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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/18/2024 and 12/17/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 10-15, 20-25 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 relate to the statutory category of method/process and machine/apparatus. The independent claims 1, 11, and 21 recite “…stor(ing) an emotion analysis result of a subject into a storage unit in association with a category of a task in which the subject is engaged in a case where the subject becomes an analysis target of the emotion analysis result; and …display(ing), on a screen displaying a schedule of the subject, schedules by category of the task which is planned to be performed or has been previously performed, in association with the emotion analysis result related to a category of the task”.
The limitations of claims 1, 11, and 21 of “…stor(ing)…”, and “…display(ing)…” as drafted covers mental activity. More specifically, for claim 11, a human can keep a list of an emotional analysis of a worker when they are working on a particular task. The emotional analysis is then added to a calendar/ schedule for the worker when they are working on the particular task and the calendar/schedule is visible to others. The human can determine by looking at the worker’s calendar/schedule the mood of the worker depending on the task they will be performing or have already performed.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 11, and 21 recite the additional elements of “memory”, “processor”, “computer”, and “program” which are recited generally in the specification. For example, in paragraph [0038] of the as filed specification there is a description of using a general purpose computing system. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not imposes any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer as a general computer is noted. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2, 12, and 22 the claims relate to displaying the schedule where the emotional analysis is differentiated by colors. The claims relate to a mental activity of showing a worker’s emotions based on different colors. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 3, 13, and 23, the claims relate to scoring the emotion based on the degree of positiveness or negative and displaying the ranking scores. The claims relate to a mental activity of raking a worker’s emotions based on how positive or negative the emotions are. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 4, 14, and 24, the claims relate to displaying the worker’s future schedule wherein the task to be performed and the emotion are differentiated by colors. The claims relate to a mental activity of showing a worker’s schedule and emotions based on different colors. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 5, 15, and 25, the claims relate to performing the emotional analysis with data acquired and output at a computer. As recited above, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, the claims relate to acquiring data for the emotional analysis when the worker is performing the task. The claims relate to collecting the emotional data while the task is being performed. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 31-33, the claims relate to extracting a keyword from a conversation to determine the emotion of the worker and displaying the emotional classification of the worker by associating the keyword was spoken when the worker was performing the task. The claims relate to a mental activity of determining and displaying a worker’s emotions based on if they spoke a particular keyword while performing the task. No additional limitations are present.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10-12, 15, 20-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robb et al. (US 2022/0334691).
Regarding Claim 1, Robb et al discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (he memory 104 includes any quantity of media associated with or accessible by the computing device 102) (page 3, paragraph [0033]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (The processor 108 includes any quantity of processing units and is programmed to execute the computer-executable instructions 106) (page 2, paragraph [0032]) to:
store an emotion analysis result of a subject into a storage unit in association with a category of a task in which the subject is engaged in a case where the subject becomes an analysis target of the emotion analysis result (In some examples, the selected emotional state is stored in the data storage device 126 as data 128 and/or historical data 130. The data analysis component 210 of the virtual commute component 122 can analyze, via an analysis or algorithm, the emotional state data stored in the data storage device 126, data from the task triaging component 114, and/or data from the calendar component 116 to identify particular tasks and calendar entries that have a positive or negative correlation with the emotional state of the user) (page 7, paragraph [0060]); and
display, on a screen displaying a schedule of the subject, schedules by category of the task which is planned to be performed or has been previously performed (The virtual commute experience includes a review of the tasks and/or calendar entries from the completed workday, a preview of the tasks and/or calendar entries for the next upcoming workday, a reflection on the completed workday, and a meditation component) (page 9, paragraph [0086]), in association with the emotion analysis result related to a category of the task (The prompt can include at least one emotional state depiction, such as, but not limited to, a set of emotional state depictions 1301. In some examples, the emotional state depictions are emotion indicators that include a set of five emojis representing five predefined emotion states from which a user can choose) (page 11, paragraph [0100]).
Regarding Claim 2, Robb et al discloses the information processing apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to display the schedules by category of the task in such a way as to allow distinction by a color or a display element according to the emotion analysis result of the subject (For example, an emotional state depiction can be a red indicator for a negative emotional state, a green indicator for a positive emotional state and a yellow indicator for a neutral emotional state) (pages 11 and 12, paragraph [0101]).
Regarding Claim 5, Robb et al discloses the information processing apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform an emotion analysis of the subject by using data for emotion analysis of the subject acquired from a terminal of the subject and output the emotion analysis result (As described herein, the reflection component 118 manages reflections of the user such as by prompting the user to reflect on the workday by including a question associated with the emotional well-being of the user. The prompt can include at least one emotional state depiction, such as, but not limited to, a set of emotional state depictions 1301) (page 11, paragraph [0100]).
Regarding Claim 10, Robb et al discloses the information processing apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire data for emotion analysis of the subject and acquire task information related to the task in which the subject is engaged when the data for emotion analysis are acquired (As another example, the machine learning model 120 can analyze interactions of the user with different elements of the computing device 102 to identify that each time the user has a particular quantity of hours in the day in meetings scheduled on the calendar component 116, the reflection component 118 identifies the user's emotional state as stressed. ) (page 4, paragraph [0044]).
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected for the same reason as claim 2.
Claims 15 and 25 are rejected for the same reason as claim 5. .
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
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 3, 4, 13, 14, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. (US 2018/0108025).
Regarding Claim 3, Robb et al teaches the information processing apparatus, wherein the emotion analysis result includes, by category of the task, an emotion score indicating at least one of a degree of positiveness and a degree of negativeness of an emotion of the subject for a task (For example, the data analysis component 210 of the virtual commute component 122 can identify that the emotional state of the user tends to be more negative on days where a certain percentage of the day is spent in meetings or that the emotional state of the user tends to be more positive on days where a certain number of tasks are completed) (page 7, paragraph [0060]).
Robb et al fails to teach the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to display ta screen indicating a rank of the emotion score of the subject for the each task.
Agarwal et al teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to display ta screen indicating a rank of the emotion score of the subject for the each task (A sentiment score for the particular subject content of the posting, an overall sentiment score for the entity, and/or a sentiment ranking trend indicator can be displayed in information block 300) (page 3, paragraph [0032]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Robb with the teachings of Agarwal to show the worker’s emotional state during the whole work day based on what their emotional score was.
Regarding Claim 4, Robb et al teaches the information processing apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to display, on a screen for a schedule indicating a future plan, a schedule in such a way as to allow distinction by a color or a display element being related to a category of the task and indicating at least one of a degree of positiveness and a degree of negativeness of an emotion of the subject for a task (For example, the output generation component 215 can output a suggested new calendar entry for an upcoming workday, via the virtual commute experience component 220, that blocks out time for the user to focus in order to prevent the certain percentage of the upcoming workday being spent in meetings) (page 7, paragraph [0060]).
Claims 13 and 23 are rejected for the same reason as claim 3.
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected for the same reason as claim 4
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robb et al in view of Kato et al. (US 9,305,555).
Regarding Claim 31, Robb et al fails to teach the information processing apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: extract, by processing a conversation voice of the subject at the time when the subject becomes the analysis target of the emotion analysis result, a keyword which includes at least one of a word and a phrase included in the conversation voice; and display a screen including information in which a classification of an emotion of the subject for the task is associated with the keyword included in the conversation voice during engagement in the task.
Kato et al teaches the information processing apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
extract, by processing a conversation voice of the subject at the time when the subject becomes the analysis target of the emotion analysis result (the in-vehicle environmental state detector 30 decides on whether the display of the conversation contents is necessary or not depending on whether the emotional state of the passenger in the in-vehicle is cheerful or cheerless (step ST53)) (col. 13, lines 30-41), a keyword which includes at least one of a word and a phrase included in the conversation voice (The keyword extraction unit 13 extracts the keyword, if a conversation character string recognized by the voice recognition unit 2 contains a prescribed keyword such as “what?”, “display the conversation in subtitles”, “do not display the conversation in subtitles” or “the subtitles are obstructive” (col. 22, lines 5-9).; and
display a screen including information in which a classification of an emotion of the subject for the task is associated with the keyword included in the conversation voice during engagement in the task (If the voice recognition result contains a keyword such as “display the conversation in subtitles” which indicates an instruction to display, the presentation is made from the conversation just after the keyword.) (col. 22, lines 47-58).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Robb with the teachings of Kato display the worker’s emotional state based on the conversation which includes the keyword that identifies the worker’s emotional state.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected for the same reason as claim 31.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liden et al. (US 2018/0330013) discloses graph data store for intelligent scheduling and planning.
Liden et al. (US 2018/0330309) discloses graph data store for intelligent scheduling and planning.
Christopherson et al. (US 12,518,865) discloses emotionally intelligent personalized AI avatar-based health coaching using multi-domain data and adaptive behavioral intelligence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATWANT K SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Paras D Shah can be reached at (571}270-1650. 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.
/SATWANT K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Prosecution Insights