DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7
Conclusion 9
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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 6/16/23. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
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 1-11 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 § 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 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.(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al (EP 1855212 A1). Regarding claim 1, Ikeda discloses an information processing system comprising circuitry configured (see 0042-0049; a CPU 111, a memory 112, a storage device 113, and a data communication unit 118. [0044] The CPU 111 performs various kinds of processing by invoking and executing various kinds of programs stored in the storage device 113. [0045] The memory 112 has a work area in which data used by the CPU 111 in the various kinds of processing is stored temporarily. [0046] The storage device 113 is constituted by a nonvolatile storage medium (e.g., magnetic disk drive). The storage device 113 stores an event management program 114, a document management program 115, a pen data management program 116, and a user management program 117) to:
in response to receiving, from a terminal apparatus, a search request for searching minutes using user information as a search key (see 0025-0026; The information terminal transmits the location selected by the user with the digital pen to the content server to request retrieval of the handwritten memo at the designated location (5). [0026] Upon reception of the request for the retrieval of the handwritten memo, the content server retrieves the electronic information related to the handwritten memo (e.g., video recorded during the event) with a writer and write time of the handwritten memo as search keys (6). It may be judged at the same time whether or not the user who has requested the electronic information has a right to view the retrieved electronic information),
the minutes including handwritten data having been displayed on a display (see 0020, 0034-0035; At the start of an event (e.g., meeting), a camera set in a meeting room starts to record a video of the event. The content server acquires through a network the video of the event taken by the camera, and stores the video of the event (1). An attendant (user of a digital pen) at the meeting uses the digital pen to write a memo or the like related to contents of the meeting on a distributed material (or one’s own notebook) during the meeting (1’)… The information terminal 12 is a computer device used by each person, and transfers information received from the digital pen 14 to the content server 11. The information terminal 12 also displays the information received from the content server 11. [0035] As in the case of an ordinary pen, with the digital pen 14, it is possible to write characters, figures, and the like on a paper medium. Also, the digital pen 14 comprises a micro-camera at its tip end and obtains a dot pattern of a position on the paper that comes into contact therewith. Further, the digital pen 14 holds a pen ID set in advance. The digital pen 14 further comprises a communication interface for connection with the information terminal 12 in a wired or wireless manner.),
search a memory that stores, in association with user information, a plurality of pieces of handwritten data divided into one or more groups in accordance with a predetermined rule (see 0108-0109, 0102, 0161-0164; The stroke set is a group of mutually related lines (strokes), and is obtained by using, for instance, layout analysis in character recognition. In the layout analysis, the mutually related lines are identified based on times when the lines were written and/or locational relationships between the lines. Thus, the stroke set is obtained. In other words, strokes written at close times and close locations constitute one stroke set. [0109] The stroke set ID 228 is a unique identifier of a stroke set written on the document, and has a link to handwritten memo-related information (shown in FIG. 8B) and the stroke information 24 (shown in FIG. 12B)… The owner user ID 222 is a unique identifier of a user who owns the document),
to obtain a search result including the one or more groups of handwritten data that match the user information (see 0212, 0215; To be specific, the content server 11 searches the stroke set information 24 with the pen ID as a search key to extract the stroke set that was written with the digital pen 14…. Subsequently, the content server 11 searches the user information 27 with the pen ID of the digital pen 14 as a search key to identify the user who possesses the digital pen.); and
transmit the search result including the one or more groups of handwritten data that match the user information to the terminal apparatus (see 0027-0028; Then, the content server transmits the retrieved video to the requesting source information terminal (7). [0028] After that, the information terminal displays the electronic information transmitted from the content server.).
Regarding claims 2-4, 8-9, Ikeda discloses wherein: the handwritten data includes one or more pieces of stroke data; and the predetermined rule causes grouping of the plurality of pieces of handwritten data according to a time interval between subsequent pieces of stroke data (see 0022, 0155-0160, 0108);
the one or more pieces of 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 pieces of handwritten data in a case where an interval between times of two subsequent pieces of 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 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 search result including images of the one or more groups of handwritten data that match the user information to the terminal apparatus (see 0028, 0141-0143);
sort the one or more groups of handwritten data in the 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 handwritten data is associated with a plurality of pieces of the user information each indicating a user who hand-drafts one or more pieces of 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).
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al (EP 1855212 A1) in view of Tay et al (US 2022/0254348 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Ikeda teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Ikeda 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 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, 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
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
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 2666
Prosecution Insights