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 .
This Office Action is responsive to: Amendment filed 21 Nov. 2025
Claims 1-14 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 13 and 14 are independent claims
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 21 Nov. 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 13 and 14; argued against all rejections previously set forth in the Office Action dated 27 Aug. 2025.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0390127 A1; Filed: Jun. 16, 2020) (hereinafter “Fox”) in view of Fein et al. (Pat. No.: 5,924,108; Filed Mar. 29, 1996)(hereinafter “Fein”).
Regarding independent claims 1, 13 and 14, Fox disclose an information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to:
acquire a summary sentence obtained by summarizing an original text (0041-0042; 0109; 0121; 0142); and
Fox does not expressly disclose determining whether the summary sentence is designated by a user; and
in response to determining that the summary sentence is designated by the user, perform control such that frequent appearance parts of words included in the summary sentence in the original text are displayed as corresponding parts in the original text corresponding to the summary sentence in a case where the summary sentence is designated.
Fein teach determining whether the summary sentence is designated by a user (col 3 lines 34-38); and
in response to determining that the summary sentence is designated by the user, perform control such that frequent appearance parts of words included in the summary sentence in the original text are displayed as corresponding parts in the original text corresponding to the summary sentence in a case where the summary sentence is designated (col 4 lines 29-41 & 58-61; col 5 lines 39-59).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fein with Fox for the benefit of providing an author-oriented summarizer for a word processor that helps authors automatically create summaries for their writings, and one which will produce a summary for any text which is presented to it (col 2 lines 42-46).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
calculate, for each word included in the summary sentence, an index value represented by an appearance frequency of the word and a degree of rarity of the word in the entire original text for each original text unit obtained by dividing the original text into predetermined units (0066; 0128-0130;0141); and
specify the frequent appearance part by using the calculated index value (0162; 0165-0166).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the frequent appearance part is a part where a sum of index values calculated for the words included in the summary sentence is equal to or greater than a threshold value (0068; 0120; 0128; 0170).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the index value is TF-IDF (0169-0170).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
specify a part where the word included in the summary sentence and a similar word of the word appear frequently as the frequent appearance parts (0110; 0120; 0170).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the corresponding part in a case where a specific word included in the summary sentence is designated is different from the corresponding part in a case where the summary sentence is designated (0083-0084; 0125).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform control such that a summary sentence with the corresponding part and a summary sentence without the corresponding part are distinguishably displayed in a case where a plurality of the summary sentences are acquired for the original text (0079; 0126).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform control such that the frequent appearance parts of the words included in the summary sentence in the original text are displayed as the corresponding parts in a case where the summary sentence with the corresponding part is designated (0031; 0102;0217-0218); and
perform control such that a predetermined part included in the original text is displayed in a case where the summary sentence without the corresponding part is designated (0031; 0102;0217-0218).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform control such that a plurality of the corresponding parts are displayed in a predetermined order in a case where there is the plurality of corresponding parts in the summary sentence (0031; 0102;0217-0218).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to:
associate a word of which an index value represented by an appearance frequency in each of the plurality of corresponding parts and a degree of rarity in the entire original text among words included in the summary sentence is highest with each of the plurality of corresponding parts in a case where there is the plurality of corresponding parts in the summary sentence (0068; 0120; 0128; 0170).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the summary sentence includes a first summary sentence and a second summary sentence before or after the first summary sentence, and
the processor is configured to:
exclude one or more frequent appearance parts from a plurality of frequent appearance parts by using a contextual relationship with a frequent appearance part in the original text corresponding to the second summary sentence in a case where the plurality of frequent appearance parts are specified for the first summary sentence (0113; 0162; 0165-0166).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Fox disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to:
exclude one or more frequent appearance parts from the plurality of frequent appearance parts by using at least one of a verb or an adjective related to a word included in the first summary sentence in addition to the contextual relationship with the frequent appearance part in the original text corresponding to the second summary sentence (0031; 0102;0217-0218).
NOTE
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J DEBROW whose telephone number is (571)272-5768. The examiner can normally be reached on 09:00 - 06:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. The fax phone 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/James J Debrow/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2174
571-272-5768