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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/26 on pages 7-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the amendments to the claims. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The ASI reference teaches extracting a keyword from reception content (paragraphs 16 and 25) and the Johnston reference teaches predicting a work result based on the reception content (col. 5 line 55 to col. 6 line 51). The combination of the references teach the amended limitations as described below in the rejection of the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9-16 with an earliest effective filing date of 11/22/22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASI et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0360640 filed on 5/3/22) in view of Johnston et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,625,152 filed on 10/29/21).
With respect to claim 1, the ASI reference teaches a reception work support system comprising: one or a plurality of processors configured to:
acquire a reception content in reception work of receiving an inquiry (a conversation is recorded and a transcript generated [paragraphs 15-16] which can include a request [paragraph 26]);
extract a keyword, from the reception content (keywords in the transcript are identified and used to [paragraphs 16 and 25]); and
emphasize and output the keyword in the reception content, or output the keyword separately from the reception content (keywords are indicated in the output using various methods of emphasis [paragraph 25]).
The ASI reference does not explicitly recite predicting a work result based on the reception content using a keyword. The Johnston reference teaches predicting a work result based on the reception content using a keyword (the system tracks the state of the dialog to determine when to change the displayed workflow [col. 5 line 55 to col. 6 line 51]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 3, the ASI and Johnston references teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the ASI reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where there are a plurality of work results, output the keyword extracted for each work result separately from each other (the different keywords are displayed in different keyword groupings [paragraphs 22-23]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 5, the ASI and Johnston references teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the ASI reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: switch a display order of the keyword and output the keyword (selecting the selectable items moves them from the second portion 220 and arranges them in the first portion 202 [paragraph 24]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 7, the ASI and Johnston references teach all of the limitations of claim 3 as described above. In addition, the ASI reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: switch a display order of the keyword and output the keyword (selecting the selectable items moves them from the second portion 220 and arranges them in the first portion 202 [paragraph 24]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 9, the ASI and Johnston references teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the ASI reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where the reception content is voice information, convert the voice information into text information (dialog is converted to text using a speech-to-text engine [paragraph 15]), and highlight and output the keyword in the converted text information (the keyword is emphasized with visual highlights [paragraph 25]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 10, the ASI and Johnston references teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Additionally, the ASI reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: display and output the keyword in a different font format from other information, in the text information (the keyword is emphasized by underlining, boldening, or italicization [paragraph 25]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 11, the ASI and Johnston references teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Additionally, the ASI reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: perform a display output of the keyword separately from the display output of the text information (the keyword is highlighted and therefore displayed differently than the rest of the text [Figure 2]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 12, the ASI reference teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing one or a plurality of processors to realize a function comprising:
acquiring a reception content in reception work of receiving an inquiry (a conversation is recorded and a transcript generated [paragraphs 15-16] which can include a request [paragraph 26]);
extracting a keyword, from the reception content (keywords in the transcript are identified and used to [paragraphs 16 and 25]);
creating a dictionary related to a key-phrase in the reception content based on the extracted keyword (a group of predefined keywords is generated [paragraphs 12-16]).
The ASI reference does not explicitly recite predicting a work result based on the reception content. The Johnston reference teaches predicting a work result based on the reception content (the system tracks the state of the dialog to predict when to change the displayed workflow [col. 5 line 55 to col. 6 line 51]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 13, the ASI reference teaches a learning model generation method comprising:
acquiring a reception content in reception work of receiving an inquiry (a conversation is recorded and a transcript generated [paragraphs 15-16] which can include a request [paragraph 26]); and
extracts a keyword, from the reception content (keywords in the transcript are identified and used to [paragraphs 16 and 25])
The ASI reference does not explicitly recite a work result performed for the reception content as teacher data or generating a learning model that predicts the work result based on the reception content for an input of the reception content using the teacher data. The Johnston reference teaches a work result performed for the reception content as teacher data (the data is used a training data [col. 6 lines 19-51]) and generating a learning model that predicts the work result based on the reception content for an input of the reception content using the teacher data (the system tracks the state of the dialog to predict when to change the displayed workflow [col. 5 line 55 to col. 6 line 51]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 14, the ASI and Johnston references teach all of the limitations of claim 13 as described above. In addition, the Johnston reference teaches that the teacher data includes a work result in a process other than the reception work (various data is used as training data [col. 6 lines 19-51]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 15, the ASI and Johnston references teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Additionally, the Johnston reference teaches that the work result in the process other than the reception work is a work result of a department in charge to which the reception work is transferred (as the intent is determined the workflow changes automatically [col. 5 lines 6-27]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are merely the non-transitory computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 and claim 16 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 and claim 16 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, and 8 with an earliest effective filing date of 11/22/22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASI et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0360640 filed on 5/3/22) in view of Johnston et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,625,152 filed on 10/29/21) and further in view of Polleri et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,562,267 filed on 6/4/20).
With respect to claim 2, the ASI and Johnston references teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. They do not explicitly recite that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where there are a plurality of work results, extract the keyword by using a learning model that is different for each work result. The Polleri reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where there are a plurality of work results, extract the keyword by using a learning model that is different for each work result (the system correlates the text to a particular machine learning model for processing [col. 36 lines 3-31]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI and Johnston with the plurality of models in the Polleri reference. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by making it usable in more situations.
With respect to claim 4, the ASI, Johnston, and Polleri references teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above. In addition, the ASI reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where there are a plurality of work results, output the keyword extracted for each work result separately from each other (the different keywords are displayed in different keyword groupings [paragraphs 22-23]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 6, the ASI, Johnston, and Polleri references teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above. In addition, the ASI reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: switch a display order of the keyword and output the keyword (selecting the selectable items moves them from the second portion 220 and arranges them in the first portion 202 [paragraph 24]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
With respect to claim 8, the ASI, Johnston, and Polleri references teach all of the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Additionally, the ASI reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to: switch a display order of the keyword and output the keyword (selecting the selectable items moves them from the second portion 220 and arranges them in the first portion 202 [paragraph 24]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI with the workflow prediction system of Johnston. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving it additional features to improve workflow efficiency.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 with an earliest effective filing date of 11/22/22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASI et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0360640 filed on 5/3/22) in view of Johnston et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,625,152 filed on 10/29/21) and further in view of Bishop (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0151380 published on 6/14/12).
With respect to claim 17, the ASI and Johnston references teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. They do not explicitly recite that in a case where there are a plurality of work results comprising a first work result and a second work result, extract, from the reception content, a first keyword corresponding to the first work result and a second keyword corresponding to the second work result. The Bishop reference teaches that in a case where there are a plurality of work results comprising a first work result and a second work result, extract, from the reception content, a first keyword corresponding to the first work result and a second keyword corresponding to the second work result (different keywords with different associations are highlighted differently [paragraph 39-40]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI and Johnston with the emphasizing of Bishop. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving them additional relevant information.
With respect to claim 18, the ASI, Johnston, and Bishop references teach all of the limitations of claim 17 as described above. In addition, the Bishop reference teaches that the one or plurality of processors are configured to emphasize and output the first keyword and the second keyword in the reception content respectively in a first format and a second format different from the first format (different keywords are highlighted or emphasized differently [paragraphs 39-40]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of ASI and Johnston with the emphasizing of Bishop. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving them additional relevant information.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 KRIS E MACKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00 EST.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/KRIS E MACKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights