DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 7096425 B1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0058007 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Takahashi discloses an information processing device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform (Column 11 line 52 – Column 12 line 7):
converting input voice data into text data (Column 6 lines 1-17, Column 6 lines 26-30, and Column 18 lines 19-21: voice input is converted to an alphanumeric string (e.g. text) using speech recognition);
extracting a word included in the text data from the text data (Column 10 lines 39-40 and Column 18 lines 59-63: word strings are extracted from the alphanumeric string);
sorting the text data into any of a plurality of types based on the word extracted from the text data (Column 4 line 66 – Column 5 line 11, Column 10 lines 40-42, Column 13 lines 37-46, Column 17 line 53 – Column 18 line 5, and Column 20 lines 3-7: an extracted word string is classified into a group (e.g. penal offense, kidnapping, etc.);
and storing and displaying information included in the text data in a form for each type in correspondence with a type of the text data (Column 10 lines 42-46, Column 20 lines 7-12, and Column 23 lines 41-43: information associated with the text data is entered and displayed in a form corresponding to the group that the extracted word was classified in).
While Takahashi teaches converting input voice data into text data, they fail to explicitly show the displaying a character string based on the text data on a display device, as recited in the claims. Kim teaches converting input voice data into text data similar to that of Takahashi. In addition, Kim further teaches
converting input voice data into text data and displaying a character string based on the text data on a display device (Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Paragraph 0050, Paragraph 0051, and Paragraph 0069: voice from user is received, voice data is converted to text data, a character string based on the converted text data is generated, and the character string is displayed on a screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Takahashi and Kim before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the converting input voice data into text data taught by Takahashi to include the converting input voice data into text data and displaying a character string based on the text data on a display device of Kim, in order to obtain displaying a character string based on the text data on a display device. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as enhancing accuracy of the text data, as suggested by Kim (Paragraphs 0007 and 0008). By providing display of a character string based on the text data the user can confirm whether the voice data was properly converted and allow the user to edit the text data to ensure accuracy of the text data.
In regard to claim 2, while Takahashi teaches the text data, they fail to show the receiving an operation for pointing out an error of the displayed information or an error of the text data, as recited in the claims. Kim teaches converting input voice data into text data similar to that of Takahashi. In addition, Kim further teaches
receiving an operation for pointing out an error of the text data (Fig. 6, Paragraph 0059, Paragraph 0072, and Paragraph 0073: user designates a portion of text data converted from input voice data as containing an error).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Takahashi and Kim before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takahashi to include the receiving an operation for pointing out an error of the text data of Kim, in order to obtain wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: receiving an operation for pointing out an error of the displayed information or an error of the text data. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as enhancing accuracy of the text data, as suggested by Kim (Paragraph 0007).
In regard to claim 3, Kim further teaches receiving an operation for correcting the text data (Paragraph 0074 and Paragraph 0079: user operation to correct the text data containing the error). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: receiving an operation for correcting the text data. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as enhancing accuracy of the text data, as suggested by Kim (Paragraph 0007).
In regard to claim 4, Kim further discloses receiving correction of the text data in which an error has been pointed out by text input (Paragraph 0079: text input to edit the text data containing the error). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: receiving correction of the text data in which an error has been pointed out by text input. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as enhancing accuracy of the text data, as suggested by Kim (Paragraph 0007).
In regard to claims 5 and 6, method claims 5 and 6 corresponds generally to device claims 1 and 2, respectively, and recite similar features in method form and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 7 and 8, medium claims 7 and 8 corresponds generally to device claims 1 and 2, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
4. The amendments to the Title overcome the objection to the specification. Accordingly, the objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
5. The arguments with respect to the claim rejections over 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and new grounds of rejections.
It is argued that “While Kim concerns converting audio data to text data, it does not teach or suggest the features missing from Takahashi. Accordingly, Takahashi does not anticipate claims and of the independent claims and Kim, alone or in combination with Takahashi, does not teach the deficiencies of Takahashi”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kim discloses converting input voice data into text data and displaying a character string based on the text data on a display device in at least Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Paragraph 0050, Paragraph 0051, and Paragraph 0069. Accordingly, Kim does suggest the alleged features missing from Takahashi and in combination with Takahashi teaches the subject matter of the claims for the detailed reasons now presented in the above rejections.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
8. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights