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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Issue: The applicant argues that amendment features “combines text data” and “the text conversion of the record data inputted by voice” would overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the amendment features “combines text data” and “the text conversion of the record data inputted by voice” are no difference than a generic computer function. As such, it is not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 1 recites an “information processing device”; however, the components (such as an acquisition unit, a search unit and a generator) of the device are merely software per se. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a software per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. It is suggested that to amend “unit” to an active step or a hardware device to avoid possible USC 112, 6th.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea; and because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claims are subject to a §101 rejection in accordance with the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance for use by USPTO personnel in determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). The guidance may be found in the Federal Register (79 FR 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014)) (hereinafter Guidance). See also “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” (hereinafter July 2015 Update, available at: http: //www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf). In Alice, the Supreme Court applied the two-part framework earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) to examine the issue of the exceptions. The first step is determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. Abstract ideas have been identified by the courts as including fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas (see Guidance at 74622, col. 2, bottom citing Alice at 2355-56).
Claims 1, 13 and 14 are an abstract idea of receiving an input, search for date and image data, then generate a combine output - which is no difference than searching for an image with date information on a computing device. These claims and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there is no indication that the element would improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine conventional activity.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Brais (CA 2,227,371).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota discloses an information processing device comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires record data which is a record about a predetermined date inputted by voice (Fig. 1, ¶ [0015], a voice input device (4));
a search unit that searches for image data, based on the record data (¶ [0017] includes a route search process); and
a generator that combines the record data and the image data together and thus generates document data (¶¶ [0011], The additional conditions include a target state that can be detected (acquired) (not a change in the state but the state itself at that time), for example, the psychological state of the character, user information such as the gender and age of the user, date, date and time; [0012], [0016], An image memory (1-7) in which image data to be used is stored, and image data is taken out from the image memory (1-7) based on a display output control signal).
Kubota does not explicitly disclose “combines text data” and “the text conversion of the record data inputted by voice” and the image data together; however, Brais discloses “combines text data” and “the text conversion of the record data inputted by voice” and the image data together (p. 8, a speech to text system for converting speech into text; image capture means for capturing images and converting them into a digital electronic form).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Brais into Kubota to enhance the capacity of computer for digital media.
Regarding claim 2, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the record data from another information processing device connected via a network (Fig. 11, scenario record from the scenario files).
Regarding claim 3, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit outputs question data to acquire additional information to generate the document data, based on the acquired record data, and acquires additional record data which is an answer inputted by voice in response to the question data, the search unit searches for the image data, based on the record data and the additional record data, and the generator combines the record data, the additional data, and the image data together, and thus generates the document data (¶ [0121]; FIG. 25 shows an additional condition item table defined for a branch scene and storing transition conditions (additional conditions) for developing from the branch scene to the next scene (normal scene, branch scene). The branch scene is a condition determination scene. As the additional condition item, one classification specified in the classification column of the additional condition item table can be selected at most for one branch scene).
Regarding claim 4, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the record data includes region data representing a region inputted by voice, the search unit searches for weather data representing weather in the region on the predetermined date, based on the region data, and the generator combines the record data, the weather data, and the image data together, and thus generates the document data (¶ [0011]; There are various regulations such as, temperature, weather, and how to end the scenario).
Regarding claim 5, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein based on region data representing a set region that is set in advance, the search unit searches for weather data representing weather in the set region on the predetermined date, and when the record data includes data representing a region inputted by voice, the search unit searches for weather data representing weather in the region on the predetermined date instead of the weather in the set region, and the generator combines the record data, the weather data, and the image data together, and thus generates the document data (¶ [0012]; For example, when creating a scenario in which a date is predetermined, a branch is made according to the date).
Regarding claim 6, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the search unit acquires the image data from the record data, using a learned model that is machine-learned to input the record data and output the image data (¶ [0031], driver information data (10-2-3-6) and learning item data and response data (10-2-3-7)).
Regarding claim 7, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the search unit searches a device connected to the information processing device via a network for the image data, based on the record data (¶ [0013], The created scenario is transmitted to the agent device via a network such as the Internet, or downloaded to the agent device.
Regarding claim 8, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a determination unit that determines a level of inflection of a voice that is a source of the record data, wherein the generator generates the document data in such a way that a content included in the generated document data varies according to the level (¶ [0121], four condition items of maximum “high”, “normal”, “low”, and “other” can be set, and a branch scene in which the additional condition item is defined).
Regarding claim 9, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a determination unit that determines an attribute of an inputter inputting a voice that is a source of the record data, wherein the generator generates the document data in such a way that a content included in the generated document data varies according to the attribute (̬ [0011], the branch condition specified in the branch scene is hereinafter referred to as an additional conditions as attributes).
Regarding claim 10, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, further comprising: a provision processing unit that provides the document data to another information processing device (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: an upload processing unit that uploads the document data to a system of a social networking service via a network (social networking service is well readily available - old and well known).
Regarding claim 12, Kubota in view of Brais discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a print processing unit that transmits an instruction to print the document data to an image forming device via a network (¶ [0109], as the printing device, for example, various printer devices such as an ink jet printer, a laser printer, a thermal transfer printer, and a dot printer are use ).
Regarding claims 13-14, see discussion of claim 1 above for the same reason of rejection since they share similar scope.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. 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 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 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2154