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 . This is an initial office action in response to communication(s) filed on September 15, 2023.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 29, 2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. 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 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With regard to claim 22, claim is directed to “a program", and claims which are drawn to "programs" (i.e. computer software, instructions, applications) per se. While functional descriptive material may be claimed as a statutory product (i.e., a “manufacture”) when embodied on a tangible computer readable medium, a “program or software” per se does not fall within any of the four statutory classes of 35 U.S.C. §101. A “program” is not a process; furthermore, a “program” is not a “machine”, “composition of matter” or a “manufacture” because these statutory classes “relate to structural entities and can be grouped as ‘product’ claims in order to contrast them with process claims.” (1 D. Chisum, Patents § 1.02 (1994)). Machines, manufactures and compositions of matter are embodied by physical structures or material, whereas a “program” has neither a physical structure nor a tangible material. That is, a “program” is not a “machine” because it has no physical structure. Likewise, a “program” is not a “composition of matter” because it is not “matter”, but rather a set of instructions. Finally, a “program” is not a “manufacture” because all traditional definitions of a “manufacture” have required some form of physical structure, which a claimed program does not have. A “manufacture” is defined as “the production of articles for use from raw materials or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308, 206 USPQ 193, 196-97 (1980). Therefore, a "program (or software)" per se is considered non-statutory in the absence of any physical structure or tangible material, and does not fall within any of the four enumerated statutory category under 35 U.S.C. §101 (see MPEP 2106 and/or “Interim Examination Instructions For Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, in effective on August 24, 2009” for further details).
In conclusion, the abovementioned claim 22 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for at least the grounds of being directed to the non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 23 is drawn to “a computer-readable recording medium”. As claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification1. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to “computer-readable recording medium” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer-readable recording medium”2; particularly in instant case, the specification does not provide any further description to exclude the interpretation of the “transitory” type of “computer-readable recording medium”; therefore, the scope of such limitation, by broadest reasonable interpretation and consistent with the specification, encompasses the “computer-readable recording medium” to be covering the transitory medium (i.e. propagating signals, carrier waves, etc.) Also see MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter3. Therefore, by broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification provided by applicant, the claimed “computer-readable recording medium” is considered to cover, inter alia, carrier waves, signal and wireless media (acoustic, RF, infrared, etc.), which are considered to be non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for at least the following reasons (For suggestions for amendment, see the memo of “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media”2).
A claim which is directed to a “signal (or carrier wave)” modulated/encoded/embodied on a carrier wave/etc. with functional descriptive material. While functional descriptive material may be claimed as a statutory product (i.e., a “manufacture”) when embodied on a tangible computer readable medium, a “signal” per se does not fall within any of the four statutory classes of 35 U.S.C. §101. A “signal” is not a process because it is not a series of steps per se. Furthermore, a “signal” is not a “machine”, “composition of matter” or a “manufacture” because these statutory classes “relate to structural entities and can be grouped as ‘product’ claims in order to contrast them with process claims.” (1 D. Chisum, Patents § 1.02 (1994)). Machines, manufactures and compositions of matter are embodied by physical structures or material, whereas a “signal” has neither a physical structure nor a tangible material. That is, a “signal” is not a “machine” because it has no physical structure, and does not perform any useful, concrete and tangible result. Likewise, a “signal” is not a “composition of matter” because it is not “matter”, but rather a form of energy. Finally, a “signal” is not a “manufacture” because all traditional definitions of a “manufacture” have required some form of physical structure, which a claimed signal does not have. A “manufacture” is defined as “the production of articles for use from raw materials or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.” 4. Therefore, a “signal (or a carrier wave)” is considered non-statutory because it is a form of energy, in the absence of any physical structure or tangible material, that does not fall within any of the four statutory classes of 35 U.S.C. §101 (also see MPEP 2106 for further details).
In conclusion, claim 23 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for at least the grounds of claiming the non-statutory subject matter as the claims are considered to be drawn to signals and/or carrier waves per se.
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) 1-9 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0332226 A1, hereinafter as “Lee”), and further in view of Ohashi (JP 2000-009461 A1, a copy of English translation has been attached, hereinafter as “Ohashi”).
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to a digital data tagging apparatus (see Lee, i.e. in para. 39, 82, 91 and etc., disclose a mobile terminal 100, that adds a tag to picture data 20) comprising:
a processor (see Lee, i.e. in fig.1, disclose the controller 180); and
a tag candidate memory that stores a plurality of tag candidates in advance (see Lee, i.e in fig. 1, disclose the memory 160; further in para. 39, 82, 91 and etc., disclose that “[0082] Moreover, the memory 160 is provided with a voice recognizing database and a thesaurus database according to the present invention.”), wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire digital data to which a tag is assigned (see Lee, i.e. in fig. 10(b), para. 173, and etc., disclose that the picture is acquired by a camera by disclosing “[0173] Referring to FIG. 10 (a) and FIG. 10 (b), a picture 20 inputted from the camera 121 is photographed. Referring to FIG. 10 (c), a voice name `sunrise` 10, which will be tagged to the photographed picture data 20, is inputted via the microphone 122. If so, referring to FIG. 10 (d), the controller 180 searches the thesaurus database for at least one or more words 31 to 33 having the meanings associated with the inputted voice name `sunrise` 10.”);
acquire audio data related to the digital data (see Lee, i.e. in fig. 10(c), para. 173, disclose a voice name from a microphone by disclosing that “[0173] Referring to FIG. 10 (a) and FIG. 10 (b), a picture 20 inputted from the camera 121 is photographed. Referring to FIG. 10 (c), a voice name `sunrise` 10, which will be tagged to the photographed picture data 20, is inputted via the microphone 122. If so, referring to FIG. 10 (d), the controller 180 searches the thesaurus database for at least one or more words 31 to 33 having the meanings associated with the inputted voice name `sunrise` 10”);
extract a word/phrase from the audio data (see Lee, i.e. in fig. 10(d), a voice name of “sunrise” is extracted, and also in para. 173, disclose that “[0173] Referring to FIG. 10 (a) and FIG. 10 (b), a picture 20 inputted from the camera 121 is photographed. Referring to FIG. 10 (c), a voice name `sunrise` 10, which will be tagged to the photographed picture data 20, is inputted via the microphone 122. If so, referring to FIG. 10 (d), the controller 180 searches the thesaurus database for at least one or more words 31 to 33 having the meanings associated with the inputted voice name `sunrise` 10.”);
determine one or more tag candidates of which a degree of association with the word/phrase is equal to or more than a first threshold value from among the plurality of tag candidates as a first tag candidate (see Lee, i.e. in fig. 10(d) and in para. 173, disclose one or more words 31-33, such as “sunset, sun rising, sunrise”, and further in para. 174, disclose that “[0174] Subsequently, referring to FIG. 10 (e), the controller 180 tags the searched words 31 to 33 to the picture data 20 and then stores the picture data, to which the words 31 to 33 and the voice name (`sunrise`) 10 are tagged, in the memory 160…”; also see the teachings of Ohashi supplemented below); and
assign at least one of a tag candidate group including the word/phrase and the first tag candidate to the digital data as the tag (also see the teachings of Ohashi supplemented below).
The teachings of Lee do not explicitly disclose the aspects relating to “which a degree of association with the word/phrase is equal to or more than a first threshold value from among the plurality of tag candidates”, and “a tag candidate group…”.
However, Ohashi discloses an analogous inventio relates to a keyword-input supporting system which improves convenience of users, and also provide a content-retrieving system, a content-registering system, a content retrieving and registering system, methods thereof and a program. More specifically in Ohashi, i.e. in para. 54-56, 59, 63, 97-100 and etc., disclose that a thesaurus dictionary is searched for a tag-related word input by a user, a score representing a degree of relevance of the related word to the tag is determined at the time of the search, and a related word for which the score exceeds a prescribed threshold value is selected from among related words, and that the related word is displayed as a tag candidate, and a tag selected by the user is associated with a newly registered image.
Therefore, 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 Lee to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Ohashi, with the aspects discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to tagging and/or keyword-inputting arts and share the function of associating a tag based on data input by a user. Further, 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 Lee by the teachings of Ohashi, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Ohashi, thereby having the keyword input support system, method, and program of the present invention, the related word of the input keyword is searched from the synonym dictionary, and the searched related word is output as a keyword candidate. Therefore, user convenience can be improved.
With regard to claim 2, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a display (see Lee, i.e. in fig. 1, and para. 72, disclose the display module 151),
wherein the processor (see Lee, i.e. in fig.1, disclose the controller 180) is configured to:
convert the audio data into text data to extract one or more words/phrases from the text data (see Lee, i.e. in fig. 1, microphone 122 and in para. 93-94 and etc., disclose that “[0093] A voice recognizing module 182 recognizes user's voice inputted via the microphone 122 by driving a voice recognizing engine having voice recognition algorithm applied thereto…”);
display a text corresponding to the text data on the display; determine the first tag candidate based on a word/phrase selected by a user from among the one or more words/phrases included in the text displayed on the display; display the tag candidate group on the display; and assign at least one selected by the user from the tag candidate group displayed on the display to the digital data as the tag (see Lee, in para. 54-56, 59, 63, 97-100, and etc., disclose that that a thesaurus dictionary is searched for a tag-related word input by a user, a score representing a degree of relevance of the related word to the tag is determined at the time of the search, and a related word for which the score exceeds a prescribed threshold value is selected from among related words, and that the related word is displayed as a tag candidate, and a tag selected by the user is associated with a newly registered image).
With regard to claim 3, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to include a first synonym of which a degree of similarity in pronunciation to the word/phrase is equal to or more than the first threshold value among synonyms of the word/phrase in the first tag candidate (see Lee, i.e. in para. 82-84 and etc., disclose that “… the memory 160 is provided with a voice recognizing database and a thesaurus database according to the present invention. [0083] Data corresponding to a user' voice recognized by a voice recognizing module 182 is stored in the voice recognizing database. [0084] In this case, the voice data includes an original voice data inputted by a user or can include voice feature vector values for the original voice data extracted by the voice recognizing module 182.” And in para. 86, discloses that “[0086] The thesaurus database is a dictionary containing a plurality of words and can include synonyms, antonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, etc.”).
With regard to claim 4, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to include a second synonym of which a degree of similarity in meaning to the word/phrase is equal to or more than the first threshold value among synonyms of the word/phrase in the first tag candidate (in addition to “the thesaurus database “ and the discussions above disclosed by Lee, in Ohashi, i.e. in abstract, fig. 3 and etc., disclose that the thesaurus dictionary database 36 which stores thesaurus dictionaries).
With regard to claim 5, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to include a first synonym of which a searched9339 degree of similarity in pronunciation to the word/phrase is equal to or more than the first threshold value and a second synonym of which a degree of similarity in meaning to the word/phrase is equal to or more than the first threshold value among synonyms of the word/phrase in the first tag candidate (see Ohashi, i.e. in para. 8 and etc., disclose that “It is preferable that the search means obtains a score representing the degree of relevance of the related word to the keyword. In this case, when a plurality of keywords are input and a common related word is acquired, the search means preferably adds the scores for each keyword of the common related word to obtain the score of the related word. The output means preferably selects related words to be output based on the score. In this case, it is preferable that the output unit selects a related word having a score exceeding a predetermined threshold or a predetermined number of related words in descending order of score. The output means preferably determines the output order of the related words based on the score. In this case, it is preferable that the output means outputs related words in descending order of score. Preferably, the output means places the output order of related words including characters being input by the input means higher than other related words.”).
With regard to claim 6, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to determine the number of the first synonyms and the number of the second synonyms to be included in the first tag candidate such that the number of the first synonyms is larger than the number of the second synonyms (see Lee, i.e. para. 86 and etc., disclose that “[0086] The thesaurus database is a dictionary containing a plurality of words and can include synonyms, antonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, etc.”; and in Ohashi, in para. 8 and etc., disclose that “It is preferable that the search means obtains a score representing the degree of relevance of the related word to the keyword. In this case, when a plurality of keywords are input and a common related word is acquired, the search means preferably adds the scores for each keyword of the common related word to obtain the score of the related word. The output means preferably selects related words to be output based on the score. In this case, it is preferable that the output unit selects a related word having a score exceeding a predetermined threshold or a predetermined number of related words in descending order of score. The output means preferably determines the output order of the related words based on the score. In this case, it is preferable that the output means outputs related words in descending order of score. Preferably, the output means places the output order of related words including characters being input by the input means higher than other related words.”).
With regard to claim 7, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to include a homonym of the word/phrase in the first tag candidate (see Lee, i.e. para. 86 and etc., disclose that “[0086] The thesaurus database is a dictionary containing a plurality of words and can include synonyms, antonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, etc.”, and more specifically, in fig. 10, disclose teachings of associated words “sunrise”, “sun rising” and etc.).
With regard to claim 8, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to display a word/phrase or a tag candidate, which is previously selected by the user, from the tag candidate group with higher priority than a word/phrase or a tag candidate, which is not previously selected by the user (see Ohashi, i.e. in para. 12 and etc., disclose that “it is preferable that the search means obtains a score representing the degree of relevance of the related word to the keyword. In this case, when a plurality of keywords are input and a common related word is acquired, the search means preferably adds the scores for each keyword of the common related word to obtain the score of the related word”; in addition, in para. 7, further disclose that searched keyword could be associated).
With regard to claim 9, the claim is drawn to The digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to display a word/phrase or a tag candidate, which is previously selected many times, among the words/phrases or the tag candidates, which are previously selected by the user, with higher priority than a word/phrase or a tag candidate, which is previously selected few times (see Lee, i.e. in para. 98 and etc., discloses that “[0098] If the operation matching the voice feature vector value extracted from the voice recognition database by the voice recognizing module 182 is `text`, the controller 180 drives a text viewer application for displaying the `text` and displays a text viewer image on a screen of the display 151”).
With regard to claim 19, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an audio data memory that stores the audio data, wherein the processor is configured to store the audio data having information on association with the digital data in the audio data memory (see Lee, i.e. in par. 81, discloses that “[0081] The memory unit 160 is generally used to store various types of data to support the processing, control, and storage requirements of the mobile terminal 100. Examples of such data include program instructions for applications operating on the mobile terminal 100, contact data, phonebook data, messages, audio, still pictures, moving pictures, etc. And, a recent use history or a cumulative use frequency of each data (e.g., use frequency for each phonebook, each message or each multimedia) can be stored in the memory unit 160. Moreover, data for various patterns of vibration and/or sound outputted in case of a touch input to the touchscreen can be stored in the memory unit 160.”).
With regard to claim 20, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the digital data is moving image data, and the processor is configured to extract the word/phrase from audio data included in the moving image data (see Lee, i.e. in par. 81, discloses that “[0081] The memory unit 160 is generally used to store various types of data to support the processing, control, and storage requirements of the mobile terminal 100. Examples of such data include program instructions for applications operating on the mobile terminal 100, contact data, phonebook data, messages, audio, still pictures, moving pictures, etc. And, a recent use history or a cumulative use frequency of each data (e.g., use frequency for each phonebook, each message or each multimedia) can be stored in the memory unit 160. Moreover, data for various patterns of vibration and/or sound outputted in case of a touch input to the touchscreen can be stored in the memory unit 160.”).
With regard to claim 21, the claim is drawn to a digital data tagging method (see Lee, i.e. in abstract, para. 10-14 and etc., disclose the controlling method) comprising:
a step of acquiring digital data to which a tag is assigned via a digital data acquisition unit (see Lee, i.e. in fig. 10(b), para. 173, and etc., disclose that the picture is acquired by a camera by disclosing “[0173] Referring to FIG. 10 (a) and FIG. 10 (b), a picture 20 inputted from the camera 121 is photographed. Referring to FIG. 10 (c), a voice name `sunrise` 10, which will be tagged to the photographed picture data 20, is inputted via the microphone 122. If so, referring to FIG. 10 (d), the controller 180 searches the thesaurus database for at least one or more words 31 to 33 having the meanings associated with the inputted voice name `sunrise` 10.”);
a step of acquiring audio data related to the digital data via an audio data acquisition unit (see Lee, i.e. in fig. 10(c), para. 173, disclose a voice name from a microphone by disclosing that “[0173] Referring to FIG. 10 (a) and FIG. 10 (b), a picture 20 inputted from the camera 121 is photographed. Referring to FIG. 10 (c), a voice name `sunrise` 10, which will be tagged to the photographed picture data 20, is inputted via the microphone 122. If so, referring to FIG. 10 (d), the controller 180 searches the thesaurus database for at least one or more words 31 to 33 having the meanings associated with the inputted voice name `sunrise` 10”);
a step of extracting a word/phrase from the audio data via a word/phrase extraction unit (see Lee, i.e. in fig. 10(d), a voice name of “sunrise” is extracted, and also in para. 173, disclose that “[0173] Referring to FIG. 10 (a) and FIG. 10 (b), a picture 20 inputted from the camera 121 is photographed. Referring to FIG. 10 (c), a voice name `sunrise` 10, which will be tagged to the photographed picture data 20, is inputted via the microphone 122. If so, referring to FIG. 10 (d), the controller 180 searches the thesaurus database for at least one or more words 31 to 33 having the meanings associated with the inputted voice name `sunrise` 10.”);
a step of determining one or more tag candidates of which a degree of association with the word/phrase is equal to or more than a first threshold value from among a plurality of tag candidates, which are stored in advance in a tag candidate storage unit, as a first tag candidate via a tag candidate determination unit (see Lee, i.e. in fig. 10(d) and in para. 173, disclose one or more words 31-33, such as “sunset, sun rising, sunrise”, and further in para. 174, disclose that “[0174] Subsequently, referring to FIG. 10 (e), the controller 180 tags the searched words 31 to 33 to the picture data 20 and then stores the picture data, to which the words 31 to 33 and the voice name (`sunrise`) 10 are tagged, in the memory 160…”; also see the teachings of Ohashi supplemented below); and
a step of assigning at least one of a tag candidate group including the word/phrase and the first tag candidate to the digital data as the tag via a tag assignment unit (also see the teachings of Ohashi supplemented below).
The teachings of Lee do not explicitly disclose the aspects relating to “which a degree of association with the word/phrase is equal to or more than a first threshold value from among the plurality of tag candidates”, and “a tag candidate group…”.
However, Ohashi discloses an analogous inventio relates to a keyword-input supporting system which improves convenience of users, and also provide a content-retrieving system, a content-registering system, a content retrieving and registering system, methods thereof and a program. More specifically in Ohashi, i.e. in para. 54-56, 59, 63, 97-100 and etc., disclose that a thesaurus dictionary is searched for a tag-related word input by a user, a score representing a degree of relevance of the related word to the tag is determined at the time of the search, and a related word for which the score exceeds a prescribed threshold value is selected from among related words, and that the related word is displayed as a tag candidate, and a tag selected by the user is associated with a newly registered image.
Therefore, 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 Lee to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Ohashi, with the aspects discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to tagging and/or keyword-inputting arts and share the function of associating a tag based on data input by a user. Further, 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 Lee by the teachings of Ohashi, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Ohashi, thereby having the keyword input support system, method, and program of the present invention, the related word of the input keyword is searched from the synonym dictionary, and the searched related word is output as a keyword candidate. Therefore, user convenience can be improved.
With regard to claim 22, the claim is drawn to . A program for causing a computer to execute each of the steps of the digital data tagging method according to claim 21 (see Lee, i.e. in para. 81, discloses that “[0081] The memory unit 160 is generally used to store various types of data to support the processing, control, and storage requirements of the mobile terminal 100. Examples of such data include program instructions for applications operating on the mobile terminal 100, contact data, phonebook data, messages, audio, still pictures, moving pictures, etc. And, a recent use history or a cumulative use frequency of each data (e.g., use frequency for each phonebook, each message or each multimedia) can be stored in the memory unit 160. Moreover, data for various patterns of vibration and/or sound outputted in case of a touch input to the touchscreen can be stored in the memory unit 160.”).
With regard to claim 23, the claim is drawn to a computer-readable recording medium on which a program for causing a computer to execute each of the steps of the digital data tagging method according to claim 21 is recorded (see Lee, i.e. in para. 87 and etc., disclose that [0087] The memory 160 may be implemented using any type or combination of suitable volatile and non-volatile memory or storage devices including hard disk, random access memory (RAM), static random access memory (SRAM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), programmable read-only memory (PROM), read-only memory (ROM), magnetic memory, flash memory, magnetic or optical disk, multimedia card micro type memory, card-type memory (e.g., SD memory, XD memory, etc.), or other similar memory or data storage device. And, the mobile terminal 100 is able to operate in association with a web storage for performing a storage function of the memory 160 on Internet.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Ohashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in views of Fukuoka (JP 2012-069062 A, w. a copy of English translation, hereinafter as “Fukuoka”) and Yoshika (JP 11337357 A, w. a copy of English translation, hereinafter as “Yoshika”).
With regard to claim 14, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the digital data is image data, and the processor is configured to:
acquire information on an imaging position of an image corresponding to the image data;
determine a tag candidate, which represents a place name that is located within a range equal to or less than a fourth threshold value from the imaging position of the image and has a degree of similarity of pronunciation to the word/phrase being equal to or more than a third threshold value, from among the plurality of tag candidates as a fifth tag candidate based on the information on the imaging position of the image; and display the fifth tag candidate on the display by including the fifth tag candidate in the tag candidate group (see the discussions of Lee and Ohashi set forth above, also incorporated by reference herein).
The teachings of Lee and Ohashi do not explicitly disclose the aspect(s) relating to “acquire information on an imaging position of an image corresponding to the image data…” and “determine a tag candidate, which represents a place name that is located within a range equal to or less than a fourth threshold value from the imaging position of the image and has a degree of similarity of pronunciation to the word/phrase being equal to or more than a third threshold value, from among the plurality of tag candidates as a fifth tag candidate based on the information on the imaging position of the image; and …”,
Fukuoka discloses an invention relates to a character input support system, a character input support server, a character input support method, and a program. More specifically, in Fukuoka, i.e. in para. 53-57 and etc., disclose that “… In the present embodiment, position information is added to the extracted related keyword using the position information database 12, and it is checked whether it is consistent with the position information obtained from the reference auxiliary information added to the reference image…”.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lee and Ohashi to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Fukuoka, with the aspects set forth above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to data and/or document management arts. Further, 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 teachings of Lee and Ohashi by the teachings of Fukuoka, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Fukuoka, thereby having an improved character input support system.
The teachings of Lee, Ohashi and Fukuoka do not explicitly disclose the aspect relating to “determine a tag candidate, which represents a place name that is located within a range equal to or less than a fourth threshold value from the imaging position of the image and has a degree of similarity of pronunciation to the word/phrase being equal to or more than a third threshold value, from among the plurality of tag candidates as a fifth tag candidate based on the information on the imaging position of the image; and …”.
However, Yoshioka disclose an invention relates to a navigation apparatus capable of selecting a user's desiring place if a plurality of names such as a place name, a facility name or the like of homophone exist as a voice recognition result (see Yoshioka, i.e. abstract, etc.) More specifically, in Yoshioka, i.e. in para. 13-16 and etc., disclose that a place name is subjected to voice recognition, and a postal code, target object, area code, city code, longitude, and latitude are associated and displayed for each place name of the same sound.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lee, Ohashi and Fukuoka to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Yoshioka, with the aspect(s) discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to data and/or document management arts. Further, 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 teachings of Lee, Ohashi and Fukuoka by the teachings of Yoshioka, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Yoshioka, thereby to have “…a navigation apparatus capable of selecting a user's desiring place if a plurality of names such as a place name, a facility name or the like of homophone exist as a voice recognition result” (see Yoshioka, i.e. abstract and etc.).
With regard to claim 17, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: extract a place name from audio data including the place name; in a case in which there are a plurality of locations of the place name, determine a tag candidate consisting of a combination of the place name and each of the plurality of locations as an eighth tag candidate; and display the eighth tag candidate on the display by including the eighth tag candidate in the tag candidate group (see Yoshioka, i.e. in para. 13-16 and etc., disclose that a place name is subjected to voice recognition, and a postal code, target object, area code, city code, longitude, and latitude are associated and displayed for each place name of the same sound).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Ohashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in views of Sato (JP 2013084074 A, w. a copy of English translation, hereinafter as “Sato”).
With regard to claim 18, the claim is drawn to the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: extract at least one of a sound onomatopoeic word or a voice onomatopoeic word corresponding to an environmental sound included in the audio data from the audio data; determine at least one of the sound onomatopoeic word or the voice onomatopoeic word as a ninth tag candidate; and display the ninth tag candidate on the display by including the ninth tag candidate in the tag candidate group (see the discussions of Lee and Ohashi set forth above, also incorporated by reference herein).
The teachings of Lee and Ohashi do not explicitly disclose the aspect(s) relating to “…wherein the processor is configured to: extract at least one of a sound onomatopoeic word or a voice onomatopoeic word corresponding to an environmental sound included in the audio data from the audio data; determine at least one of the sound onomatopoeic word or the voice onomatopoeic word as a ninth tag candidate”.
However, Sato discloses an analogous inventio relates to an information processing device, an information processing server, an information processing method, an information extracting method, and a program that are capable of further improving convenience of the user operation. More specifically, in Sato, i.e. in para. 117 and etc., disclose that a tag candidate relating to an environment sound is extracted on the basis of voice data.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lee and Ohashi to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Sato, with the aspect(s) discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to data and/or document management arts. Further, 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 teachings of Lee and Ohashi by the teachings of Sato, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Sato, thereby to improve the convenience of user operation” (see Sato, i.e. abstract and etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
With regard to Claim 10-13 and 15-16, claims are 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 and overcoming the corresponding rejections and/or objection (if any) set forth in the Office Action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 10, the closest prior arts of record, Lee, Ohashi, Fukuoka, Yoshioka and Sato, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “…the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the digital data is image data, and the processor is configured to: recognize a subject included in an image corresponding to the image data; determine a word/phrase, which represents a name of the subject corresponding to the word/phrase and is different from the word/phrase, as a second tag candidate; and display the second tag candidate on the display by including the second tag candidate in the tag candidate group”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
With regard to claim 11, the closest prior arts of record, Lee, Ohashi, Fukuoka, Yoshioka and Sato, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “… the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the digital data is image data, and the processor is configured to: recognize at least one of a subject or a scene included in an image corresponding to the image data; and in a case in which there are a predetermined number or more of the tag candidates of which the degree of association with the word/phrase is equal to or more than the first threshold value among the plurality of tag candidates, determine only a tag candidate of which a degree of association with at least one of the subject or the scene is equal to or more than a second threshold value from among the predetermined number or more of the tag candidates as the first tag candidate”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
With regard to claim 12, the closest prior arts of record, Lee, Ohashi, Fukuoka, Yoshioka and Sato, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “…the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the digital data is image data, and the processor is configured to: recognize at least one of a subject or a scene included in an image corresponding to the image data; determine a tag candidate of which a degree of association with at least one of the subject or the scene is equal to or more than a second threshold value and a degree of similarity of pronunciation to the word/phrase is equal to or more than a third threshold value, from among the plurality of tag candidates as a third tag candidate; and display the third tag candidate on the display by including the third tag candidate in the tag candidate group”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
With regard to claim 13, the closest prior arts of record, Lee, Ohashi, Fukuoka, Yoshioka and Sato, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “…the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the digital data is image data, and a person tag, which represents a name of a subject included in an image corresponding to the image data, is assigned to the image data by a first user, and the processor is configured to: recognize the subject included in the image; extract the name of the subject from audio data including a voice of a second user who is different from the first user and utters the name of the subject for the image; determine one or more tag candidates of which a degree of association with the name of the subject is equal to or more than the first threshold value as the first tag candidate to determine the person tag as a fourth tag candidate in a case in which the first tag candidate and the person tag are different from each other; and display the fourth tag candidate on the display by including the fourth tag candidate in the tag candidate group”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
With regard to claim 15, the closest prior arts of record, Lee, Ohashi, Fukuoka, Yoshioka and Sato, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the digital data tagging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the digital data is image data, and the processor is configured to: recognize a subject included in an image corresponding to the image data; acquire information on an imaging position of the image; extract a name of the subject from audio data including the name of the subject included in the image; in a case in which the name of the subject and an actual name of the subject located within a range equal to or less than a fourth threshold value from the imaging position of the image are different from each other, determine the actual name of the subject as a sixth tag candidate based on the information on the imaging position of the image; and display the sixth tag candidate on the display by including the sixth tag candidate in the tag candidate group”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
With regard to claim 16, the claims are depending directly or indirectly from the independent Claim 15, each encompasses the required limitations recited in the independent claim discussed above.
Therefore, claim 10-13 and 15-16 are objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Solem et al. (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 200) disclose an invention relates to a method and system for voice-based image tagging and searching.
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. 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.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
1 See In re Zletz, 893 F. 2d 319. (Fed. Cir. 1989).
2 In reference to the memorandum issued on January 26, 2010, titled "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media", also published in Official Gazette of the USPTO on February 23, 2010 (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2010/week08/TOC.htm#ref20), and also see the provided suggestion for amendment discussed therein.
3 See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 Us. C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
4 See In re Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308, 206 USPQ 193, 196-97 (1980).