DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 20 April 2023 and 06 September 2024, respectively, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps for a reproduction program that summarizes document information and reproduces it by sound and responds to a reaction of a user by sound. The limitations of claims 1-15 as drafted, are a computer program product or system that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer readable storage medium”, “program instructions” “computer”, “processor”, and “memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper calculations. Under BRI, a human could manually read and summarize a document according to certain predefined rules (such as size of text chunks to be extracted, length of summary, intended audience, etc.). The human could then verbally present this summary (i.e., scenario) to another human. This second human could then provide visual and/or verbal reactions as the summary is presented. The first human could then suspend and resume presentation (i.e., reproduction) of the summary depending on the reaction from the second human. There appear to be no technical specifics about how the system and incorporated models might be structured or carry out analysis to achieve the claimed steps. Accordingly, the steps of the claims are directed to organizing human interactions and/or a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1-15 only recite the additional elements “computer readable storage medium”, “program instructions” “computer”, “processor”, and “memory” to perform the aforementioned steps. The processor and other hardware are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function for transliterating text such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The claims do 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 hardware elements to perform both the aforementioned steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
A similar analysis applies to the dependent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed if the 101 rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE L THOMAS-HOMESCU whose telephone number is (571)272-0899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-6.
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, Bhavesh M Mehta can be reached on 5712727453. 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.
/ANNE L THOMAS-HOMESCU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656