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 § 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 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reece et al. (US 2021/0264909 A1), hereinafter “Reece”, and in view of Kagawa et al. (US 2021/0286952 A1), hereinafter “Kagawa”.
As per claim 1, Reece teaches a label assignment support device for supporting label assignment for each of a plurality of elements, the label assignment supported device comprising processing circuitry configured to:
“assign preliminary labels as respective labels to each of the plurality of elements using an existing model prepared in advance and assign the preliminary labels to each of the plurality of elements” at [0134]-[0135];
(Reece teaches the server computing device 210 transmits machine generated label data 1110 (i.e., “preliminary labels”) to annotator 1102. Annotator 1102 may be configured to review and modify label data generated by a machine learning system (i.e., “existing model”))
“generate a label assignment work screen for an update operation for labels assigned to the plurality of elements by a user, the label assignment work screen indicating each of the plurality of elements and labels assigned to each of the plurality of elements in association with each other, and output the label assignment work screen to an external input and output interface” at [0135]-[0137];
(Reece teaches utterances having incorrect labels may be identified and corrected using client application 1108. Client application 1108 includes a webpage (i.e., “label assignment work screen”) having a first interactive portion for viewing utterances (e.g., audio/video data) and a second portion for accepting user input of label data.)
“when a label assigned to one of the elements is updated by the update operation via the label assignment work screen, assign the label after update to the one of the elements” at [0134]-[0137], [0143];
(Reece teaches client application 1108 is configured to display multiple label options for a user to select from. In other implementation, client application 1108 is configured to prompt a user for unstructured label data. In yet other implementation, client application 1108 may display previously machine-generated label data, for a user to confirm and/or modify. Reece teaches at [0043] that the annotator 1102 stores confirmed and/or revised conversation label 1210)
“wherein the elements are utterance texts corresponding to utterance by each of a plurality of speakers (e.g., “speaker 1208) in conversation (e.g., “conversation 1204) by the plurality of speakers” at [0140]-[0143] and Fig. 12;
(Reece teaches element are the utterance texts corresponding to utterance (e.g., utterance 1206) by each of the plurality of speakers (e.g., speaker 1208) in conversation (e.g., conversation 1204) by the plurality of speakers)
“the processing circuitry positions, on the label assignment work screen, the plurality of utterance texts in a line and further positions the label assigned to the utterance text in association with the respective utterance texts” at [0134]-[0137] and Figs. 5, 11-12, 16;
(Reece teaches the client application 1108 includes a webpage having first interactive portion for viewing utterances and second portion for accepting user input of label data. Client application 1108 may replay un utterance using a display. Client application 1108 is configured to display multiple label options for a user to select from. Client application 1108 may display previously machine-generated label data, for a user to confirm and/or modify)
Reece does not explicitly teach “the processing circuitry arranges, on the label assignment work screen, labels for which long-term context to be considered on a left side of the utterance texts and labels for which long-term context is not considered on another side of the utterance texts, the labels for which long-term context to be considered comprise a first label and a second label, the first label is lower in a hierarchy in relation to the second label, and the first label is at a location that is closer to the utterance texts than a location of the second label” as claimed. However, Kagawa teaches at [0044]-[0064] and Fig. 3B a conversation analysis method including the steps of analyzing conversation data input and displaying on the dashboard the output information. Kagawa teaches at Fig. 3B the output information which includes the column “Content of utterance” which includes utterance texts. Kagawa teaches fours columns on the left side of the utterance texts which include labels for which long-term context to be considered. For example, the labels 100B (i.e., “second label”) corresponds to a long-term context which include all utterances by utterer B and label “18:00:30” (i.e., “first label”) corresponds to the End time of utterance, wherein the second label “100B” is higher in a hierarchy in relation to the first label “18:00:30” because multiple utterances having different end time label share the same Utterer ID “100B”. Kagawa also teaches the first label “18:00:30” is arranged at a location that is closer to the utterance text, e.g., “Mr. IS has stated eating”.
Kagawa also teaches two columns on the right side of the utterance text, which includes labels correspond to each single utterance (i.e., “long-term context is not considered”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kagawa with Reece’s teaching because “by causing the output processing section 16 to display such a dashboard on a screen of a display device of a PC or a smartphone of each employee, the communication status in the team can be recognized based on the total amount of utterances in the mutual call in the team. Thus, since it is possible to infer whether or not work cooperation centered on the manager (B) 101 has been realized as an element related to work cooperation, this can be used for improvement, etc. of the team management”, as suggested by Kagawa at [0088].
As per claim 2, Reece and Kagawa teach the device of claim 1 discussed above. Reece also teaches: wherein “the labels include labels of a plurality of items, and the processing circuitry arranges the plurality of elements in a line, and sorts and arranges the labels of the plurality of items on one side and another side of elements corresponding to corresponding labels on a basis of structure of labels of the plurality of items on the label assignment work screen” at [0140]-[0143] and Fig. 12.
As per claim 3, Reece and Kagawa teach the device of claim 1 discussed above. Reece also teaches: wherein “the labels include labels of a plurality of items, and the processing circuitry, when a label to be updated is selected or a label is updated on the label assignment work screen, changes a display mode of the label to be updated or a label associated with the updated label on a basis of hierarchical structure of labels of the plurality of items” at [0140]-[0143] and Fig. 12.
As per claim 5, Reece and Kagawa teach the device of claim 1 discussed above. Reece also teaches: wherein “when one of the utterance text is selected on the label assignment work screen, the processing circuitry outputs at least one utterance voice corresponding to the selected utterance text or a waveform image of utterance voice corresponding to the selected utterance text to the external input and output interface” at [0137].
As per claim 6, Reece and Kagawa teach the device of claim 1 discussed above. Reece also teaches: wherein
“the labels include first labels and second labels, the first labels are labels of an item in which labels can be independently assigned, the second labels are labels having hierarchical structure or labels of an item in which a label of one elements is determined on basis of a plurality of elements including the one elements” at [0067], [0085]-[0089], [0098]-[0099];
“and the processing circuitry independently outputs a first label assignment work screen for an update operation of the first labels and a second label assignment work screen for an update operation of the second labels to the external input and output interface” at [0067], [0137].
Claims 9-10 recite similar limitations as in claim 1 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
As per claim 12, Reece and Kagawa teach the device of claim 1 discussed above. Reece also teaches: wherein “when a selection including utterance texts of a plurality of users is selected, the processing circuitry output, for each user, the waveform image of utterance voice corresponding to the utterance text included in the selection of the external input and output interface” at [0137] and Fig. 10.
As per claim 13, Reece and Kagawa teach the device of claim 1 discussed above. Kagawa also teaches: wherein “labels indicate types of utterance, and the processing circuitry arranges, on the label assignment work screen, an utterance end label on the right side of the utterance text” at Fig. 3.
As per claim 14, Reece and Kagawa teach the device of claim 1 discussed above. Kagawa also teaches: wherein “respective labels of the labels assigned to said each of the plurality of elements specify at least a part of a structure of the conversation by the plurality of speakers, and the structure of the conversation comprises a scene of the conversation” at [0044]-[0064] and Fig. 3
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reece and Kagawa, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-14 above, and further in view of Huval (US 2018/0373980 A1), hereinafter “Huval”.
As per claim 11, Reece and Kagawa teach the device of claim 1 discussed above. Reece-Kagawa does not teach: “wherein labels include labels of a plurality of items having hierarchical structure, and in a case where inconsistency occurs between associated labels when updating a higher label or a lower label, the processing circuitry changes the display mode of the labels in which the inconsistency occurs”. However, Huval teaches at [0071]-[0080] a method for training and refining an artificial intelligent by comparing the automated labels and manual labels, and incase where conflict is detected, rendering the manual label, the automated label and a prompt for a human annotator to select the more accurate of the two labels. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Huval with Reece’s teaching in order to detect label conflicts and prompt the human annotator “to select the more accurate of the two labels”, as suggested by Huval at [0080].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s arguments.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argued that Reece and Kagawa, as combined, does not teach: “the processing circuitry arranges, on the label assignment work screen, labels for which long-term context to be considered on a left side of the utterance texts and labels for which long-term context is not considered on another side of the utterance texts, the labels for which long-term context to be considered comprise a first label and a second label, the first label is lower in a hierarchy in relation to the second label, and the first label is at a location that is closer to the utterance texts than a location of the second label” as claimed. On the contrary, Kagawa teaches at [0044]-[0064] and Fig. 3B a conversation analysis method including the steps of analyzing conversation data input and displaying on the dashboard the output information. Kagawa teaches at Fig. 3B a label assignment work screen which includes the column “Content of utterance” which includes utterance texts. Kagawa teaches fours columns on the left side of the utterance texts which include labels for which long-term context to be considered. For example, the labels 100B (i.e., “second label”) corresponds to a long-term context which include all utterances by utterer B and label “18:00:30” (i.e., “first label”) corresponds to the End time of utterance, wherein the second label “100B” is higher in a hierarchy in relation to the first label “18:00:30” because multiple utterances having different end time label share the same parent Utterer ID “100B”. Kagawa also teaches the first label “18:00:30” is arranged at a location that is closer to the utterance text, e.g., “Mr. IS has stated eating”. Kagawa also teaches two columns on the right side of the utterance text, which includes labels correspond to each single utterance (i.e., “long-term context is not considered”).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of the foregoing arguments, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is hereby sustained.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
October 1, 2025
Prosecution Insights