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 .
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims 1 and 18-19 are directed to the abstract idea of human organizing of activities. The present claims encompass a human performing each of the limitations recited in the independent and dependent claims of processing information. See the following mapping for human behavior:
a supplement processing unit (human brain) that adds supplement information to a document (revising a document on paper) displayed on an utterer terminal device (user) used by an utterer (user) and a listener terminal device (listener) used by a listener who performs conversation with the utterer (talking) in accordance with information regarding the conversation or the document (two people talking about a document).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device.
Dependent claims 2-17 further recite an abstract idea performable by a human and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they do not provide steps other than what is conventionally known in communication and displays.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2018-5011 (hereinafter JP’5011).
Claim 1,
JP’5011 teaches an information processing device comprising: a supplement processing unit that adds supplement information to a document displayed on an utterer terminal device used by an utterer and a listener terminal device used by a listener who performs conversation with the utterer in accordance with information regarding the conversation or the document ([0013] [0068] [0149-0151] server device having a configuration in which, in a document displayed on a terminal of a speaker and a document displayed on a terminal used by a listener talking with the speaker, a portion corresponding to words recognized from a vocal sound uttered by the speaker is highlighted).
Claim 3,
JP’5011 further teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the utterance content corresponds to a character string in the document, the supplement processing unit adds, to the document, utterance position supplement information indicating the character string in the document corresponding to the utterance content of the utterer ([0038-0043] the feature of analyzing emphasized parts spoken emphatically on the basis of volume, speed, etc. of a presenter voice and highlighting a material being displayed if there is an emphasized part, and the feature of recognizing the vocal sound as text and highlighting the applicable text string in the material being displayed).
Claim 4,
JP’5011 further teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the supplement processing unit adds, to the document, emphasis supplement information for emphasizing a character string in the document ([0038-0043] the feature of analyzing emphasized parts spoken emphatically on the basis of volume, speed, etc. of a presenter voice and highlighting a material being displayed if there is an emphasized part, and the feature of recognizing the vocal sound as text and highlighting the applicable text string in the material being displayed).
Claim 9,
JP’5011 further teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, comprising: an utterance content comparison unit that determines whether or not utterance content information of the utterer as information regarding the conversation corresponds to a character string in the document ([0013] indicates that a portion corresponding to words recognized from a vocal sound uttered by a speaker is highlighted; thus, it can be said that a determination is made as to whether utterance information of an utterer corresponds to a text string).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-5011 (hereinafter JP’5011) and further in view of JP2011-66794 (hereinafter JP’66794).
Claim 2,
JP’5011 teaches all the limitations in claim 1. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that JP’5011 does not explicitly teach wherein in a case where an utterance content of the utterer and a character string in the document do not correspond, the supplement processing unit adds, to the document, utterance content supplement information indicating the utterance content.
JP’66794 teaches wherein in a case where an utterance content of the utterer and a character string in the document do not correspond, the supplement processing unit adds, to the document, utterance content supplement information indicating the utterance content ([0029-0031] sharing, among participants, content written as a memo input; adding content written as a memo input to a document is a design matter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of JP’5011 with teachings of JP’66794 by modifying the server device as taught by JP’5011 to include wherein in a case where an utterance content of the utterer and a character string in the document do not correspond, the supplement processing unit adds, to the document, utterance content supplement information indicating the utterance content as taught by JP’66794 for the benefit of supporting the smoothing process of meetings (JP’5011).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-5011 (hereinafter JP’5011) and further in view of JP 2002-23716 (hereinafter JP’23716).
Claim 5,
JP’5011 teaches all the limitations in claim 4. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that JP’5011 does not explicitly teach wherein in a case where magnitude of voice of utterance of the utterer as the information regarding the conversation is equal to or more than a predetermined value, the emphasis supplement information is added to the document.
JP’23716 teaches wherein in a case where magnitude of voice of utterance of the utterer as the information regarding the conversation is equal to or more than a predetermined value, the emphasis supplement information is added to the document ([0038-0043] the feature of analyzing emphasized parts spoken emphatically on the basis of volume, speed, etc. of a presenter voice and highlighting a material being displayed if there is an emphasized part, and the feature of recognizing the vocal sound as text and highlighting the applicable text string in the material being displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of JP’5011 with teachings of JP’23716 by modifying the server device as taught by JP’5011 to include wherein in a case where magnitude of voice of utterance of the utterer as the information regarding the conversation is equal to or more than a predetermined value, the emphasis supplement information is added to the document as taught by JP’23716 for the benefit of supporting the smoothing process of meetings (JP’5011).
Claim 6,
JP’5011 in view of JP’23716 teach all the limitations in claim 4. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that JP’5011 does not explicitly teach wherein in a case where a speed of utterance of the utterer as the information regarding the conversation is equal to or less than a predetermined value, the emphasis supplement information is added to the document.
JP’23716 teaches wherein in a case where a speed of utterance of the utterer as the information regarding the conversation is equal to or less than a predetermined value, the emphasis supplement information is added to the document ([0038-0043] the feature of analyzing emphasized parts spoken emphatically on the basis of volume, speed, etc. of a presenter voice and highlighting a material being displayed if there is an emphasized part, and the feature of recognizing the vocal sound as text and highlighting the applicable text string in the material being displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of JP’5011 with teachings of JP’23716 by modifying the server device as taught by JP’5011 to include wherein in a case where a speed of utterance of the utterer as the information regarding the conversation is equal to or less than a predetermined value, the emphasis supplement information is added to the document as taught by JP’23716 for the benefit of supporting the smoothing process of meetings (JP’5011).
Claim 7,
JP’5011 teaches all the limitations in claim 4. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that JP’5011 does not explicitly teach wherein in a case where a predetermined keyword is included in an utterance content of the utterer as the information regarding the conversation, the emphasis information is added to the document.
JP’23716 teaches wherein in a case where a predetermined keyword is included in an utterance content of the utterer as the information regarding the conversation, the emphasis information is added to the document ([0045-0046] that when a text string recognized from a presenter vocal sound matches a keyword registered in a material keyword table, an image and vocal sound registered in a content column are displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of JP’5011 with teachings of JP’23716 by modifying the server device as taught by JP’5011 to include wherein in a case where a predetermined keyword is included in an utterance content of the utterer as the information regarding the conversation, the emphasis information is added to the document as taught by JP’23716 for the benefit of supporting the smoothing process of meetings (JP’5011).
Claim 8,
JP’5011 teach all the limitations in claim 4. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that JP’5011 does not explicitly teach wherein in a case where a reaction of the listener as information regarding the conversation is a predetermined reaction, the emphasis supplement information is added to the document.
JP’23716 teaches wherein in a case where a reaction of the listener as information regarding the conversation is a predetermined reaction, the emphasis supplement information is added to the document ([0020] [034-0036] analyzing a viewer response state and displaying a viewer reaction in a graph or in the form of numerical values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of JP’5011 with teachings of JP’23716 by modifying the server device as taught by JP’5011 to include wherein in a case where a reaction of the listener as information regarding the conversation is a predetermined reaction, the emphasis supplement information is added to the document as taught by JP’23716 for the benefit of supporting the smoothing process of meetings (JP’5011).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-5011 (hereinafter JP’5011) and further in view of JP 2007-87303 (hereinafter JP’87303).
Claim 10,
JP’5011 teaches all the limitations in claim 1. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that JP’5011 does not explicitly teach wherein the supplement processing unit adds, to the document, display range supplement information indicating a display range of the document on the listener terminal device in a display range of the document on the utterer terminal device.
JP’87303 teaches wherein the supplement processing unit adds, to the document, display range supplement information indicating a display range of the document on the listener terminal device in a display range of the document on the utterer terminal device ([0024] [0048-0049] illustrating, on a notification destination WWW browser 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of JP’5011 with teachings of JP’23716 by modifying the server device as taught by JP’5011 to include wherein the supplement processing unit adds, to the document, display range supplement information indicating a display range of the document on the listener terminal device in a display range of the document on the utterer terminal device as taught by JP’23716 for the benefit of supporting the smoothing process of meetings (JP’5011).
Claim 11,
JP’5011 teaches all the limitations in claim 1. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that JP’5011 does not explicitly teach a display range comparison unit that specifies the display range of the document on the listener terminal device within the display range of the document on the utterer terminal device by comparing utterer display range information indicating the display range of the document on the utterer terminal device with listener display range information indicating the display range of the document on the listener terminal device.
JP’87303 teaches a display range comparison unit that specifies the display range of the document on the listener terminal device within the display range of the document on the utterer terminal device by comparing utterer display range information indicating the display range of the document on the utterer terminal device with listener display range information indicating the display range of the document on the listener terminal device ([0024] [0048-0049] illustrating, on a notification destination WWW browser 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of JP’5011 with teachings of JP’87303 by modifying the server device as taught by JP’5011 to include a display range comparison unit that specifies the display range of the document on the listener terminal device within the display range of the document on the utterer terminal device by comparing utterer display range information indicating the display range of the document on the utterer terminal device with listener display range information indicating the display range of the document on the listener terminal device as taught by JP’23716 for the benefit of supporting the smoothing process of meetings (JP’5011).
Claim 12,
JP’5011 teaches all the limitations in claim 1. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that JP’5011 does not explicitly teach wherein the document to which the display range supplement information is added is displayed on the utterer terminal device.
JP’87303 teaches wherein the document to which the display range supplement information is added is displayed on the utterer terminal device ([0024] [0048-0049] illustrating, on a notification destination WWW browser 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of JP’5011 with teachings of JP’87303 by modifying the server device as taught by JP’5011 to include wherein the document to which the display range supplement information is added is displayed on the utterer terminal device as taught by JP’23716 for the benefit of supporting the smoothing process of meetings (JP’5011).
Claim 13,
JP’5011 teaches all the limitations in claim 1. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that JP’5011 does not explicitly teach wherein when the display range supplement information is changed, a display range of a document with the supplement information on the listener terminal device is changed in accordance with the change.
JP’87303 teaches wherein when the display range supplement information is changed, a display range of a document with the supplement information on the listener terminal device is changed in accordance with the change ([0024] [0048-0049] illustrating, on a notification destination WWW browser 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of JP’5011 with teachings of JP’87303 by modifying the server device as taught by JP’5011 to include wherein when the display range supplement information is changed, a display range of a document with the supplement information on the listener terminal device is changed in accordance with the change as taught by JP’23716 for the benefit of supporting the smoothing process of meetings (JP’5011).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 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 overcome the 101 Abstract Idea set forth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takimoto (WO 2023026544) – help easily identify which part of a document being shared is mentioned when people are talking with each other while referring to the document. This information processing device comprises a supplementary processing unit that adds supplementary information to a document, which is displayed on a speaker terminal device used by a speaker and a listener terminal device used by a listener talking with the speaker, according to information relating to the talk or document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYANS A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PST.
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, Perrie Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
SHREYANS A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2653
/SHREYANS A PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2659