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
Preliminary Amendment, filed 01/08/2024, has been entered.
Claims 11 and 12 are cancelled and claim 13 is newly added.
Claims 1-10 and 13 are pending.
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 voice data generation unit; a table recording unit; an ending unit; and a reproduction unit in claim 1; a stop unit in claim 2; an intermediate time reproduction unit in claim 3; a confirmation unit and a list display unit in claim 4; and a selection time reproduction unit in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure (i.e. an integrated circuit, e.g., ASIC) described in the specification [para. 14; page. 4 of 19] as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (“Lee”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2015/0341399 A1] in view of Kim et al. (“Kim”) [US 2015/0058007 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
An electronic apparatus [Fig. 2; para. 0102-0125: ‘a user terminal’] capable of synchronizing between documents (i.e. ‘synchronize conference) and voices through matching (i.e. ‘synchronize the sentence’) [para. 0155, 0356, 0363] between a voice (i.e. ‘a voice saying “I’ll write that the objective …’) and an editing object (i.e. ‘a sentence “Enhance utilization …”) [Fig. 15: ‘to edit the document collaboratively through a video conference’; para. 0102-0125, 0174, 0356, 363] when a user (e.g. ‘the first user’ Ahn’) [para. 0363] edits the document while recording the voice, the electronic apparatus comprising:
a voice data generation unit [Fig. 2; para. 0113-0114: microphone 231; Fig. 24; para. 0221 shows a “microphone button”] recording, when a voice recording start instruction is received by the user in a state in which a plurality of different documents (i.e. ‘edit a document .., conference minutes …, and the document …’) [para. 0132] are being edited, wherein unique identifiers (i.e. names, e.g. ‘Present.doc, Statistics.xls or Graph.pdf’) [Fig. 25; para. 0228: ‘to identify a document list 376 that can be shared’] for identifying respective documents are assigned to the plurality of documents [Fig. 25: a document list 376], respectively, a voice applied through a microphone to generate voice data [para. 0008, 0013, 0379: ‘the first user (e.g., “Ahn”) edits a sentence … in a document’];
a table recording unit (e.g. ‘470’; ‘490’) [Fig. 44, 45: ‘if a text of another user is selected in the window 490, editing information of the document corresponding to the selected text may be displayed in the window 470’; para. 0343-0347] recording information on the editing object (e.g. Ahn (09:03) in window 490) [Fig. 44: ‘490’] and a time of inserting the editing object (e.g. Ahn (09:03) in window 490) [Fig. 30; 44: ‘490’] and a unique identifier (i.e. names, e.g. ‘Present.doc, Statistics.xls or Graph.pdf’) [Fig. 25; para. 0228: ‘to identify a document list 376 that can be shared’] assigned to any one document [Fig. 44, 45; para. 0343-0347: ‘editing information of the document corresponding to the selected text’] to correspond to each other in an object table (i.e. ‘470’) [Fig. 44, 45] whenever inserting the editing object is completed in any one document among the plurality of documents by the user while recording the voice;
an ending unit [Fig. 2; para. 0113-0114: microphone 231; Fig. 24; para. 0221 shows a “microphone button”] ending recording of the voice and data recording in the object table when a voice recording end instruction is received by the user; and
a reproduction unit (e.g. ‘470’; ‘490’) [Fig. 44, 45: ‘if a text of another user is selected in the window 490, editing information of the document corresponding to the selected text may be displayed in the window 470’; para. 0343-0347] reproducing voice data when a reproduction instruction for the voice data is received by the user after the recording for the voice and the data recording in the object table are ended, and
confirming (i.e. displaying) [Fig. 44, 45: display 470 shows ‘edit information of the document corresponding to the selected text’; display 490 shows the selected text, e.g. “Ahh (09:03): I will write that objective …”] information on the editing object and the unique identifier of the document according to each reproduction time [Fig. 44, 45 illustrate the displays of edit information for visual confirmation], which are recorded in the object table whenever a reproduction time (e.g. “Ahh (09:03)”) [Fig. 44, 45] corresponding to the time when inserting each editing object recorded in the object table is completed is reached to display a scene (i.e. ‘470’; ‘490’) [Fig. 44, 45] in which the editing object is inserted according to each reproduction time in the document having the unique identifier according to each reproduction time on a screen.
Lee does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
an ending unit ending recording of the voice and data recording in the object table when a voice recording end instruction is received by the user.
However in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses the deficient claim as follows:
an ending unit (i.e. ‘534’ or ‘536’) [Fig. 5; para. 0070: ‘a third button 536 is for ending the recording’] ending recording of the voice and data recording in the object table when a voice recording end instruction is received by the user.
Lee and Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of voice recording system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Lee and Kim as motivation to include buttons 532, 534, and 536 for cancelling, for pausing/starting and for ending the recording.
Regarding claim 2, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The electronic apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a stop unit inserting (i.e. ‘The first user may select execution of switching to a collaboration mode’) [Fig. 6, 15, 23, 26, 44, 45; para. 0122, 0181, 0184-0185: ‘collaboration services’], when a reproduction stop instruction for the voice data is received by the user at a first reproduction time while reproducing the voice data, editing objects having an insertion time before the first reproduction time into the plurality of documents by referring to the object table, and then switching (i.e. ‘The first user may select execution of switching to a collaboration mode’) [Fig. 6, 15, 23, 26, 44, 45; para. 0122, 0181, 0184-0185: ‘collaboration services’] the plurality of documents in an editable state, and displaying the editable documents on the screen [Fig. 44, 45: ‘470’;’490’].
Lee does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
further comprising: a stop unit inserting.
However in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising: a stop unit inserting (i.e. ‘534’ or ‘536’) [Fig. 5; para. 0070: ‘a second button 534 for pausing/starting’; ‘a third button 536 is for ending the recording’].
Lee and Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of voice recording system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Lee and Kim as motivation to include buttons 532, 534, and 536 for cancelling, for pausing/starting and for ending the recording.
Regarding claim 3, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The electronic apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
an intermediate time reproduction unit reproducing [Fig. 1, 15 show second user terminal and third user terminal. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a reproduction unit’; Fig. 44, 45; para. 0204 show first and third users (e.g. “Ahn” and “Choi” or “Baek”], when an intermediate time reproduction instruction of reproducing the voice data is received from a second reproduction time by the user [See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a reproduction unit’],
the voice data [See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a voice data generation unit recording’] from the second reproduction time, and
inserting editing objects [See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a table recording unit … and a time of inserting the editing object”] having insertion times before the second reproduction time the plurality of documents by referring to the object table, and
then confirming information [See rejection of claim 1 limitation “confirming information on the editing object”] on the editing object according to each the reproduction time recorded in the object table, and the unique identifier of the document, and
displaying a scene [See rejection of claim 1 limitation “display a scene”] in which the editing object according to each reproduction time is inserted on the document having the unique identifier according to each reproduction time on the screen, whenever a reproduction time corresponding to the time in which each editing object recorded in the object table is inserted is reached from the second reproduction time.
Regarding claim 4, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The electronic apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a confirmation unit confirming [Fig. 44, 45 show a list display of editing objects, e.g., Ahn (09:03); Baek (09:03): “One example of systematic management …”], when a list display instruction instructing a list of editing objects inserted at a third reproduction time of the voice data [Fig. 1, 15 show second user terminal and third user terminal. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a reproduction unit’; Fig. 44, 45; para. 0204 show first and third users (e.g. “Ahn” and “Choi” or “Baek”] to be displayed is received by the user,
whether there is an editing object having an insertion time which belongs to a predetermined first time before or after the third reproduction time by referring to the object table [Fig. 1, 15 show second user terminal and third user terminal. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a reproduction unit’; Fig. 44, 45; para. 0204 show first and third users (e.g. “Ahn” and “Choi” or “Baek”]; and
a list display unit extracting [Fig. 1, 15 show second user terminal and third user terminal. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a reproduction unit’; Fig. 44, 45; para. 0204 show first and third users (e.g. “Ahn” and “Choi” or “Baek”], when it is confirmed that there is at least one first editing object as an editing object having the insertion time which belongs to the first time before and after the third reproduction time, information on the at least one first editing object and a unique identifier of a document corresponding to each of the information on the at least one first editing object from the object table [Fig. 1, 15 show second user terminal and third user terminal. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a reproduction unit’; Fig. 44, 45; para. 0204 show first and third users (e.g. “Ahn” and “Choi” or “Baek”. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “confirming information … and the unique identifier …”], and
then configuring an editing object list including the information on the at least one first editing object and the unique identifier of the document corresponding to the each of the information on the at least one first editing object [Fig. 1, 15 show second user terminal and third user terminal. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a reproduction unit’; Fig. 44, 45; para. 0204 show first and third users (e.g. “Ahn” and “Choi” or “Baek”], and
displaying the editing object list on the screen [Fig. 1, 15 show second user terminal and third user terminal. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a reproduction unit’; Fig. 44, 45; para. 0204 show first and third users (e.g. “Ahn” and “Choi” or “Baek”. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “display a scene in which the editing object is inserted”].
Regarding claim 5, Lee meets the claim limitations as follows:
The electronic apparatus of claim 4, further comprising:
a selection time reproduction unit reproducing the voice data from a fourth reproduction time [Fig. 1, 15 show second user terminal and third user terminal. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a reproduction unit’; Fig. 44, 45; para. 0204 show first and third users (e.g. “Ahn” and “Choi” or “Baek”; Fig. 44, 45 show a list display of editing objects, e.g., Ahn (09:03); Baek (09:03): “One example of systematic management…”] corresponding to a time in which the second editing object (e.g., Baek (09:03)) [Fig. 44, 45] is inserted when the editing object list is displayed on the screen [Fig. 44, 45 show a list display of editing objects, e.g., Ahn (09:03); Baek (09:03): “One example of systematic management …”], and
then a selection instruction of information on a second editing object which is any one of the information on the at least one first editing object included in the editing object list is received by the user [Fig. 44, 45 show a list display of editing objects, e.g., Ahn (09:03); Baek (09:03): “One example of systematic management …”], and
reflecting editing objects having an insertion time before the fourth reproduction time on the plurality of documents by referring to the object table [Fig. 44, 45 show a list display of editing objects, e.g., Ahn (09:03); Baek (09:03): “One example of systematic management …”],, and
confirming information on an editing object according to each reproduction time recorded in the object table, and a unique identifier of a document whenever a reproduction time corresponding to a time in which each editing object recorded in the object table is inserted from the fourth reproduction time [Fig. 44, 45 show a list display of editing objects, e.g., Ahn (09:03); Baek (09:03): “One example of systematic management …”. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “confirming information …”], and
displaying a scene in which the editing object according to each reproduction time is inserted on the document having the unique identifier according to each reproduction time on the screen [See rejection of claim 1 limitation “display a scene …”],.
Regarding claim 6, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of “A non-transitory computer readable recording medium having a program” and rejected as per discussion for claim 1. Lee [Fig. 2; para. 0106] discloses the claim limitation “a program”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488