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 .
In the response to this Office Action, the Examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting this application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an estimation method determination unit, a degree-of-interest estimation unit, and a notification unit t . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Therefore, the afore-mentioned claim limitation(s) is/are interpreted as CPU (Fig. 5 of instant specification; the CPU 40 functions as a class situation identification unit 50, a student characteristic identification unit 51, an estimation method determination unit 52, a parameter value calculation unit 53, a degree-of-interest estimation unit 54, and a notification unit 55) during prosecution of the instant application.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 18 recites a “program for causing an information processing device to execute processing”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “program”, as variations of the term “program “are not necessarily considered to limit a media claim to non-transitory embodiments because many disclosures conflate storage media and signals, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. The instant specification does explicitly state that a “program” is non-transitory.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to “computer program”, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer program product that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § I01 by adding the limitation "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" to the claim. Cf. Animals -Patentability, 1 077 0ff. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication JP 2010-141843 A to Nakamura (hereinafter "Nakamura", included in IDS provided by Applicant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0225185 A1 to Liu (hereinafter "Liu").
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 16, Nakamura teaches an information processing device (Abstract; Figs. 2-3; Para. 45-55 of Nakamura; apparatus main body 110 is a computer device to which a general-purpose computer can be applied and includes a CPU 111… CPU 111 performs basic control as a computer of the conference terminal device 100 according to the conference control program stored in the storage unit 112. As a result, the control unit 116 includes display control means for controlling the display unit 150, stimulus control means for performing stimulus control on the own user, concentration level determining means for determining the concentration level of the own user), an information processing method, and a program for causing an information processing device to execute processing comprising: an estimation method determination unit that determines an estimation method for estimating a degree of interest of a viewer who views content on a basis of at least a situation of the content (Abstract; Figs. 2-3; Para. 45-57 of Nakamura; CPU 111 performs basic control as a computer of the conference terminal device 100 according to the conference control program stored in the storage unit 112. As a result, the control unit 116 includes display control means for controlling the display unit 150, stimulus control means for performing stimulus control on the own user, concentration level determining means for determining the concentration level of the own user… As shown in FIG. 6, the display unit 150 includes presentation material or the like… used in the conference input from the image data input unit or video data transmitted by the conference terminal device 100 as the communication partner); and a degree-of-interest estimation unit that estimates the degree of interest on a basis of the estimation method (Abstract; Figs. 2-8; Para. 45-78 of Nakamura; CPU 111 executes concentration degree determination processing for determining the degree of concentration of the user in the meeting… CPU 111 controls the communication IF 113 to transmit the concentration level information of the own user to the conference terminal device 100 of the communication partner, thereby notifying the concentration level of the own user. A notification process is executed).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a degree-of-interest estimation unit that estimates the degree of interest on a basis of a plurality of parameters including a parameter regarding a line-of-sight of the viewer.
However, Liu teaches estimating a degree of interest of a viewer on a basis of a plurality of parameters including a parameter regarding a line-of-sight of the viewer (Figs. 2-3; Para. 37-61 of Liu; user's actual face orientation and actual viewpoint position at this stage are used as the learning feature data at this stage, and a first judgment result is obtained by judging whether the actual face orientation is perpendicular to the playback interface of the online learning application; a second judgment result is obtained by judging whether the actual viewpoint position falls within the playback interface region of the online learning application).
Therefore, at the time when the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a degree-of-interest estimation unit that estimates the degree of interest on a basis of a plurality of parameters including a parameter regarding a line-of-sight of the viewer using the teachings of Liu in order to modify the device taught by Nakamura. The motivation to combine these analogous arts would have been to determine that an online learner does not concentrate on in the learning process, and provide a targeted relearning scheme (Para. 3-4 of Liu).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches that the estimation method determination unit determines the estimation method on a basis of the situation of the content and a characteristic of the viewer (Figs. 2-3; Para. 37-61 of Liu; user's actual face orientation and actual viewpoint position at this stage are used as the learning feature data at this stage, and a first judgment result is obtained by judging whether the actual face orientation is perpendicular to the playback interface of the online learning application; a second judgment result is obtained by judging whether the actual viewpoint position falls within the playback interface region of the online learning application).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches that the estimation method determination unit determines any one of the plurality of parameters on a basis of at least the situation of the content; and the degree-of-interest estimation unit estimates the degree of interest on a basis of the determined parameter (Figs. 2-3; Para. 37-61 of Liu; in the watching stage, the user usually only needs to directly watch the playback interface of the online learning application; therefore, some facial information (such as face orientation and eye viewpoints) of the user can be used as the learning feature data that characterizes user's learning concentration at this stage. The online answering stage refers to a stage at which the user is required to answer some given questions in various forms, so time information (such as delay of answering and time length consumed by answering each question) or accuracy information is used as the learning feature data that characterizes user's learning concentration at this stage… analyzing learning feature data corresponding to an interactive learning stage by using a preset analysis mode corresponding to each interactive learning stage, to obtain an actual learning concentration corresponding to the interactive learning stage. On the basis of step 201, this step 202 is intended to determine the actual learning concentration corresponding to the learning feature data acquired at each interactive learning stage).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches that the estimation method determination unit determines the estimation method when the situation of the content changes (Figs. 2-3; Para. 37-61 of Liu; analyzing learning feature data corresponding to an interactive learning stage by using a preset analysis mode corresponding to each interactive learning stage, to obtain an actual learning concentration corresponding to the interactive learning stage. On the basis of step 201, this step 202 is intended to determine the actual learning concentration corresponding to the learning feature data acquired at each interactive learning stage. Due to the difference between different interactive learning stages, the actual learning concentrations of different interactive learning stages are not determined based on a unified analysis mode in this step, but an analysis mode in accordance with the characteristics of each interactive learning stage is formulated in advance for each interactive learning stage according to different characteristics represented by the user at different interactive learning stages and related to the learning concentrations, so that the accurate actual learning concentration is determined through the matching analysis mode).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches that the estimation method determination unit determines the estimation method at predetermined intervals (Figs. 1-3; Para. 30-61 of Liu; learning feature data of the user at different interactive learning stages of the online learning may be obtained in real time from the online learning terminal 101, 102, or 103… Due to the difference between different interactive learning stages, the actual learning concentrations of different interactive learning stages are not determined based on a unified analysis mode in this step, but an analysis mode in accordance with the characteristics of each interactive learning stage is formulated in advance for each interactive learning stage according to different characteristics represented by the user at different interactive learning stages and related to the learning concentrations, so that the accurate actual learning concentration is determined through the matching analysis mode).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches a notification unit that makes a notification to a provider who provides the content on a basis of the degree of interest (Fig. 7; Para. 59 of Nakamura; CPU 111 displays an icon indicating the degree of concentration of other users in the sub display area).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches that the notification unit makes a notification for reconfirming the degree of interest to the viewer whose degree of interest is low (Fig. 9; Para. 79-81 of Nakamura; CPU 111 displays a screen that prompts the user to operate the stimulus control setting unit 118 that selects whether or not to perform wake-up control for urging the user when the user is in a sleep state during the meeting. 150, and the user is allowed to operate the stimulus control setting unit 118. Based on the operation of the stimulus control setting unit 118 by the own user, the CPU 111 determines whether or not to perform the awakening control of the own user).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches that the notification unit makes a notification of the degree of interest to the provider (Fig. 7; Para. 59 of Nakamura; CPU 111 displays an icon indicating the degree of concentration of other users in the sub display area).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches that the notification unit separately makes a notification of the viewer whose degree of interest is high and the viewer whose degree of interest is low Fig. 7; Para. 59 of Nakamura; CPU 111 displays an icon indicating the degree of concentration of other users in the sub display area).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches that the notification unit displays an icon corresponding to the degree of interest of the viewer (Fig. 7; Para. 59 of Nakamura; CPU 111 displays an icon indicating the degree of concentration of other users in the sub display area).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches that the notification unit displays an icon corresponding to the parameter of the viewer (Fig. 7; Para. 59 of Nakamura; CPU 111 displays an icon indicating the degree of concentration of other users in the sub display area).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Nakamura and Liu teaches that the notification unit makes a voice notification at a volume corresponding to the degree of interest (Fig. 12; Para. 109-111 of Nakamura; CPU 111 executes a wake-up control process for performing a wake-up control that prompts the user to wake up. That is, the CPU 111 controls the display unit 150 to control the speaker 122 of the headset 120 while blinking the display screen or displaying a screen (for example, blinking display) prompting awakening… speaker 122 increases the output of the speaker 122 or outputs a message prompting awakening, and the process proceeds to step S7 of the main process. Thereby, since the self-user who is a sleep state can be awakened and a self-user can be returned to a meeting).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
None of the references, either singularly or in combination, teach or fairly suggest the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein: the estimation method determination unit determines any one of the plurality of parameters and weighting of the determined parameter on a basis of at least the situation of the content; and the degree-of-interest estimation unit estimates the degree of interest on a basis of the determined parameter and the determined weighting.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK SARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9887. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABHISHEK SARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621