Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/714,127

INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 29, 2024
Examiner
ULRICH, NICHOLAS S
Art Unit
2179
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
425 granted / 614 resolved
+14.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
645
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 614 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement 3. The IDS filed 5/29/2024 is considered. Specification 4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 5. Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (US 7096425 B1). 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). In regard to claim 5, method claim 5 corresponds generally to device claim 1 and recites similar features in method form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. In regard to claim 7, medium claim 7 corresponds generally to device claim 1 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. 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. 6. Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 6, and 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 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 claim 6, method claim 6 corresponds generally to device claim 2 and recites similar features in method form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. In regard to claim 8, medium claim 8 corresponds generally to device claim 2 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. Conclusion 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Massie et al. (US 2021/0314441 A1), see at least Fig. 9 and the abstract. Malhotra et al. (US 2020/0020319 A1), see at least Fig. 3A and the abstract. Reddy (US 2019/0068784 A1), see at least Fig. 3 and the abstract. Formhals et al. (US 2016/0203817 A1), see at least the abstract. Murgai (US 2014/0169547 A1), see at least the abstract. 8. 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. 9. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602239
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RESOLVING AN ERROR CONDITION OF A MEDICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12578844
DATA PROCESSING METHOD FOR INTERACTION MODE SWITCHING, ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572264
GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE/MACHINE LEARNING (AI/ML) COGNITIVE SIGNALS ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572255
NOTIFICATION MESSAGE DISPLAY METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE, READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, AND CHIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12561509
Page Layout Method and Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+7.6%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 614 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month