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 Amendment
The Response filed on 01/27/2026 has been correspondingly accepted and considered in the office action. Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 12 and 16-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 17-20 are independent and amended. Claims 3-5, 8-9, 11, 13-15 and 21 are cancelled.
The objections to Drawing (Figs. 1-30) have been withdrawn in view of amendment to the Drawings.
The rejections to Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) reciting limitations with insufficient antecedent basis have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments
The rejections to Claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite because “each step” to be performed by various units in the claim is not clearly specified, and Claims 19 and 20 as being dependent upon Claims 16 and 17, respectively, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections to Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Interpretation of Claims 17 and 18 as a means plus function limitation Under 35 U.S.C §112(f), Applicant appears to be presenting following position on Remarks, pp 6, filed on 01/27/2026:
“None of the limitations of the present claims are presented in "means plus function" or
"step plus function." It is Applicant's intent that none of the claim limitations be interpreted
under or in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6 or 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).”
In response, Examiner respectfully notes that amend limitations in claims 17 and 18, “the input unit, the structuring unit, the recording unit, and the presentation unit for executing…”, and “the input unit, the structuring unit, the recording unit, and the presentation unit, and movement unit for executing…” clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as claim limitations meet the following 3-prong analysis:
(a) Claim limitations use “unit” as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function;
(b) the generic placeholders, “block” and “element”, are modified by functional language, typically, by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for"), "configured to" or "so that”;
(c) the terms “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The modifiers, “input”, “structuring”, “recording”, “presentation” and “movement”, do not provide sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. Instead, aforementioned modifiers delineate “function.”
For the provided reasons, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and therefore, the interpretation of Claims 17 and 18 a means plus function limitation Under 35 U.S.C §112(f) is sustained and further updated accordingly.
With respect to the rejections of Claims 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding “user’s comment” , Applicant appears to be presenting following position on Remarks, pp. 6, filed on 01/27/2026:
“Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that a user's comments include text, audio, and a combination therein.”
However, amended claims do not reflect applicant’s submission and the support for “a user's comments include text, audio, and a combination therein” is not provided.
For the provided reasons, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 16-20 Under 35 U.S.C §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter is sustained and further updated accordingly.
With respect to the rejections of Claims 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more, Applicant has amended claims to overcome the rejections as stated on Remarks, pp 6, filed on 01/27/2026.
In response, Examiner respectfully notes that amended limitations in Claim 1, “(1) inputs a user's comment through the input unit”, “(2) making, in a structuring unit, a structured record…”, “(3) storing the structured record in a recording unit”, “(4) presenting, to the user, at least a part of the structured record by a presentation unit…”, “(5) (a comparison unit) creates a comparison result by comparing…”, “(6) (a search unit) searches for information…”, “(7) (a search result recoding unit) records a search result information…”, and “(8) structure the search result information” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Limitations (2), (5), (6),and (8) encompass mental processes or recite generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Limitations (2), (5), (6),and (8) simply recites no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components without providing details how to achieve recited functions. Limitations (1), (3), (4), and (7) recite, at a high level of generality, insignificant extra-solution activities (input and output) or well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Each of additional elements (e.g., input unit, structuring unit, storing unit) are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, limitations (1)-(8) represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not amount to significantly more and fail to demonstrate improvements to the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05 (a).
For the provided reasons, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 16-20 as being abstract idea without significantly more Under 35 U.S.C §101 is sustained.
With respect to the rejections of Claims 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Nitta et al., (US Pub No. 2005/0154690, hereinafter, Nitta) in view of Howard et al., (US Pub No. 2001/0041980, hereinafter, Howard). Applicant appears to present the following position on Remarks pp. 7-9 filed 01/27/2026:
“…Nitta and Howard, whether taken individually or in combination, fail to disclose or render obvious at least "the comparison result includes a difference between the structured record and the other information," as recited in claim 1…”.
In response, Examiner respectfully notes that the combination of Nitta in view of Howard clearly and unambiguously disclose the amended language and presented arguments with respect to independent claim 1. Nitta discloses the comparison result includes a difference between the structured record and the other information (Nitta, Fig.17, paras [674-677]; par [675], "…a search processing unit 1102m searches the database based on the search query input by the user..."; par [677], "…The link graph similarity appraising unit 1102u appraises the similarity between the link graphs in the knowledge structure created by the literature knowledge..."; i.e., similarity appraisal, in effect, measures the difference between "structured record" and "information.")
For at least the supra provided reasons, Applicant’s arguments are found not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and therefore, the rejections of Claims 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 are sustained and further updated accordingly.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a structuring step, a presentation step, in claim 1; the input unit, the structuring unit, the recording unit, and the presentation unit in claim 17; the input unit, the structuring unit, the recording unit, the presentation unit, and the movement in claim 18; a recording and organizing program in claims 19 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites "user's comment." However, the specification of the instant application does not explicitly disclose the modality or distinct format of user's comment (e.g., text, audio, video, or any combination). Hence it is not clear what the user’s comment is text, audio, video or any combination thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 2, 6, 10, 12 and 16-20 are rejected being under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on Claim 1.
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 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a method for structuring and recording an input item, which falls under the statutory category of process (Step 1: Yes).
Claims recites limitations “(1) inputs a user's comment through the input unit”, “(2) making, in a structuring unit, a structured record…”, “(3) storing the structured record in a recording unit”, “(4) presenting, to the user, at least a part of the structured record by a presentation unit…”, “(5) (a comparison unit) creates a comparison result by comparing…”, “(6) (a search unit) searches for information…”, “(7) (a search result recoding unit) records a search result information…”, and “(8) structure the search result information”.
Limitations (2), (5), (6),and (8) can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the concept of a person receiving input items, organize the input in predetermined structured way, search for the similar information in the structured data, comparing the input to other information, and presenting the results (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the actions recited in limitations (2), (5), (6),and (8) encompass mental processes practically performed in the human mind. According, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong one).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, limitations recite additional elements of “ an input unit”, “a structuring unit”, “a recording unit”, “a presentation unit”, “a comparison unit”, “a search unit”, and “a search result recoding unit”, but they are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., combination of hardware and software are a generic computing device and generic computer components performing a generic computer functions such as processing and storing data from given input) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply to the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites the following additional limitations (1), (3), (4), and (7). Limitations (1), (3), (4), and (7) are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not include subject matter that could not be performed by a human, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the generic computing elements to perform the claimed elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally linking the use of the aforementioned concept to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Claims 17-20,
Claims 17 and 18 recite a recording and organizing device for executing steps according to claims 1 and 16, respectively, which falls under the statutory category of machine (Step 1: Yes).
Claims recite an additional elements, the input unit, the structuring unit, the recording unit, the presentation unit, and the movement unit. They are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply to the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally linking the use of the aforementioned concept to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 19 and 20 recite a non-transitory recording medium for executing steps according to claims 17 and 18, respectively, which falls under the statutory category of manufacture (Step 1: Yes).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under similar rationale as Claims 17 and 18.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2, 6, 10, 12, and 16,
Claims 2, 6, 10, 12, 16 are dependent on supra Claim 1 and includes all the limitations of the claim and further limits the elements of Claim 1. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional limitations of “accepting corrections…” in Claim 6; “search for information…”; “referring to concept data…” in Claim 12, which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity, or that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
No additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 17 and 19 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta et al., (US Pub No. 2005/0154690, hereinafter, Nitta) in view of Howard et al., (US Pub No. 2001/0041980, hereinafter, Howard).
Regarding Claim 1,
Nitta discloses a recording and organizing method for structuring and recording an input item, the method comprising (Nitta, Figs 1-2, (par [526], "…The present invention then organizes the knowledge extracted from the textual documents into a knowledge structure (such as a graphical representation constructed
from nodes and edges)…the knowledge structure in terms of related objects and relations..."; par [547], "…The input/output control interface unit 108 in FIG. 2 controls the input device 112 and the output device 114…The input device 112 may be keyboard, mouse, microphone, etc. The monitor and the mouse together function as a pointing device..."):
a structuring step for making, in a structuring unit, a structured record by applying the user's comment input in the input step to a predetermined structure and storing the structured record in a recording unit (par [549], "…The textual document handling unit 102a handles textual documents by breaking them up into knowledge constructed from a single word or plural words...The concept dictionary handling unit 102c handles the concept dictionary constructed from the concept entries that hierarchically define the concept of the linked knowledge..."; par [552], "…A knowledge building unit 102k adds the extracted knowledge to the different databases of the storage unit 106..."), and,
a presentation step for presenting, to the user, at least a part of the structured record by a presentation unit, the structure has a tree structure composed of a plurality of hierarchies (Nitta, Fig.1, paras [094-095], “…a concept dictionary is created from concept entries that hierarchically define the concepts of the associated knowledge and the created concept dictionary is displayed so that the user can select the concept entry corresponding the desired knowledge”; Figs.89, 93, par [082], tree structure), a comparing step in which a comparison unit creates a comparison result by comparing the structured record with reference to other information, after the structuring step, in the presentation step, at least a part of the comparison results is presented (Figs. 2 and 26, par [816], "…(Step-12-5):The result converting unit 1102r obtains the appropriate search result. The result screen creating unit 1102w creates a result screen and outputs it to the output device1114..."; par [677], "…The result converting unit 1102r creates a search result by converting to a predetermined format at least one of the following retrieved as a result of the search-relation type knowledge structure elements, related object-type knowledge structure elements, literatures, and concept entries...The result screen creating unit 1102w creates a search result display screen..."),
the comparing step comparing: a searching step in which a search unit searches for information regarding the structured record, and a search result recording step in which a search result recoding unit records a search result information, the search result is a search result (Nitta, Fig. 14, 25-27, par [643], "…a concept search can be carried out using the concept dictionary. That is, according to the present invention, a corresponding concept entry and/or the concept entries at a level higher and/or lower than the corresponding concept entry can be extracted from the concept dictionary managed by the concept dictionary handling unit..."; par [816], "…the result converting unit 1102r obtains the appropriate search result. The result screen creating unit 1102w creates a result screen and outputs it to the output device1114..."),
the structuring step after the search result recording step to structure the search result information (Nitta, Fig. 14, paras [640-644], e.g., word matching retrieving synonyms; par [649], "…the present invention creates a search result by converting the format of the search result in accordance with the search result into at least one of the following predetermined formats, namely, relation-type knowledge structure elements, related object-type knowledge structure elements, literatures, and concept entries..."; ), and
the comparison result includes a difference between the structured record and the other information (Nitta, Fig.17, paras [674-677]; par [675], "…a search processing unit 1102m searches the database based on the search query input by the user..."; par [677], "…The link graph similarity appraising unit 1102u appraises the similarity between the link graphs in the knowledge structure created by the literature knowledge..."; i.e., similarity appraisal, in effect, measures the difference between "structured record" and "information.")
The specification of the instant application does not explicitly disclose the modality or distinct format of user's comment (e.g., text, audio, video, or any combination) nor types of input unit (e.g., keyboard, microphone, or camera). Thus, any form of information specified by the user was construed to be "user's comment."
Under BRI, Nitta discloses an input step configured to input a user's comment through an input unit (Figs. 2, 6-7, paras [553-562]; par [557]"…The textual document handling unit 102a of the literature knowledge management apparatus 100 retrieves from the textual document database 106a the textual document specified by the user...").
However, if audio input (e.g., speech, voice, or utterance) was intended as "a user's comment," Howard, in the analogous field of endeavor, discloses an input step configured to input a user's comment through an input unit (Howard, Fig. 4, par [047], "…A speaker utters a phrase that is recognized by an automatic Speech recognizer 317 which generates input sentence 318…")
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Howard's automatic speech recognizer of the natural language parser to generate the parallel parse-forest from the speaker utterance in Nitta's document knowledge management system to improve the device with a reasonable expectation that this would result in the document management system that could use the audio input such as user's speech or utterance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings Howard and Nitta to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2,
Nitta in view of Howard discloses the recording and organizing method according to claim 1.
Nitta further discloses wherein in the input step, the input unit inputs text instead of the user's comment (Nitta, Figs. 2, 6-7, paras [553-562]; par [557]"…The textual document handling unit 102a of the literature knowledge management apparatus 100 retrieves from the textual document database 106a the textual document specified by the user...").
Regarding Claim 6,
Nitta in view of Howard discloses the recording and organizing method according to claim 1.
Nitta further discloses further comprising a confirmation step in which a correction reception accepts corrections after the presentation step (Nitta, Fig.3, par [0584], "…When the type or the range of the mark on the textual document operation screen is modified by the user, the screen-specific cursor control unit 102j carries out one of the following processes...prompts for confirmation of relinking..."; par [591], "…The knowledge building unit 102 carries out confirmation or editing of the knowledge structure elements on the knowledge structure operation screen...").
Regarding Claim 10,
Nitta in view of Howard discloses the recording and organizing method according to claim 1.
Nitta further discloses comprising, after the search result recording step: a higher order extraction step in which the comparison unit extracts a part of the search result information, and, the structuring step in which the structuring unit structures the search result information (Nitta, par [643], "…a concept search can be carried out using the concept dictionary. That is, according to the present invention, a corresponding concept entry and/or the concept entries at a level higher and/or lower than the corresponding concept entry can be extracted from the concept dictionary managed by the concept dictionary handling unit...").
Regarding Claim 12,
Nitta in view of Howard discloses the recording and organizing method according to claim 1.
Nitta further discloses wherein the comparison result includes the superiority and inferiority of concepts by referring to concept data indicating the relationship between superiority and inferiority of concepts (Nitta, par [643], "…a concept search can be carried out using the concept dictionary. That is, according to the present invention, a corresponding concept entry and/or the concept entries at a level higher and/or lower than the corresponding concept entry can be extracted from the concept dictionary managed by the concept dictionary handling unit...").
Regarding Claim 17,
Nitta in view of Howard discloses a recording and organizing device comprising the input unit, the structuring unit, the recording unit, and the presentation unit, and for executing each respective step according to claim 1 (Nitta, Fig.77 paras [1089-1114], See a text mining system and subsystems).
Rationale for combination is similar to that provided for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19,
Nitta in view of Howard discloses a non-transitory recording medium (Nitta, par [618], a computer-readable recording medium, "…'portable' type such as a flexible disk, magneto optic disk, ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM, MO, DVD, etc., a 'fixed' type such as an internal ROM, RAM, HD, etc.") on which a recording and organizing program (Nitta, (par [1104], "…The control unit 4102 in FIG. 77 has an internal memory for storing control programs such as the OS (Operating System) and programs and data required for regulating various processes, and using these programs carries out information processing for execution of various processes...") for making the input unit, the structuring unit, the recording unit, and the presentation unit to function as each unit of the recording and organization device according to claim 17.
Rationale for combination is similar to that provided for Claim 1.
Claim 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta in view of Howard further in view of Pillai et al., (US Pub No. 2021/0358601, hereinafter, Pillai).
Regarding Claim 16,
Nitta in view of Howard discloses the recording and organizing method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly discloses the presentation method through the movement of the movement unit.
However, Pillari, in the analogous field of endeavor, discloses characterized in that the presentation is performed by a method other than audio or textual information through the movement of the movement unit (Pillari, par [047], "…The artificial intelligence computing entity 106 can also include or be in communication with one or more output elements (not shown), such as audio output, video output, screen/display output, motion output, movement output, and/or the like...").
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Pillai's motion and movement output of the artificial intelligent system traversing an medical ontology knowledge base to search and extract appropriate medical context from interlinked medical concepts with a hierarchy of class levels in the document knowledge management system taught by Nitta in view of Howard to improve the device with a reasonable expectation that this would result in the document management system that could use the motion or movement as output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings Howard and Nitta to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18,
Nitta in view of Howard further in view of Pillari discloses a recording and organizing device comprising the input unit, the structuring unit, the recording unit, the presentation unit, and the movement unit for executing each respective step according to claim 16 ( Nitta, Fig.77 paras [1089-1114], See a text mining system and subsystems; Pillari, par [047], "…The artificial intelligence computing entity 106 can also include or be in communication with one or more output elements (not shown), such as audio output, video output, screen/display output, motion output, movement output, and/or the like...").
Regarding Claim 20,
Nitta further discloses a non-transitory recording medium (Nitta, par [618], a computer-readable recording medium, "…'portable' type such as a flexible disk, magneto optic disk, ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM, MO, DVD, etc., a 'fixed' type such as an internal ROM, RAM, HD, etc.") on which a recording and organizing program (Nitta, (par [1104], "…The control unit 4102 in FIG. 77 has an internal memory for storing control programs such as the OS (Operating System) and programs and data required for regulating various processes, and using these programs carries out information processing for execution of various processes...") for making the input unit, the structuring unit, the recording unit, the presentation unit, and the operation unit to function as each unit of the recording and organization device according to claim 18.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JANGWOEN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-5597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BHAVESH MEHTA can be reached at (571)272-7453. 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.
/JANGWOEN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656