DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Response to Amendment 2
Response to Arguments 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4
Conclusion 8
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
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 3/26/26. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In light of applicant’s arguments within pg. 7-8, the arguments are not convincing and the rejection remains applicable as seen below.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 1, 10, 11 are directed to searching, grouping, and transmitting handwritten information based on user information; which constitutes data organization and retrieval and mental processes. Thus, the activities can be performed mentally and thus an abstract idea. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but rather use generic computing components to automate the abstract idea. The additional elements do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. For claims 2-3, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or rather do not add an inventive concept. For claim 4, the transmitting is insignificant post-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For claim 5-7, the additional elements do not add significantly more, does not add a technological improvement, or an inventive concept. For claims 8-9, the elements keep the claim as an abstract idea and does not add significantly more.
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 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al (EP 1855212 A1) in view of Katsuragi (US 2020/0174732 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda teaches an information processing system comprising circuitry and a memory (see 0073-0074, 43-48), the circuitry configured to: divide a plurality of pieces of stroke data, which form handwritten data generated using an electronic device, into groups of the handwritten data in accordance with a predetermined rule (see 0108-0109, 0176, 0177); store the divided groups of the handwritten data in the memory in association with user information (see 0178, 0179, 0116-119, 227-229); search the memory and identify one of the groups of the handwritten data that matches the user information (see 214-215). Ikeda does not teach expressly in response to receiving, from a terminal apparatus, a search request for searching minutes using user information as a search key, the minutes including the handwritten data; transmit the identified one of the groups of the handwritten data to the terminal apparatus; and cause the terminal apparatus to display the identified one of the groups of the handwritten data.
Katsuragi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to receiving, from a terminal apparatus, a search request for searching minutes using user information as a search key, the minutes including the handwritten data (see 213-215, 228); transmit the identified one of the groups of the handwritten data to the terminal apparatus (see 217-218, 228); and cause the terminal apparatus to display the identified one of the groups of the handwritten data (see 219, 259-261).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ikeda to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Katsuragi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to easily display content data (see 0255-0261). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Ikeda, while the teaching of Katsuragi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claims 2-4, 8-9, Ikeda discloses the predetermined rule causes grouping of the plurality of pieces of data according to a time interval between two pieces of the stroke data (see 0022, 0155-0160, 0108);
the plurality of pieces of the stroke data, in the handwritten data, are each associated with time information and the user information; and the circuitry is further configured to: divide the plurality of the stroke data into the groups in a case where the time interval between the two pieces of the stroke data, indicated by the time information, is equal to or greater than a threshold value; and store the user information associated with each piece of the stroke data in the memory in association with each group of the handwritten data divided according to the interval indicated by the time information (see 0156-0160, 0167-0168, 0108, 0146-0148);
transmit the identified one of the groups of the handwritten data including images of the identified one of the groups of handwritten data (see 0028, 0141-0143);
sort the groups of the handwritten data in a search result according to a date and time when a conference is held or a name of the conference (see 0071-0074, 0149);
the plurality of pieces of the stroke data is associated with a plurality of pieces of the user information each indicating a user who generates one or more pieces among the plurality of pieces of the stroke data included in the handwritten data; and the circuitry is configured to: search for the plurality of pieces of user information; and in a case where at least one of the plurality of pieces of user information that matches the user information transmitted from the terminal apparatus has been searched for, transmit the search result including the handwritten data matching the user information to the terminal apparatus (see 0076-0079, 0212).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is analyzed as a method that implements the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is analyzed as a non-transitory recording medium (see 0046-0048; non-volatile storage medium) storing a plurality of program codes which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to perform an information processing method, the method comprising the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al (EP 1855212 A1) with Katsuragi (US 2020/0174732 A1), and further in view of Tay et al (US 2022/0254348 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Ikeda with Katsuragi teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Ikeda with Katsuragi does not teach expressly the terminal apparatus is connected to a device that records audio and video; the memory stores text data converted by speech recognition from audio received from the terminal apparatus in association with the user information, the audio being an utterance made by a user; and the circuitry is configured to search for the user information associated with the text data, using the user information transmitted from the terminal apparatus;
the search request includes a setting indicating whether to search text data or handwritten data; and the circuitry is configured to search for the user information associated with text data or handwritten data indicated by the setting.
Tay, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the terminal apparatus is connected to a device that records audio and video (see 0024-0025); the memory stores text data converted by speech recognition from audio received from the terminal apparatus in association with the user information, the audio being an utterance made by a user (see 0027-0028, 0035, 0057-0060); and the circuitry is configured to search for the user information associated with the text data, using the user information transmitted from the terminal apparatus (see 0041, 0042, 0038);
the search request includes a setting indicating whether to search text data or handwritten data (see 0029-0030, 0035, 0040); and the circuitry is configured to search for the user information associated with text data or handwritten data indicated by the setting (see 0029-0031, 0042, 0038).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ikeda with Katsuragi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Tay. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the application by enabling the summarization of a meeting (see 0010). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Ikeda with Katsuragi, while the teaching of Tay continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 7, Ikeda teaches receive information on a right to browse together with the search request from the terminal apparatus; the information on a right to browse is associated with the text data and the handwritten data; and the circuitry is further configured to exclude, from the search result, the handwritten data or the text data associated with information on a right to browse that is not satisfied (see 0026, 0185).
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 EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights