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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Amendments regarding the 112(f) interpretation have been entered. Therefore, this particular objection has been withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments.
Amendments regarding the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been entered. Therefore, this particular objection has been withdrawn due to the Applicant's amendments and the support provided by the Applicant when referring in the paragraphs from their specifications (see pp. 11 – 12 from Remarks).
Regarding to Applicant's arguments against the 101 rejection of pending claims on pages 13-16: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 analysis were considered. However, these arguments are not persuasive and the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
For Step 2A-Prong 1 starting in p. 13: The Applicant argues that the pending claims are not directed to any of the abstract ideas identified because the features of “amended independent claim 1 are essentially tied to a machine and do not represent a mental process performed in the human mind or by pen and paper”. However, the Examiner finds this argument is unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees. Because the “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” since the detecting an action derives from “at least one of” (a) “sensor data acquired” from “sensors of a client terminal”, (b) “input content provided via an input device of the client terminal”, (c) or “episode information stored in a life logic database”. Thus, under the “broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification” it was determined that the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed for “detecting” or determining data of a user’s action (i.e. thinking estimation) which “is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” that is recited in a high level of generality and merely uses sensors, externally, or uses an input device of the client terminal (i.e. user’s cellphone or smart device) with the computer to perform the claimed functions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and 2106.05 (f)). Thus, these claims and their additional elements, when evaluated, individually and in combination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and their specification (see MPEP 2111 and 2106.04(II)), were still directed to the abstract idea without reciting significantly more than the judicial exception. Also, these claim limitations still recite the abstract idea of a mental process even if they require at least one of: (B) physical aid (e.g. pen and paper) and/or (C) a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)). This is because at least the identified steps that are directed in part to “detecting” a first user’s action that is based on “sensor data acquired” and “input content provided” to estimate user’s “thinking” of another user requires observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Also, these steps can be done with the help of physical aid which does not negate the mental nature of the limitation(s), even when using other generic computer components to estimate a “thinking action” to “present” related information of the first user thinking actions to a second user, wherein the information is related to a mutual episode between to users.
For Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B starting in p. 14: The Applicant alleges that the claims integrate, the judicial exception identified, into a practical application and further alleges that “the Applicant has shown a teaching in the Specification that describes a method of presenting information indirectly to a person about the user” and thus, “the user is also not expecting contact from the person, that has a practical implementation and has established a clear nexus between the claim language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception”. However, the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees. Because Applicant assertions regarding the claim language are failing to consider the breadth of the claim language and the broad recitation of the claims. Rather, the claims did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application since the steps were merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(I)). For instance, the claimed computer is recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions for “detect an action” that is from acquired sensor data when a user is estimated as “thinking” of another user and “control presentation of indirect and specific information” that is related to an “episode” or event that occurred between these two users. Thus, the claim limitations are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can perform.
As for step 2B arguments in pp. 15 – 16 from Remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the alleged improvement of connecting “by enabling appropriate communication between a user and a person without imposing a psychological burden” that is allegedly reflected in the limitation of “control the presentation” of indirect and specific information to a second user and that “amounts to significantly more than conventional activity”. Because these limitations are still generally recited in the claims and the recited additional elements, individually and/or in combination that are presenting information in an indirect form derived from the user’s actions detected related to a mutual episode, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” at Step 2B as these are invoking computers or other machinery (e.g. input devices and/or sensors from client terminals that are considered external from or outside of the claimed scope) merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 101 rejection for these pending claims.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments of rejection under 35 USC § 102 for the pending claims on pages 16 – 20: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 19 and 20 and the “control presentation” of “indirect and specific information” have been considered but are not persuasive and the Examiner disagrees. Because Applicant is focusing on each prior art teaching, rather than focusing on the actual language claimed in each claim limitation and how their corresponding limitation steps are different from the prior art teachings while considering the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of each claim. Thus, under the BRI of the claim limitations pointed by the Applicant are still reasonably taught by Steiner. Moreover, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the Steiner reference, rather than focusing on Applicant’s specifications. For more details refer to the 35 USC § 102 section. Finally, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 102 rejection for these pending claims.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of this claimed invention recitation in the claims begins in view of independent claim 1, the most representative claim of the independent claims set 19 and 20, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 1 – 18 falls under statutory category of a system. Claim 19 is directed to a process and claim 20 is considered an article of manufacture.
At Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 (representative of claims 19 and 20) recites an abstract idea, which is defined by the following underlined elements (e.g. functional steps) while omitting any hardware components (e.g. represented as “…”):
detect an action of a first user, wherein
the action of the first user is estimated as thinking action regarding a second user of a plurality of users, and
the detection of the action is based on at least one of:
sensor data acquired from a plurality of sensors of a client terminal,
an input content provided via an input device of the client terminal, or episode information stored in a life log database, wherein the episode information includes information corresponding to a plurality of episodes of the first user with each of the plurality of users; and
control presentation of indirect information and specific information to the second user based on the detection of the action of the first user, wherein
the indirect information is related to an episode between the first user and the second user and not including information directly indicating the first user, and
the specific information is information not related to the episode.
Generally, the claimed invention describes the detection of a user action that is estimated as thinking about another user to present information related to a mutual event or “episode” that occurred between these two users along with other type of information not related to the “episode”. As disclosed in the specification in ¶0007, this claimed invention “enables appropriate communication to be achieved without imposing a psychological burden.” However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) is recited in claim 19 in the form of “commercial or legal interactions”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in the steps of “detect an action” when a user is estimated as “thinking” of another user and “control present of indirect information and specific information” that is related to an “episode” or event that occurred between two users (e.g. including pictures, user’s explicit indications, calls, emails, messages as memories or “indirect information”; see ¶0019 and ¶0022 – 23 from Applicant’s disclosure) along with “other information” (e.g. including advertisements, news, etc.; see examples in ¶0158 and ¶0165 from Applicant’s disclosure). Because presenting these types of information at least encompasses commercial interactions related to advertisement or business relations. Similarly, these steps also fall under the abstract idea sub-group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” since “detecting” the user’s action(s) for “estimating” if the user is “thinking” about another user to further “control presentation” information related to their mutual events or “episodes” encompasses people interactions related to social activities.
The steps directed in part to “detect an action of a user” that is “estimated as thinking of another user” also falls under the abstract idea of mental processes that can be practically be performed in the human mind or in pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Because such detection that is based on “sensor data acquired” and “input content provided” to estimate user’s “thinking” of another user encompasses observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
At Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1, 19 and 20, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of a plurality of sensors, a client terminal, an input device of the client terminal and a life log database (from claims 1, 19 and 20); information processing apparatus (from claims 1 and 19); a processor (from claim 1); a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer (from claim 20). These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, these steps are recited as being performed by the computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions for “detect an action” that is from acquired sensor data when a user is estimated as “thinking” of another user and “control presentation of indirect and specific information” that is related to an “episode” or event that occurred between these two users. Thus, these steps mentioned above are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can perform.
Finally, the step of “control presentation of indirect and specific information” to a second user that is related to an “episode” between two users in the representative claim is really nothing more than links to computer for implementing the use of ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (refer to MPEP 2106.05 f (2)). Thus, in these limitation steps, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Step 2B: For independent claims 1, 19 and 20, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: a plurality of sensors, a client terminal, an input device of the client terminal and a life log database (from claims 1, 19 and 20); information processing apparatus (from claims 1 and 19); a processor (from claim 1); a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer (from claim 20). These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the recitation of a computer to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Also, the additional elements for “a plurality of sensors of a client terminal” that acquires the sensor data and the “input device of the client terminal” that provides “input content” are considered external from or outside of the claimed scope since the action detection is based on one of these additional elements as claimed. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 2-18, the same analysis is incorporated. Due to their dependency to the independent claims analyzed, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea(s) of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 2-18: further describes the abstract idea of the information processing functions for the presentation, selection and storage of different types of information based on different factors (e.g. episode’s content, event timing, type of user, based on a predetermined evaluation set to the user/another user, episode frequency, episode changes, user indication degree, episode’s relationship with other information, user content inputs, information similar/different to an episode, same place in an episode based on user actions, etc.). Thus, being directed to the abstract idea groups of “commercial or legal interactions”, “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, and mental processes as it encompasses advertisement or business relations, social activities, as well as these limitations can be performed mentally or in pen and paper as they require observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 2-18, these claims do not include additional elements. Rather what is claimed simply further defines the same abstract idea that was set forth in independent claim 1. Nothing additional is claimed that is not part of the abstract idea.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steiner (U.S. Pub No. 20150338917 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20:
This independent claim set is represented by claim 1
Steiner teaches:
a processor configured to: (In ¶0147; Fig. 1 (102 and 171): teaches a “headset 102 may comprise a processor 171” that “may run code able to distinguish, identify or detect meaningful though[t] patterns from the captured signals; or to translate brain signals to meaningful cognitive actions/thoughts”.)
detect an action of a first user, wherein the action of the first user is estimated as thinking action regarding a second user of a plurality of users, and the detection of the action is based on at least one of: (In ¶0205 – 206; Fig. 1 (102, 172, 101 and 152); Fig. 2 (215): teaches an example wherein the system “may utilize a “Think to Call” module 440, which may recognize when the user speaks and/or thinks about a person; and if this person is in the contact list of the user's device, then the system suggest to the user to call that person, with or without validation procedure” or the “system may be configured to adjust to multiple iterations; for example, if Adam thinks about Eve five times in one hour, then, only the first thought may trigger a communication session, and subsequent thoughts (within the hour) may be discarded”, in accordance to examples given in ¶0023, ¶0043 and ¶0069 from Applicant’s disclosure. Refer to ¶0299 for another example wherein “the user thinks about a command to perform an action (e.g., “Call Jack”)” and the “system may convert the brain signal into meaningful data, and may conclude that the user wish to call Jack”.)
sensor data acquired from a plurality of sensors of a client terminal, (In ¶0122; Fig. 1 (102); Fig. 2 (201): teaches “a headset with multiple sensors or electrodes may capture or receive signals corresponding to brain activity of the user”.)
an input content provided via an input device of the client terminal, or episode information stored in a life log database, (In ¶0205: teaches an example wherein the system “may identify that Adam is thinking about Eve, for example, based on a previous pre-recorded training session in which Adam trained the system to recognize a brain activity pattern that corresponds to Adam thinking of Eve” wherein “Adam may carry an electronic communication device (smartphone, tablet, laptop); and the system may record brain activity of Adam (via that device, and/or via head sensors or electrodes or headset of helmet)”. Refer to ¶0208 wherein user’s “brain activity” and thoughts are recorded “in the system's memory, in an internal memory, or in an external device, or the cloud”. Alternatively, the system might use a “pre-defined database of “thought patterns” of the user that “were pre-recorded in a training session” (see ¶0122).)
wherein the episode information includes information corresponding to a plurality of episodes of the first user with each of the plurality of users; and (In ¶0163 – 164: teaches that the system along with “a continuous recording/monitoring module 409 of brainwaves or other bodily signals; for example: systems that continuously collects inputs (from Microphone, EEG, Brain Waves, GPS, Thermometer, sweat level, heartbeat, or the like), store the data locally or remotely (e.g., in a Cloud computing device or storage), or other local or remote medias (e.g., hard disk drive, Flash memory, local storage unit, smartphone, cellular operator, cellular service provider, or the like)”. Further, such data can include information of an event (i.e. episode information) involving another user such as in the example provided by this prior art wherein “Adam may carry an electronic communication device (smartphone, tablet, laptop); and the system may record brain activity of Adam (via that device, and/or via head sensors or electrodes or headset of helmet). The system may identify that Adam is thinking about Eve, for example, based on a previous pre-recorded training session in which Adam trained the system to recognize a brain activity pattern that corresponds to Adam thinking of Eve” (see ¶0205). Refer to ¶0175 wherein the “system may present user with the happiest moment(s) or minute(s) in the vacation”, as another example of episode information.)
control presentation of indirect information and specific information to the second user based on the detection of the action of the first user, wherein the indirect information is related to an episode between the first user and the second user and not including information directly indicating the first user, and the specific information is information not related to the episode. (In ¶0211: teaches an example of presenting indirect information and specific information without including direct information of the first user wherein, “while driving home, the user feels hungry. He then thinks “I am hungry” which is a pre-defined thought that the system knows to identify”. Further, the “system recognizes this thought, and initiates a set of pre-defined actions that were assigned to this thought in the settings of the system; for example, “Send SMS to spouse, requesting to heat-up dinner” or “Send SMS to spouse, inviting spouse to go out to restaurant”.”, in accordance to the examples given in ¶0014 – 16, ¶0020 and ¶0024 – 28 from Applicant’s disclosure.)
Regarding claim 2:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to control presentation of information not including information related to the first user, as information related to the episode. (In ¶0181: teaches an example event of a user, “when learning a new subject, by either attending a lecture, watching online video, listening to an audio clip or audio lecture, or other suitable ways, the system may summarize and highlight parts that the user needs to review again” which is other type of information that is not about the user, but is related to the episode or event that occurred. Refer to ¶0308 wherein the system can recognize the person during a meeting episode if the “user met this person in the past and had a conversation with him face-to-face”, and can “provide the identification and other relevant data (such as: when the user last met her face-to-face; or what is new on her social media site; or what is the connection with this person based on info in LinkedIn, such as mutual acquaintance or mutual past employer)” which is another example of other non-user’s information.)
Regarding claim 3:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to control presentation of information selected based on a content of the episode. (In ¶0308 – 309: teaches an example when during an event wherein the user is “while talking with this person in the past, a third party might have said “please meet Joe”, or a similar introduction line, then the system may “search his contact list on his smartphone or on his social media accounts” and “if a match is found, the system may inform the user about this user and may fetch relevant data on this user” and provide such information (see ¶0308) which is directed to present information selected based on the episode’s content. Refer to ¶0303 wherein other types of events or episodes can occur wherein the system can present information to the user during the event, such as: the “user speaks with a salesperson, the whisperer component may suggest that the offer is too high or that the person is lying” or “the user may want to buy a car, the salesperson suggests a price, and the system may automatically look for a price for this car and whisper to the user if the offer is good or not” which is another example of selecting information based on the episode’s content.)
Regarding claim 4:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the information selected based on a content of the episode is information regarding a second event after a timing at which a first event involved in the episode has occurred. (In ¶0184: teaches that after a user attended a “lecture” as the event or episode that occurred (see ¶0181), the system “may mark or record all those parts which the user thought were important, by matching the lecture with the brainwaves readings that show the user was most alerted and intrigued” wherein such “selected segments may then be compiled into a summary clip, aiding the user to re-review particularly those segments for better understanding” which is directed to the information selected based on the episode’s content that was “tagged or marked” for a sequence of events that occurred. Refer to ¶0165 and ¶0173 wherein the user can request to retrieve data from tagged events including “other data from the sensors that recorded the events only at the times that user's brain activity recordings show that the user was excited, happy, enjoying” and the system may present “playback” of the content in response.)
Regarding claim 5:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: store information corresponding to the episode between each of the plurality of users who are acquaintances of the first user, and the control presentation of information related to the episode between the first user and a specific user of the plurality of users based on the action of the first user. (In ¶307; Fig. 3 (153 and 173): teaches that during a meeting event or episode, “the system may identify, and inform the user, who is he talking with, using one or more of the following options. If the person is in the user's contact list, and if the user talked with him in the past, the system may know, based on the data it constantly store during user's activity, when the user talked with this person (e.g., when user dialed him or was called by this person) because the person's telephone number is identified via the contact list” which is directed to storing the episode’ s related information along with other users that are acquaintances of the first user. Refer to ¶0172 for recordings made via the system about events that are tagged and refer ¶0178 wherein the user can “say a code, or to think a code, like “keep this event” or “store this event”, or “include this event in the summary”, to indicate that it is interesting and should be kept; or to say/think “discard this event” to discard it.” See ¶0147 for the system’s processor and its “storage unit” details.)
Regarding claim 6:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: control presentation of information related to the episode to the specific user who is an acquaintance of the first user; and set a specific evaluation of the specific user, wherein the specific evaluation is set for the first user. (In ¶0330: teaches that the “invention may be used in combination with input methods such as wearable cameras (devices such as Google Glass) or Augmented Reality (AR) glasses or helmets or headsets; and may log and share user's feelings toward real life objects and events (e.g., the user loved the movie X, the user liked the cake in bakery Y, or the like)” which is directed to presenting information related to the episode to the another user (e.g. acquaintance) with a predetermined evaluation set for the user, in accordance to examples given in ¶0125 – 127 from Applicant’s disclosure.)
Regarding claim 7:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein processor is further configured to control presentation of information related to the episode in a case where the specific evaluation has been set as the evaluation of the specific user for the first user. (In ¶0330: this limitation is satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as it teaches that the “invention may be used in combination with input methods such as wearable cameras (devices such as Google Glass) or Augmented Reality (AR) glasses or helmets or headsets; and may log and share user's feelings toward real life objects and events (e.g., the user loved the movie X, the user liked the cake in bakery Y, or the like)”, either for the user or the another user, which is directed to presenting information related to the episode with a predetermined evaluation set for the first user about another user, in accordance to examples given in ¶0125 – 127 from Applicant’s disclosure.)
Regarding claim 8:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to presentation of information related to the episode for which the specific evaluation has been set as an evaluation of the specific user, among the episodes between the first user and the specific user. (In ¶0330: teaches under BRI, that the “invention may be used in combination with input methods such as wearable cameras (devices such as Google Glass) or Augmented Reality (AR) glasses or helmets or headsets; and may log and share user's feelings toward real life objects and events (e.g., the user loved the movie X, the user liked the cake in bakery Y, or the like), either for the user or the another user, which is directed to presenting information related to the episode to the another user (e.g. acquaintance) with a specific evaluation set for the user. Examiner notes that the “real life events” and “objects” interpreted as another user are satisfying the specific evaluation of the another user, among multiple episodes between these users.)
Regarding claim 9:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to repeatedly control presentation of information related to the episode. (In ¶0192: teaches that the system during the assistance of a user to learn a new language as an episode, the “system may then determine which words or phrases or sentences the user finds hard to understand or need to repeat, and the system may repeat them for the user (or may otherwise explain or translate or help the user) until the user is proficient.” See ¶0209 – 210 for system training procedures wherein the user can repeat actions to let the system learn/store “several patterns of the same word or action”.)
Regarding claim 10:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to change the episode that is a base of information to be presented, and control presentation of information related to the episode. (In ¶0308; Fig. 2 (211 and 213): teaches an example wherein the system, based on “the user met this person in the past and had a conversation with him face-to-face”, may also “recognize the person based on his face (face recognition), and provide the identification and other relevant data” such as “when the user last met her face-to-face” which is directed to changing the episode to present information related to the episode. Refer to ¶0184 for an example wherein the system can present to the user a “summary clip” of selected segments related to “parts in a lecture where the user was not fully concentrated” based on the user being “sleepy or unfocused” during the event and based on the “user's feeling and status with respect to new material that the user is trying to learn” which was learned by the system during an event related to the user taking a lecture.)
Regarding claim 11:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: gradually increase a degree of indicating the first user in the episode and repeatedly control presentation of information related to the episode. (In ¶0192: teaches that the system “may utilize a brainwave-based language learning module 432, to assist a user to learn a new language” directed to the episode or event that occurred, wherein the “system may monitor and learn weak vocabulary words or other language-related difficulties of the user (e.g., pronunciation of certain words, comprehension of certain words) by analyzing the user's brainwave activity in correlation with what the user hears or says”. Then, the system may “determine which words or phrases or sentences the user finds hard to understand or need to repeat, and the system may repeat them for the user (or may otherwise explain or translate or help the user) until the user is proficient” which is directed to gradually increase indication degree to repeat information to the user, in accordance to examples given in ¶0115 – 116 from Applicant’s disclosure. See ¶0340 for more details about the system learning frequency of user’s indications/actions to “assess user ability to concentrate or focus on a task” and refer to ¶0172 – 174 for recording user activities and their frequency to infer the user’s “state of mind” that can be later summarized and presented as “interesting events”.)
Regarding claim 12:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to control presentation of a plurality of pieces of information individually related to a number of episodes, of the plurality of the episodes at a same timing. (In ¶0173: teaches that “upon user request, the system may utilize a brainwave-based clip generator 417 to subsequently retrieve and/or summarize sensed data that corresponds to one or more tagged events or tagged state-of-mind, and may present or playback to the user images, video and/or audio corresponding to such requested events or state-of-mind”. For example, the system may “create a short summary from a three-day vacation showing video, audio and other data from the sensors that recorded the events only at the times that user's brain activity recordings show that the user was excited, happy, enjoying; or may summarize the top five minutes in those three days in which the user's signals indicated the highest level of excitement or concentration.”)
Regarding claim 13:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the action of the first user based on at least one of a content input by the first user or a situation of the first user. (In ¶0321: teaches “the system tracks sensors inputs and user typing of email, documents, text messages; and builds probabilities to common words and phrases that the user may often use in SMS text messages, as well as correlations between specific letters or words or uncompleted words, and brainwave signals that are obtained from the user during such composing time”. Thus, “this may allow the system, for example, to auto-complete words or sentences, based on correlations between the so-far composed text, with EEG or brainwave signals or other signals captured from the user, which may help the system to estimate what the user intends to type next”. See ¶0328 for another example wherein the combination of user inputs includes past events/situations from content input.)
Regarding claim 14:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to control presentation of information related to the episode to the first user. (In ¶0328: teaches that the “invention may combine data from different input methods and sensors (such as microphones, video camera sensors, access to the screen the user is watching) and/or brainwaves to conclude what is the object that the user is thinking of”. That “given this information, the invention may either store for later use (e.g., when the user is looking for something to do, it would remind him that he read the plot of a movie and liked it, and therefore suggest him to go see that movie), or may share with his friends via social channels”. Refer to ¶0165 wherein “system may subsequently retrieve sensed data that corresponds to one or more tagged events, and may present or playback to the user images, video and/or audio corresponding to such requested events”.)
Regarding claim 15:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 14.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: extract information related to the episode based on specific keywords; and (In ¶0263: teaches an example wherein a writer is sending a text to a reader, that “when writing the text, the invention may monitor the writer's feelings. Feelings may be extracted from brainwaves or face muscles (e.g., if the writer is smiling while writing, or is crying)” directed to extracting information related to the episode based on specific words. The Examiner interpreted the specific keywords as text provided by the writer that is further providing context related to an episode (i.e. such as a dinner event). Refer to ¶0211 for an example wherein the user messages his spouse when he is feeling hungry and/or thinks “I am hungry” as a “pre-defined thought” and refer to ¶0210 for messages of “I’m running late” to his wife or a friend/acquaintance when the system “recognizes brain activity similar” to “predefined patterns saved”.)
control presentation of the information related to the episode that is same based on specific keywords or the information related to the episode that is different based on specific keywords, to each of the first user and the second user. (In ¶0264: further teaches that “when both the writer and the reader of the text use the invention, the system may signal the reader when he misinterprets the writer's intentions. For example, the system may monitor in real time the recipients feelings while reading the text and if the user shows a different emotion than the writer was expressing (e.g., if the writer was happy when writing an SMS to the recipient, and the recipient misunderstood the writer's emotions and as a result becomes sad) the system may notify the user that there is a misunderstanding or mismatched emotions”. ¶0210 wherein the first user may confirm the “I’m running late” message and then sends it to the corresponding recipient.)
Regarding claim 16:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to control presentation of information related to a specific place to each of the first user and the second user. (In ¶0256: teaches an example wherein “user wants to activate this feature, for example, after seeing that the traffic is too slow, or after last-minute issue is preventing from leaving the office in time for a meeting, the user may just think of the “code” and the system may recognize that the current brain activity correlates with the code brain activity”. Thus, “If meeting has also a list of (one or more) participants, the system may generate an SMS/Text/email or other message to each participant saying: “I'm sorry, I am going to be late to the meeting” (the exact text may be defined by the user in the settings of this feature” and “if the system also sees that the user use, for example, Waze to navigate to the meeting place, it may use the Estimated time of arrival (ETA) to the destination, and include in the message also an estimated delay time, for example: “Sorry, it seems I am going to be late by 15 minutes to our meeting at [info from the calendar]”” which is directed to presenting information related to a specific (i.e. same) place that the user and other users are supposed to be at. Refer to ¶0301 – 302 wherein restaurants recommendations can be sent to the user based on the detected feeling of being “hungry” and refer to ¶0171 and ¶0203 for examples wherein the user is distressed and the “system may locate people from the user's contact list on his smartphone (or from a user-defined distress-recipients list) that are geographically close to the current location of the user, and may inform them of the SOS situation, by phone or by SMS or texting or other means”.)
Regarding claim 17:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to control presentation of information related to a specific place based on an action of each of the first user and the second user. (In ¶0348: teaches an example wherein the “system may identify user's request to talk with friend X; it may then communicate with X's system and based on the brain waves of X, the system of X may reply to the user's system when it is a suitable time to contact X. Based on this info, user's system may contact X at the suitable time” which is directed to present information based on each user’s action. In this example, “X is another user who is also equipped with a similar or other electronic device”. Although for the example above, the information is not related to the specific (i.e. same) place, the system has the capacity to present information related to the specific (i.e. same) place, such as suggesting to see a ”movie” based on the user’s likes and share it with friends (see ¶0328) or to invite user’s contacts to a meeting based on “data analytics such as history of previous meetings, phone calls, emails contextual analysis” while using a “user-validation or user-confirmation procedure, to reduce or minimize implementation errors” (see ¶0240) which satisfies this specific type of information being presented.)
Regarding claim 18:
Steiner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Steiner further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to control presentation of information related to the episode at a timing of elapse of specific period and the specific period is timing at which the first user has thought of the second user. (In ¶0131: teaches that in an example “it may be pre-set that the user would need to hold his thought of “open phone command” in his mind for a pre-defined period of time (e.g., one second), for the thought to be captured and acted-upon, in order to reduce or minimize false positive errors”. Refer to ¶0174 and ¶0179 wherein the user can command the system to output a “summary (e.g., a five-minute summary, a ten-summary, a one-hour summary) of the longer-period event (e.g., a four-day vacation or trip)” in order to satisfy “the total resulting audio/video clip” that “would be within the user-requested time limit”.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kline (U.S. Pub No. 20200020433 A1) is pertinent because it “generally relates to the field of patient assistance devices, and more specifically, to systems and methods for memory recall assistance for a memory loss.”
Okumura (U.S. Pub No. 20180018899 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a technique for presenting content to help a user control his/her feelings on the basis of psychology.”
Chau (U.S. Pub No. 20130218967 A1) is pertinent because it “provides a machine-implemented method for suggesting one or more activities based on one or more contacts of a user.”
Bowser (U.S. Pub No. 20130073539 A1) is pertinent because it “relates in general to a commercial and social network and, more particularly, to a system and method of controlling the commercial and social network by collectively describing events and connecting individuals based upon commonly shared experiences.”
Frazier (U.S. Pub No. 20090248602 A1) is pertinent because it is about “systems and methods for prioritizing content based on user profile relevance”.
Weishaupl (U.S. Pub No. 20150143103 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to memorializing data objects and more specifically to memorializing data objects in messaging and networking applications.”
Ruffner (U.S. Patent No. 9805127 B2) is pertinent because it is about “methods and systems for clustering individual items of web content, and then utilizing user activity and profile data, in combination with social network data, to select clusters of web content items for presentation to users of an online social network are described”
Amin (U.S. Patent No. 10380629 B2) is pertinent because it “relates to data processing systems. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to methods, systems, and computer program products that leverage a social graph to identify senders and recipients of relevant recommendations and to facilitate the delivery of the relevant recommendations from the senders to the recipients.”
Rapaport (U.S. Patent No. 11539657 B2) is pertinent because it “relates more specifically to Social-Topical/contextual Adaptive Networking (STAN) systems that, among other things, empower co-compatible users to on-the-fly join into corresponding online chat or other forum participation sessions based on user context and/or on likely topics currently being focused-upon by the respective users.”
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 Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626