DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on December 26, 2024. The application contains claims 1-9.
Claims 1-9 are pending
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 .
Priority
The present application is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2023/014570, International Filing Date: 04/10/2023, which claims foreign priority to 2022-106341, filed 06/30/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received in the present Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on February 11, 2026, and December 26, 2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The following limitations in claims 1-4 and 9 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“a keyword processor configured to analyze state data input by a user to generate a keyword”
“a database unit configured to perform a search using search keyword data included in the keyword and obtain state search-result data”
“a thesaurus processor configured to replace, with another word, at least part of expression keyword data included in the keyword”
“an expression adjuster configured to generate expression adjustment data using processed expression keyword data resulting from replacement performed by the thesaurus processor”
“a delivery controller configured to adjust an expression using the expression adjustment data and deliver, from an output unit, the state search-result data”
The language of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires that the recited "means" for performing the specified function shall be construed to cover the corresponding "structure or material" described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Therefore, by choosing to use a means-plus-function limitation and invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant limits that claim limitation to the disclosed structure, i.e., implementation by hardware or the combination of hardware and software, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a keyword processor configured to analyze state data input by a user to generate a keyword”, “a database unit configured to perform a search using search keyword data included in the keyword and obtain state search-result data”, “a thesaurus processor configured to replace, with another word, at least part of expression keyword data included in the keyword”, “an expression adjuster configured to generate expression adjustment data using processed expression keyword data resulting from replacement performed by the thesaurus processor”, and “a delivery controller configured to adjust an expression using the expression adjustment data and deliver, from an output unit, the state search-result data” recited in claims 1-4 and 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a delivery controller configured to adjust an expression using the expression adjustment data and deliver, from an output unit, the state search-result data" in lines 10-11. The claim does not say how an expression relates to the state search-result data. Without context, it is unclear whether and how adjusting an expression relates to the delivery of the state search-result data. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "adjusting, with the delivery controller, an expression using the expression adjustment data and delivering, from an output unit, the state search-result data" in lines 13-14. The claim does not say how an expression relates to the state search-result data. Without context, it is unclear whether and how adjusting an expression relates to the delivery of the state search-result data. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-4 and 9 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 1, respectively.
Dependent claims 6-8 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 5, respectively.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1-9 are directed to the statutory categories of a machine (claims 1-4), a process (claims 5-8), and a manufacture (claim 9). Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
The following analysis refers to representative claim 1, but the same analysis applies to independent claim 5 and dependent claim 9, which recite similar limitations.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1, 5, and 9 each recite abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“analyze/analyzing … state data input by a user to generate a keyword”, “perform/performing … a search using search keyword data included in the keyword and obtain state search-result data”, “replace/replacing, … with another word, at least part of expression keyword data included in the keyword”, “… generate/generating … expression adjustment data using processed expression keyword data …”, and “adjust/adjusting … an expression using the expression adjustment data and deliver, from an output unit, the state search-result data” all can be performed in the human mind with or without a pen and paper. Recited at a high level of generality, these limitations may be characterized as a mental process.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“a keyword processor”, “a database unit”, “a thesaurus processor”, “an expression adjuster”, and “a delivery controller” may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claims 1, 5, and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute mere instructions to apply on a computer.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea in independent claims 1 and 5 that are still mentally performable.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (US 20160342683 A1), in view of Wang et al. (US 20180357286 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
LIM teaches
an educational apparatus for delivering a search result from a database unit to a user (Abstract; Fig. 3; [0040]-0043]: generate a response based on target sentiment identification from user input), the apparatus comprising:
a keyword processor configured to analyze state data input by a user to generate a keyword (Fig. 3; [0041]: the process begins by receiving unstructured data input (at 302). [0014]-[0015]: unstructured data refers to natural language data, such as textual or spoken user input. Fig. 4; [0046]: the process identifies content features of the user input (at 404), including identifying a facet item within the identified content features (at 406). [0028]: the term “facet” is defined as referring to a general term or category (e.g. food, drink, event), and “facet item” is defined as referring to a specific instance of its facet (e.g. burger, margarita, concert) associated with particular conversational topics. A facet item such as “burger” or "beef" reads on “a keyword” and the unstructured data input corresponds to “state data” input by a user);
obtain state search-result data based on the state data (Fig. 4; [0047]: generate a response to the user input based on the facet item (at 412));
a thesaurus processor configured to replace, with another word, at least part of expression keyword data included in the keyword ([0051]; [0053]: identify a modifying phrase such as “too fatty” in the user input, extract the modifying phrase from the user input to use as a pivot to find related words, and use the identified turn-of-phrase to replace the modifying phrase in generating the response);
an expression adjuster configured to generate expression adjustment data using processed expression keyword data resulting from replacement performed by the thesaurus processor ([0051]; [0053]: if the user says, “I didn't like the chowder, it was too fatty”, the digital assistant may identify the facet item (the chowder) and the sentiment targeted at the facet item (negative). The digital assistant may identify “healthier” or “more lean” as opposites or antonyms of “fatty” and use them to address the negative sentiment targeted at the facet item of the chowder); and
a delivery controller configured to adjust an expression using the expression adjustment data and deliver, from an output unit, the state search-result data ([0053]: the digital assistant may incorporate this turn-of-phrase that addresses both the targeted sentiment and the modifying phrase into the generated response using a context free grammar, for example, such as “Next time I will suggest something a bit more lean.”).
LIM does not explicitly teach
a database unit configured to perform a search using search keyword data included in the keyword and obtain state search-result data;
Wang teaches
a database unit configured to perform a search using search keyword data included in the keyword and obtain state search-result data (Fig. 5A: receive user text/query 504. [0077]: provide the received user query 230 as input to the response determination module 316 and the response model 328 (Operation 508) and obtain a predetermined number of response(s) 336 (Operation 510). [0002]: the chatbot as disclosed has access to a database of answers or typically responses to the human user providing a query);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LIM to incorporate the teachings of Wang to perform a search using search keyword data included in the keyword and obtain state search-result data. Doing so would provide answers or typically responses to the human user providing a query as taught by Wang ([0002]).
Regarding claim 2,
As discussed in claim 1, LIM and Wang teach all the limitations therein.
Wang further teaches
the educational apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the database unit performs the search using index data input by the user separately from the state data and obtains index search-result data (Fig. 5A; [0077]: provide the received user query 230 as input to the response determination module 316 and the response model 328 (Operation 508) to obtain a predetermined number of response(s) 336 (Operation 510). [0078]: provide the user data 322 as input to the emotion determination module 318 and the emotion model 326 (Operation 512). wherein the received user query 230 corresponds to “index data input” that is separate from the user data 322), and
the delivery controller adjusts an expression using the expression adjustment data and delivers, from the output unit, the state search-result data and the index search-result data (Fig. 1; [0022]-[0023]: the emotional chatbot is configured to receive one or more queries and/or commands from the user 108, and to display a corresponding response that is intelligently and emotional relevant to the user query and/or command).
Regarding claim 3,
As discussed in claim 1, LIM and Wang teach all the limitations therein.
LIM further teaches
the educational apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the thesaurus processor replaces, with a same keyword, keywords used for different words corresponding to different emotions ([0051]; [0053]: healthier or more healthy is used to replace different words).
Regarding claim 4,
As discussed in claim 1, LIM and Wang teach all the limitations therein.
LIM further teaches
the educational apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
an analyzer configured to identify the user who has input the state data, wherein the delivery controller adjusts the expression for the user and delivers the state search-result data ([0055]: by adding to the user profile that the user does not like “creamy” things or “things made with whole milk,” in some example scenarios, the digital assistant may use such entries the next time she recommends something, by selecting items that the user profile has noted that the user likes; and by not selecting items that the user profile has noted that the user does not like).
Regarding claim 5,
LIM teaches
an educational method implementable with an educational apparatus for delivering a search result from a database unit to a user (Abstract; Fig. 3; [0040]-0043]: generate a response based on target sentiment identification from user input), the apparatus including a keyword processor, a thesaurus processor, an expression adjuster, a delivery controller, and a database unit ([0002] teaches “a database unit”. The remaining components are taught as respective functionalities are taught as discussed below), the method comprising:
analyzing, with the keyword processor, state data input by a user to generate a keyword (Fig. 3; [0041]: the process begins by receiving unstructured data input (at 302). [0014]-[0015]: unstructured data refers to natural language data, such as textual or spoken user input. Fig. 4; [0046]: the process identifies content features of the user input (at 404), including identifying a facet item within the identified content features (at 406). [0028]: the term “facet” is defined as referring to a general term or category (e.g. food, drink, event), and “facet item” is defined as referring to a specific instance of its facet (e.g. burger, margarita, concert) associated with particular conversational topics. A facet item such as “burger” or "beef" reads on “a keyword” and the unstructured data input corresponds to “state data” input by a user);
obtaining state search-result data based on the state data (Fig. 4; [0047]: generate a response to the user input based on the facet item (at 412));
replacing, with the thesaurus processor, at least part of expression keyword data included in the keyword with another word ([0051]; [0053]: identify a modifying phrase such as “too fatty” in the user input, extract the modifying phrase from the user input to use as a pivot to find related words, and use the identified turn-of-phrase to replace the modifying phrase in generating the response);
generating, with the expression adjuster, expression adjustment data using processed expression keyword data resulting from replacement performed in the replacing the at least part of expression keyword data ([0051]; [0053]: if the user says, “I didn't like the chowder, it was too fatty”, the digital assistant may identify the facet item (the chowder) and the sentiment targeted at the facet item (negative). The digital assistant may identify “healthier” or “more lean” as opposites or antonyms of “fatty” and use them to address the negative sentiment targeted at the facet item of the chowder); and
adjusting, with the delivery controller, an expression using the expression adjustment data and delivering, from an output unit, the state search-result data ([0053]: the digital assistant may incorporate this turn-of-phrase that addresses both the targeted sentiment and the modifying phrase into the generated response using a context free grammar, for example, such as “Next time I will suggest something a bit more lean.”).
LIM does not explicitly teach
performing, with the database unit, a search using search keyword data included in the keyword and obtaining state search-result data;
Wang teaches
performing, with the database unit, a search using search keyword data included in the keyword and obtaining state search-result data (Fig. 5A: receive user text/query 504. [0077]: provide the received user query 230 as input to the response determination module 316 and the response model 328 (Operation 508) and obtain a predetermined number of response(s) 336 (Operation 510). [0002]: the chatbot as disclosed has access to a database of answers or typically responses to the human user providing a query);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LIM to incorporate the teachings of Wang to perform a search using search keyword data included in the keyword and obtain state search-result data. Doing so would provide answers or typically responses to the human user providing a query as taught by Wang ([0002]).
Regarding claim 6,
As discussed in claim 5, LIM and Wang teach all the limitations therein.
Wang further teaches
the educational method according to claim 5, wherein the performing the search with the database unit includes performing the search using index data input by the user separately from the state data and obtaining index search-result data (Fig. 5A; [0077]: provide the received user query 230 as input to the response determination module 316 and the response model 328 (Operation 508) to obtain a predetermined number of response(s) 336 (Operation 510). [0078]: provide the user data 322 as input to the emotion determination module 318 and the emotion model 326 (Operation 512). wherein the received user query 230 corresponds to “index data input” that is separate from the user data 322), and
the adjusting the expression with the distribution controller includes adjusting an expression using the expression adjustment data and delivering, from the output unit, the state search-result data and the index search-result data (Fig. 1; [0022]-[0023]: the emotional chatbot is configured to receive one or more queries and/or commands from the user 108, and to display a corresponding response that is intelligently and emotional relevant to the user query and/or command).
Regarding claim 7,
As discussed in claim 5, LIM and Wang teach all the limitations therein.
LIM further teaches
the educational method according to claim 5, wherein the replacing with the thesaurus processor includes replacing, with a same keyword, keywords used for different words corresponding to different emotions ([0051]; [0053]: healthier or more healthy is used to replace different words).
Regarding claim 8,
As discussed in claim 5, LIM and Wang teach all the limitations therein.
LIM further teaches
the educational method according to claim 5, further comprising:
identifying, with an analyzer included in the educational apparatus, the user who has input the state data, wherein the adjusting the expression with the delivery controller includes adjusting the expression for the user and delivering the state search-result data ([0055]: by adding to the user profile that the user does not like “creamy” things or “things made with whole milk,” in some example scenarios, the digital assistant may use such entries the next time she recommends something, by selecting items that the user profile has noted that the user likes; and by not selecting items that the user profile has noted that the user does not like).
Regarding claim 9,
LIM and Wang teach the limitations recited below in the same manner as discussed in claim 1.
a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the educational apparatus according to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. 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.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
