely displays data related to the performance of the abstract idea and further recite the types of data displayed. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 7, 8, 11-14, and 16 clarify how the system determines what data to edit, how the system segments data, and how the system breaks ties that occur in the ranking system. As such, these claims merely recite the how the data included in the method is analyzed and modified and are therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, dependent claims 2-18 recite an abstract idea without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
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 1-10, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suri et al. (Document ID US 20150363635 A1; 2015-12-17) in view of Yadav et al. (Document ID US 20170287346 A1; 2017-10-05) and in further view of Kellock et al. (Document ID US 7702014 B1; 2010-04-20).
Regarding claim 1, Suri et al. teaches:
An information processing device comprising: circuitry configured to generate information for reproduction assistance (Para. [0014], shows that importance scores may be utilized facilitate the viewing and sharing of video files, i.e. reproduction assistance), depending on importance levels determined for each section of a plurality of predetermined sections generated by dividing data including a video and a sound of a lecture (Abstract, shows that a sections of a video data, which includes frames and audio data, are analyzed in order to determine importance values for each section), the importance levels being determined based on information associated with the lecture (Para. [0012]-[0013], shows that the video content is analyzed based off of the features it contains and that this analysis allows for the importance scoring of the video sections),
wherein the circuitry generates, as the information for reproduction assistance, meta-information indicating an importance level for each respective section (Para. [0070]-[0071], show that the importance level for each section may be stored as metadata, i.e. meta-information) to be supplied to an output device together with a frame image representative of the respective section (Para. [0072], para. [0016], and figure 1, items 114 and 116 show that each of the ranked/scored video sections are accompanied with a thumbnail image, i.e. a frame image representative of the respective section, that is displayed to the user).
Suri et al. does not explicitly teach:
The analyzed content being from a lecture, and meta-information indicating an importance level for each respective section to be supplied to an output device together with a frame image.
Yadav et al. teaches:
An information processing device comprising: a generation unit configured to generate information for reproduction assistance (Abstract, shows that the system extracts features from a video to identify anchor points to enable quick navigation and to provide a quick summary of the video, i.e. information for reproduction assistance), depending on importance levels each determined for one of predetermined sections generated (Para. [0015]-[0018], shows that the video is looked at according to each frame, i.e. predetermined sections, in order to extract anchor points, i.e. points of importance) by dividing data including a video and a sound of a lecture (Abstract, shows that both visual and audio modalities of a video are analyzed; Para. [0002], shows that the video content may comprise video lectures), the importance levels being determined on a basis of information associated with the lecture (Para. [0018]-[0019] and para. [0021], show that anchor points, i.e. things of importance, are determined based on the content of video frames as well as corresponding audio transcripts and are also given category labels depending on the type of content in the anchor points).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Yadav et al., regarding the analysis of lecture video content, to the similar device of Suri et al., a system and method for analyzing sections of a video for importance, to yield the predictable result of producing an adequate system for analyzing lecture videos. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Yadav et al. with the similar device of Suri et al. as these techniques demonstrate how to identify features of importance in academically oriented videos and these techniques additionally demonstrate some things that can be done once the locations of the features have been identified, such as varying the resolution of important and unimportant information (Yadav et al., Abstract).
Kellock et al. teaches:
meta-information indicating an importance level for each respective section to be supplied to an output device together with a frame image (Fig. 1a, col. 5:61-67, col. 6:1-9, col. 6:54-67, and col. 7:1-17 show that descriptors, i.e. meta-information, for each respective section may be presented to the user alongside a thumbnail, i.e. a frame image).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Kellock et al., regarding the display of metadata alongside a thumbnail image regarding a video section, to the similar device of Suri et al., a system and method for analyzing sections of a video for importance, to yield the predictable result of producing an adequate system for analyzing lecture videos. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Kellock et al. with the similar device of Suri et al. as these techniques allows the user to access information that both describes the various ways in which a video section’s importance is determined as well as the specific video section’s importance value as opposed to simply being handed a sorted listed of video sections based on their importance score.
Regarding claim 2, Yadav et al. further teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the information associated with the lecture is information regarding a board writing based on at least one of the video or the sound (Para. [0004], shows that the information in anchor points may comprise information that is written on the board).
Regarding claim 3, Yadav et al. further teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the information regarding the board writing is information representing at least one of a state of the board writing or a content of the board writing (Para. [0004] and para. [0021], shows that the content of the board writing in an anchor point is labeled and considered depending on if the information is a figure, table, equation, graph, or flow chart; Para. [0049], para. [0040]-[0041], fig. 2, and fig. 4b, show that a topic label may also be assigned to anchor points to give additional information that describes the content of the points).
Regarding claim 4, Yadav et al. further teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the information regarding the board writing is information representing at least one of a color of the board writing, an increase or a decrease in the board writing, or a formula contained in the board writing (Para. [0004] and para. [0021], shows that the content of the board writing in an anchor point is labeled and considered depending on if the information is an equation, i.e. a formula).
Regarding claim 5, Yadav et al. further teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the information associated with the lecture is information representing an action of at least one of a lecturer or an auditor of the lecture imaged in the video (Para. [0019], shows that information representative of an action of a lecturer, such as when the teacher says “look at this” and points at a figure, is considered when determining anchor points, i.e. things with a level of importance).
Regarding claim 6, Yadav et al. further teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the information associated with the lecture is information representing a sound regarding the lecture (Abstract, shows that both visual and audio, i.e. a sound, modalities of a video are analyzed; Para. [0018]-[0019], shows that a speech to text, i.e. a textual representation of speech or sounds, transcript is utilized when determining the content of anchor frames).
Regarding claim 7, Yadav et al. further teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein by editing the data depending on the importance levels, the circuitry generates edited data as the information for reproduction assistance (Abstract and para. [0005], show that anchor points, i.e. parts of the video with a level of importance, are provided a high resolution and that other section of video, i.e. areas of lower importance, are provided at a low resolution).
Regarding claim 8, Yadav et al. further teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry generates the edited data by deleting the data of a section with a low importance level or by compressing, at a compression ratio higher than other sections, the data of a section with a low importance level (Abstract and para. [0005], show that anchor points, i.e. areas of higher importance, are provided a high resolution and that other section of video, i.e. areas of lower importance, are provided at a low resolution, i.e. compressed).
Regarding claim 9, Suri et al. teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates, as the information for reproduction assistance, meta-information (Para. [0070]-[0071], show that metadata, i.e. meta-information, regarding the ranking for each segments may be generated and stored alongside the video files) for performing editing, depending on the importance levels (Para. [0014], shows that these rankings may be used to facilitate editing).
Regarding claim 10, Suri et al. teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates, as the information for reproduction assistance, meta-information (i.e., data that defines and describes the characteristics of other data) for performing reproduction, depending on the importance levels (Para. [0014], shows that these rankings may be used to facilitate viewing or sharing, i.e. reproduction).
Regarding claim 11, Suri et al. teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine the importance level for each of the predetermined sections based on the information associated with the lecture (Para. [0012]-[0013], shows that the video content is analyzed based off of the features it contains and that this analysis allows for the importance scoring of the video sections), wherein the circuitry generates the information for reproduction assistance (Para. [0070]-[0071], show that metadata, i.e. information for reproduction assistance, regarding the ranking for each segments may be generated and stored alongside the video files), depending on the determined importance levels (Para. [0014], shows that importance scores may be utilized facilitate the viewing and sharing of video files, i.e. reproduction assistance).
Yadav et al. additionally teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine the importance level for each of the predetermined sections (Para. [0015]-[0018], shows that the video is looked at according to each frame, i.e. predetermined sections, in order to extract anchor points, i.e. points of importance) based on the information associated with the lecture (Abstract, shows that both visual and audio modalities of a video are analyzed; Para. [0002], shows that the video content may comprise video lectures), wherein the circuitry generates the information for reproduction assistance (Abstract, shows that the system extracts features from a video to identify anchor points to enable quick navigation and to provide a quick summary of the video, i.e. reproduction assistance), depending on the determined importance levels (Para. [0015]-[0018], shows that the video is looked at according to each frame, i.e. predetermined sections, in order to extract anchor points, i.e. points of importance).
Regarding claim 12, Suri et al. teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 11, wherein the circuitry determines importance levels for each determination section of a plurality of determination sections into each of which a plurality of consecutive sections are combined, and wherein the circuitry generates the information for reproduction assistance, depending on the importance levels determined for each determination section of the determination sections (Fig. 4 and para. [0077]-[0086], show that an importance value is determined for each section of the video file, i.e. the determination sections, based on the frame importance score of each of the frames, i.e. the consecutive sections, that comprise said video section; Para. [0014], [0075], [0086], [0090], and [0110], further show that the derived rankings may be used in way that allows a user to easily select, extract, and share video sections of significance, i.e. information for reproduction assistance).
Regarding claim 13, Suri et al. teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the circuitry determines the importance level for each of the determination sections into each of which a previously set number of the sections are combined (Para. [0085], shows that the section importance value, i.e. the importance level of the determination section, is calculated based on a combination of the importance scores for the frames, i.e. the previously set number of sections, that comprise the section).
Regarding claim 14, Suri et al. teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the circuitry determines the importance level for each of the determination sections based on (Para. [0085], shows that the section importance value, i.e. the importance level of the determination section, is calculated based on a combination of the importance scores for the frames, i.e. the previously set number of sections, that comprise the section; Para. [0078]-[0082], show the importance scores for the frames being determined from the detected features in said frames).
Yadav et al. additionally teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the circuitry determines the importance level for each of the determination sections set based on the information associated with the lecture (Abstract, shows that both visual and audio modalities of a video are analyzed; Para. [0002], shows that the video content may comprise video lectures).
Regarding claim 15, Suri et al. teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates, together with the information for reproduction assistance, thumbnail images each representing one of the sections (Para. [0019] and [0072], show that thumbnail images representing each section may be provided).
Regarding claim 17, Suri et al. teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 11, wherein the circuitry determines the importance level in accordance with a determination rule instructed by a user via an input device configured to accept an operation of the user (Para. [0073], shows that the user may use the user interface to select one or more of the features of a video file for analysis; Para. [0018]-[0019], further show that these features are used when determining the importance scores).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, they are mirrored claims to claim 1 and are rejected in like manner.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suri et al. (Document ID US 20150363635 A1; 2015-12-17) in view of Yadav et al. (Document ID US 20170287346 A1; 2017-10-05) and Kellock et al. (Document ID US 7702014 B1; 2010-04-20) in further view of Goz et al. (Document ID US 20150071607 A1; 2015-03-12).
Regarding claim 16, Suri et al. in view of Yadav et all fails to teach:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein for the sections having the same importance level, the circuitry generates the information for reproduction assistance, depending on the importance levels for a preceding section and a succeeding section of each of the sections having the same importance level.
Goz et al. teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein for the sections having the same importance level, the circuitry generates the information for reproduction assistance, depending on the importance levels for a preceding section and a succeeding section of each of the sections having the same importance level (Para. [0033], shows that ties between blocks, i.e. sections having the same value, may be broken by analyzing neighboring blocks).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Goz et al., regarding a method of breaking ties in a ranking system, to the similar device of Suri et al., a system and method that ranks sections of a video by level of importance, to yield the predictable result of producing a more robust system for ranking video content. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Goz et al. with the similar device of Suri et al. as comparing a frame/section to its neighbors to break a tie allows for a determinate method of selecting the winner of a tie as opposed to one that is based on chance.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suri et al. (Document ID US 20150363635 A1; 2015-12-17) in view of Yadav et al. (Document ID US 20170287346 A1; 2017-10-05) and Kellock et al. (Document ID US 7702014 B1; 2010-04-20) and in further view of Rav-Acha et al. (Document ID US 20130343727 A1; 2013-12-26).
Regarding claim 18, Suri et al. in view of Yadav et all fails to explicitly teach:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates the information for reproduction assistance in accordance with an editing rule instructed by a user via an input device configured to accept an operation of the user.
Rav-Acha et al. teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates the information for reproduction assistance in accordance with an editing rule instructed by a user via an input device configured to accept an operation of the user (Para. [0193]-[0207], [0230], and [0278], show that the user is able to input editing instructions, i.e. editing rules, with which to modify how to program modifies the video output, i.e. the information for reproduction assistance).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Rav-Acha et al., regarding the utilization of user input to determine how video information is to be edited, to the similar device of Suri et al., a system and method for analyzing sections of a video for importance with a video output, to yield the predictable result of producing a more system capable of better adapting to the needs of the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Rav-Acha et al. with the similar device of Suri et al. as allowing for user input better allows the user to get a desired video output from the system.
Status of Claims
The office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on December 11, 2025 for the patent application 17/916,717 originally filled on October 3, 2022. Claims 1-5, and 7-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. The first office action of September 11, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this final action.
Summary
No claim is allowed
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC §101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC §103
Response to Arguments
The Applicants arguments filed on December 11, 2025 related to claims 1-20 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
35 USC §101 Rejections
Applicant respectfully argues that claim 20 has been amended to recite subject matter that is clearly statutory in nature.
Examiner agrees, and has removed the aspect of the rejection. However, claim 20 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant respectfully argues that the amended independent claims 1, 19, and 20 amount to significantly more than merely an abstract idea and that the claimed inventions reflects a specific practical application. Applicant further argues that the claimed invention denotes specific improvement in a computer-related technology by use of “generated meta-information indicating an importance level for each respective section to be supplied to an output device together with a frame image representative of the respective section”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear as to how the simultaneous display of meta information, which is indicative of a respective section’s importance, and a frame image, which is representative of the respective section, denotes a specific improvement in a computer-related technology. The amended claim more so reflects an example that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology, “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48”, as per MPEP 2106.05(a). The independent claims gathers information, i.e. the acquisition of predetermined video section; analyzes it, i.e. determining the importance value for each section based on the contents; and displays the results, i.e. the output of the importance level and a frame image from each section to an output device.
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
For example, Applicant’s claim limitations recite a mental process, i.e. collecting information (the acquisition of predetermined video section), analyzing it (determining the importance value for each section based on the contents), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (the output of the importance level and a frame image from each section to an output device), as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The Applicant’s claimed elements of a “circuitry”, ”non-transitory computer-readable storage”, “processor”, “computer”, and “output device” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Furthermore, the claimed “circuitry” (described in para. [0025] and para. [0142]-[0146]), ”non-transitory computer-readable storage” (described in para. [0144]-[0145]), “processor” (described in para. [0143]-[0145]), “computer” (described in para. [0025] and para. [0142]-[0146]), and “output device” (described in para. [0144]) are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment.
Respectfully, Examiner does not find these argument persuasive and maintains the rejections under 35 USC §101.
35 USC §103 Rejections
Examiner agrees that the art previously cited fails to teach the limitation “wherein the circuitry generates, as the information for reproduction assistance, meta-information indicating an importance level for each respective section to be supplied to an output device together with a frame image representative of the respective section," as recited by amended independent claims 1, 19, and 20. However, the newly amended independent claims are reject in view of new art necessitated by the amendments; see the new rejections under 35 USC §103 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY JAMES BULTHUIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30-5:30.
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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715