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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2016/0156771 A1) in view of Hodge (US Patent 10,089,305 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a call system (see Fig.1, paragraph [0041] and paragraph [0049], call/messaging system), comprising:
a terminal held by a user (see Fig.1 (101), Fig.8B, paragraph [0036] and paragraph [0095], mobile phone);
an external server configured to generate a candidate of a predicted word according to information transmitted from the terminal (see Fig.1 (106) and paragraphs [0127-0128], candidate words or phrases generated from the image data received from the electronic device),
wherein the terminal includes:
at least one memory storing instructions (see Fig.1 (130) and paragraph [0044]);
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do motion a determination process (see Fig.1 (120), Fig.2 (180) and paragraph [0056], capturing motion of a user with still images or video), wherein the motion determination process includes:
performing communication of outputting non-vocalization data, generated from the motion of the user detected by the detection, to the external server and receiving a candidate for a word predicted by the external server (see Fig.1 (106) and paragraphs [0127-0128], candidate words or phrases generated from the motion image data received from the electronic device),
and presenting the candidate word received from the external server to the user (see Fig.8B (812) and paragraph [0128], displaying the candidate text including the words or phrase),
and the external server includes:
at least one memory storing instructions (see Fig.10 (1030) and paragraph [0122]);
and at least on processor configured to execute instructions to do motion determination process (see Fig.10 (1020), paragraph [0124] and paragraph [0127], obtaining the image data to perform pattern recognition), wherein the motion determination process includes predicting the candidate words in accordance with the non-vocalization data received from the terminal (see Fig.1 (106), Fig.8B (812) and paragraphs [0127-0128], candidate words or phrases generated from the motion image data received from the electronic device and performing pattern recognition);
and wherein the terminal is configured to generate a voice to be output to the talk partner according to a word selected by the user among the candidate words (see Fig.1 (170), Fig.2 (230), Fig.8B (812,813), paragraph [0104] and paragraph [0128], voice output according to the user selection of words or phrases from the candidate text).
Lee fails to disclose wherein the server is configured to generate a voice to be output to the talk partner.
Hodge, however, teaches a server configured to perform translation of the received voice data and generate the translated voice data to be transmitted to a communication partner (see Fig.5 (514,516) and Col.5, Line 10-25).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure Lee’s server to generate a voice to be output to the talk partner. The motivation would be to utilize a server to generate the output voice data instead of the terminal device.
Regarding Claim 2, Hodge further teaches wherein the external server transmits the generated voice data to a device of the communication partner (see Fig.5 (514,516) and Col.5, Line 10-25).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee further teaches wherein the motion detection includes detecting a movement of the mouth of a user (see Fig.2 (210), paragraph [0061] and paragraph [0128], capturing movements of facial muscles including the changing shapes of the mouth and lips as the user speaks).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee wherein the server predicts a candidate word for a user (see Fig.1 (106), Fig.8B (812) and paragraphs [0127-0128]), but fails to teach wherein the server includes a user profile configured to store unique information for a user and the prediction includes changing a candidate word according to the unique information stored in the user profile.
Hodge, however, teaches a server configured to store user profile information (see Fig.1 (120) and Col.5, Line 1-4, server manages user profiles); and translating the voice data for output based on the stored user profile information (see Fig.1 (120), Fig.5 (514) and Col.5, Line 40-51).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure Lee’s server to store unique information for a user and change a candidate word according to the unique information stored in the user profile. The motivation would be to perform language translation on the candidate words or phrases based on the stored user information.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches an apparatus (see Fig.1 (101), Fig.2, paragraph [0036] and paragraph [0095], a handheld device or mobile phone), comprising:
at least one memory for storing instructions (see Fig.1 (130) and paragraph [0044]);
and at least on processor configured to execute instructions to do motion determination process (see Fig.10 (1020), paragraph [0124] and paragraph [0127], obtaining the image data to perform pattern recognition),
wherein the motion determination process includes:
detecting a motion of a user (see Fig.1 (120), Fig.2 (180) and paragraph [0056], capturing motion of a user with still images or video);
generating non-vocalization data from the motion detecting and a plurality of word candidates predicted according to the predicted according to the non-vocalization data (see Fig.2 (180,210), Fig.8B (812) and paragraphs [0127-0128], candidate words or phrases generated from the captured motion image data);
and generating a voice to be outputted to a talk partner in accordance with a word selected by the user among the plurality of word candidates (see Fig.1 (170), Fig.2 (230), Fig.8B (812,813), paragraph [0104] and paragraph [0128], voice output according to the user selection of words or phrases from the candidate text).
Lee fails to teach storing unique information for each user in a user profile and wherein the prediction includes changing a word to be predicted based on the unique information stored in the user profile.
Hodge, however, teaches translating voice data for output based on the stored user profile information (see Fig.1 (120), Fig.5 (514) and Col.5, Line 40-51), wherein the stored user profile information includes unique user information including user contacts information and language preference information (see Fig.1 (120), Col.5, Line 40-51 and Col.14, Line 33-45).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure Lee’s processor to store unique information for each user in a user profile and change a word to be predicted based on the unique information stored in the user profile. The motivation would be to perform language translation on the candidate words or phrases based on the stored user information.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches a method (see Fig.1 and paragraph [0041]), comprising:
detecting a motion of the user (see Fig.1 (120), Fig.2 (180,210) and paragraph [0056], capturing motion of a user with still images or video);
generating non-vocalization data from the detected motion of the user (see Fig.2 (180,210,220), paragraph [0056], [0059] and paragraph [0127], generating image data for pattern recognition);
generating a plurality of word candidates predicted according to the non-vocalization data (see Fig.2 (180,210), Fig.8B (812) and paragraphs [0127-0128], candidate words or phrases generated from the captured motion image data);
and generating a voice to be output to a talk partner according to a word selected by the user from among the plurality of word candidates (see Fig.1 (170), Fig.2 (230), Fig.8B (812,813), paragraph [0104] and paragraph [0128], voice output according to the user selection of words or phrases from the candidate text).
Lee fails to teach storing in advance unique information unique to each user, wherein the word candidates are generated according to the stored unique information of the user.
Hodge, however, teaches storing user profile information (see Fig.1 (120) and Col.5, Line 1-4, server manages user profiles); and translating voice data for output based on the stored user profile information (see Fig.1 (120), Fig.5 (514) and Col.5, Line 40-51).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Lee’s method the steps for storing in advance unique information unique to each user, and generating the word candidates according to the stored unique information of the user. The motivation would be to perform language translation on the candidate words or phrases based on the stored user information.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2016/0156771 A1) in view of Hodge (US Patent 10,089,305 B1), and in further of view Kim et al. (US Patent 11,971,920 B1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hodge teaches wherein the user profile includes information regarding the talk partner who is talking to the user (see Col.14, Line 33-45, user contacts information) but Lee and Hodge fail to teach wherein the user profile includes a habit of conversation of the user or a word frequently used by the user.
Kim, however, teaches determining target candidate words based on the stored user information including frequently used words by the user (see Fig.3 (1B) and Col.11, Line 1-35).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure Lee’s server to store user profile information including a habit of conversation of the user and a word frequently used by the user. The motivation would be to store unique user profile information for accurate word predictions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2016/0156771 A1) in view of Hodge (US Patent 10,089,305 B1), and in further of Zhang et al. (US Patent 12, 026,530 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches wherein the terminal is a wearable device worn by the user and includes a position detection functionality that detects position information of the terminal (see Fig.1 (101), paragraph [0036] and paragraph [0053], wearable device with GPS function), but fails to teach changing a word to be predicted based on the position information, information regarding time for which a call is made and a call content.
Hodge, however, teaches performing translation of a call content (see Fig.1 (120), Fig.5 (514) and Col.5, Line 40-51).
Zhang teaches determining whether to translate the natural language output provided to a user based on the user location data and time information (see Fig.1 (124,128) and Col.8, Line 29-58).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure Lee’s server to change a word to be predicted based on the position information, information regarding time for which a call is made and a call content. The motivation would be to translate the candidate words into a second language based on user profile information that includes location information and time information.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2016/0156771 A1) in view of Hodge (US Patent 10,089,305 B1), and in further of Joh et al. (US Pub. 2009/0299730 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches generating voice data according words selected by the user at the terminal (see Fig.1 (170), Fig.2 (230), Fig.8B (812,813), paragraph [0104] and paragraph [0128], voice output according to the user selection of words or phrases from the candidate text), but Lee and Hodge fail to teach wherein the terminal includes a sensor to detect a tilt of the terminal, and selecting one of the displayed candidate words is selected based on the tilt direction of the terminal acquired by the sensor.
Joh, however, teaches a terminal device configured with a sensor for selecting one of the displayed words based on the tilt direction of the terminal device (see Fig.13(a) and paragraph [0131]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure Lee’s terminal device with a sensor for selecting one of the displayed candidate words is selected based on the tilt direction of the terminal acquired by the sensor. The motivation would be to enable the user to select and candidate word for output based on the tile direction of the terminal device in a specific direction.
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “a call apparatus comprising a memory and at least one processor configured to execute instructions to do motion determination process that includes: detecting a motion of a user; storing unique information different for each user; generating non-vocalization data from the motion of the user; generating a plurality of word candidates predicted according the non-vocalization data; generating voice to be output to the talk partner in accordance with a word selected by the user among a plurality of word candidates; and changing a candidate of a word to be predicted according to the unique information stored.”
The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of the claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. For example, the limitation for “detecting a motion of a user” can be done by a person observing movements of another person. The limitation for “storing unique information different for each user” can be done by the person having a mental picture of different individuals each having a unique characteristic. The limitation for “generating non-vocalization data from the motion of the user” can be done by the person observing the motion or movement of another person and remembering the observation. The limitation for “generating a plurality of word candidates predicted according the non-vocalization data” can be done by the person thinking of a list of words to describe another person, or to say to another person, based on the previous observations. The limitation for “generating voice to be output to the talk partner in accordance with a word selected by the user among a plurality of word candidates” can be done by the person deciding on a word, from the mental list of words, to say to another that was observed earlier, and uttering that word to the that particular person. The limitation for “changing a candidate of a word to be predicted according to the unique information stored” can be done by deciding on a different word from the mental list of words to say to the second person.
Other than reciting a “processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the processing steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “a call method comprising: storing in advance unique information different for each user; detecting a motion of the user; generating non-vocalization data from the detected motion of the user; generating a plurality of word candidates predicted according to the non-vocalization data and the unique information different for each user stored in advance; and generating a voice to be output to a talk partner according to a word selected by the user from among the plurality of word candidates.”
The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of the claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. For example, the limitation for “storing in advance unique information different for each user” can be done by a person having a mental picture of different individuals each having a unique characteristic. The limitation for “detecting a motion of the user” can be done by the person observing the movements of another person. The limitation for “generating a plurality of word candidates predicted according to the non-vocalization data and the unique information different for each user stored in advance” can be done by the person thinking of a list of words to describe another person, or to say to another person, based on the previous observations. The limitation for “generating a voice to be output to a talk partner according to a word selected by the user from among the plurality of word candidates” can be done by the person deciding on a word, from the mental list of words, to say to another that was observed earlier, and uttering that word to the that particular person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU B HANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0582.
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, Hai Phan, can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/VU B HANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654