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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office Action mailed September 5, 2025, applicant submitted an amendment filed on December 5, 2025, in which the applicant amended and requested reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's reliance on the improvement rationale to show "significantly more" than an abstract idea in the recited claims is not convincing because the relied upon improvements do not relate to a particular technology or technological environment. Applicants point to the technical field of information processing, since claim 2 provides a technical advantage of increasing the accuracy of the voice collation/verification using the information for collation/verification. Increasing accuracy, which is being claimed, is a technological improvement. Applicants argue that the claims meet the requirement under 35 U.S.C. 101, as interpreted by the courts. In particular, Applicants point out Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 134 S. Ct. 2351 (2014) (“Alice") and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. and TLI Communications LLC v. A. V. Automotive, LLC, 2-15-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016), just to list a couple, and explain that the claims are directed to patentable subject matter. However, according to the claims they recite extra solution activity and are not significantly more. The claims are not beyond what’s routine and conventional and utilizes general purpose computers. It is noted that extracting data can be done by a human. What is the improvement, where is it clearly defined, what’s being solved and how is it being solved? The lesson of Enfish is that the best thing for patentees to do to avoid Alice rejections is to have information in the patent's specification, explaining how things were done in the field previously, and how the invention represents an improvement with specific advantages. Whenever a claimed invention improves the technology, the application should be drafted to highlight that fact, because "that's a very concrete, easy route to patent-eligibility.” Arguing with what the abstract idea is can be useful, but being able to show that there is specific claim language beyond the abstract idea and why it's relevant to the invention is needed. The court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements”. The recited limitations (obtaining conversation data, extracting a keyword and generating information) and specification currently do not provide other benefits to the recited processor and computing device.
Similar to McRo. It illustrates the importance of focusing on the specific features that provide an invention’s importance over the prior art in determining whether or not a claim is directed towards an abstract idea. The claims recited software techniques for automatically syncing animated facial expressions to phonemes based on “rule sets” that were “...rendered in a specific way...[and]...the specific structure of the claimed rules would prevent broad preemption of all rules-based means of automating lip synchronization...[by] incorporating the specific features of the rules as claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a specific process for automatically animating characters using particular information and techniques and does not preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques.” Further, the court clarified that “...[t]he computer here is employed to perform a distinct process to automate a task previously performed by humans...it is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks.” Therefore, Applicants arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive.
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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims 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. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of authenticating a user, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “various elements” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, the language, obtaining conversation data including voice information on a plurality of people (can be done by someone listening to people speak), extracting a keyword from the voice information (can be done by a user keyword spotting), from the voice information, extracting a first feature quantity that is a feature quantity related to a voice when the keyword is said (can be done by a user obtaining additional information from the conversation) and generating information for collation/verification, by associating the keyword with the first feature quantity (can be done by user combining the data). The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite similar language such as obtaining data, making determination, encouraging a user and extracting data, which is all mental processing non-statutory. Furthermore, determining an identification of a user by performing face authentication (can be done by a user looking at someone and identifying the user), and based on the determined identification, presenting a keyword corresponding to the user (can be done by the user analyzing what is identified and showing keywords), linking a meeting application with an information generation application (can be done by a user making a connection with a meeting application and information) and receiving data transmitted by a terminal comprising a meeting application (can be done by a user receiving data, by a generic processor).
Regarding the 102 and 103, Applicants explain that the prior art cited fails to teach determining a speech segment for each speaker and recognizing facial expressions and does not generate information for collation/verification, by associating the keyword with the first feature quantity. According to the broad description of feature quantity, it is noted that feature quantity is broadly interpreted. Endo teaches using gathered data by associating the keyword with the first feature quantity. The feature quantity being a measure of time of the keyword (p. 0044-0045). Therefore, Applicants arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Endo et al. (PGPUB 2009/0150155), hereinafter referenced as Endo.
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, Endo discloses an information processing system, methos and medium, hereinafter referenced as a system comprising:
at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (p. 0050); and
at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to (p. 0050):
obtain conversation data including voice information on a plurality of people (conversation between speaker A and B; p. 0053);
extract a keyword from the voice information (fig, 9, element 105C with p. 0050);
extract a first feature quantity that is a feature quantity related to a voice when the keyword is said, from the voice information (time; fig, 10 with p. 0099); and
generates information for collation/verification, by associating the keyword with the first feature quantity (fig. 10 with correlate speech with speaker; p. 0044-0045, 0102-0103).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Sontag et al. (PGPUB 2011/0047605), hereinafter referenced as Sontag.
Regarding claim 2, Endo discloses a system as described above, but does not specifically teach wherein obtaining a second feature quantity that is a feature quantity related to a voice of at least one of the plurality of people and determining whether or not it is possible to identify a speaker who says the keyword from the first feature quantity, by comparing the first feature quantity with the second feature quantity.
Sontag discloses a system comprising:
obtain a second feature quantity that is a feature quantity related to a voice of at least one of the plurality of people (verify identity; p. 0025); and
determine whether or not it is possible to identify a speaker who says the keyword from the first feature quantity, by comparing the first feature quantity with the second feature quantity (verify identity; p. 0025-0027), for assisting with protecting information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as described above, to authenticate users based upon biometric authentication parameters.
Regarding claim 3, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Sontag discloses a system wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
present information that encourages a user who requests a predetermined process for the conversation data, to say the keyword for which the information for collation/verification is generated (prompt the user to state a pass phrase; p. 0021-0023);
extract a third feature quantity that is a feature quantity related to a voice of the user, from content of utterance/speaking of the user (extract data; p. 0021-0023; and
determine whether or not to permit the user to perform the predetermined process, on the basis of a comparison result between the first feature quantity associated with the keyword that the user is encouraged to say and the third feature quantity (determine whether user is authenticated or not; p. 0021-0023).
Regarding claim 4, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Sontag discloses a system wherein the information for collation/verification is generated for a plurality of keywords (pass phrase; p. 0021-0023), and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to present information that encourages the user to say a part of the keywords, and presents information that encourages the user to say another of the keywords when it is determined that the user is not permitted to perform the predetermined process (prompt user; p. 0021-0023).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Mamkina et al. (USPN 10,032,451), hereinafter referenced as Mamkina.
Regarding claim 8, Endo discloses the system as described above, but does not specifically teach determining an identification of a user by performing face authentication, and based on the determined identification, presenting a keyword corresponding to the user.
Mamkina discloses a system comprising generating information for collation/verification, by associating the keyword with the first feature quantity (column 21, line 42 – column 22, line 26) comprising:
determining an identification of a user by performing face authentication, and based on the determined identification, presenting a keyword corresponding to the user (column 2, lines 24-48, column 6, line 29 – column 7, line 31 and column 28, line 21 – column 29, line 33 and column 33, lines 16-64), to provide a variety of ways for recognizing a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as described above, to assist with performing more accurate user recognition.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Lo et al. (PGPUB 2014/0240098), hereinafter referenced Lo.
Regarding claim 9, Endo discloses the system as described above, but does not specifically teach wherein to obtain the conversation data comprises: linking a meeting application with an information generation application.
Lo discloses a system comprising linking a meeting application with an information generation application (p. 0023), to assist with meeting room resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as described above, for controlling meeting room resources in an automated manner.
Regarding claim 10, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Lo discloses a system wherein to obtain the conversation data comprises: receiving data transmitted by a terminal comprising a meeting application (p. 0021, 0023, 0033).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
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 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 JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights