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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered and attached by the examiner.
Specification
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: “a setting processor that sets”, “an acquisition processor that acquires”, “a conversion processor that converts”, “a generation processor that generates”, and “a display processor that causes”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 the limitations of “a setting processor that sets agendas for conversations; an acquisition processor that acquires voices uttered by users; a conversion processor that converts the voices acquired by the acquisition processor into text information; a generation processor that generates, based on the text information to be converted by the conversion processor, summary sentences summarizing utterance contents of the users for each of the agendas set by the setting processor; a display processor that causes the text information to be converted by the conversion processor and the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas and generated by the generation processor to be displayed side by side on a display screen, and one or more processors.”, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. More specifically, the mental process of a human thinking of an agenda, hearing speech, transcribing and writing the speech on paper using a pen or pencil, think of summaries for transcribed text, and writing the summaries on the side of the transcribed text. 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 Processes-- grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 12 and 15 the limitations of “setting agendas for conversations; acquiring voices uttered by users; converting the voices into text information, generating summary sentences summarizing utterance contents of the users for each of the agendas based on the text information; and causing the text information and the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas to be displayed side by side on a display screen.”, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. More specifically, the mental process of a human thinking of an agenda, hearing speech, transcribing and writing the speech on paper using a pen or pencil, think of summaries for transcribed text, and writing the summaries on the side of the transcribed text. 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 Processes-- grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of a system and processor claim 1 and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in claims 16, reads to generalized computer components, based upon the claim interpretation wherein the structure is interpreted using P0047-P0049 in the specification. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose 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 generalized computer components to think of an agenda, hear speech, transcribe and write the speech on paper using a pen or pencil, think of summaries for transcribed text, and write the summaries on the side of the transcribed text 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the display processor causes the text information for conversations currently in progress to be displayed in a first region of the display screen and causes the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas selected by the users to be displayed in a second region of the display screen”, which reads on a human writing transcription and summary in different regions on paper. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the display processor causes the plurality of agendas set by the setting processor to be selectively displayed on the display screen and causes the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas selected by the users from among the plurality of agendas to be displayed on the display screen.”, which reads on a human writing summaries of the transcription based on agenda on paper. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites “wherein the display processor causes the text information corresponding to sources of the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas selected by the users from among the text information to be converted by the conversion processor to be preferentially displayed”, which reads on a human writing summaries of the transcription based on agenda on paper. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 5, the claim recites “wherein the display processor causes, from among the text information to be converted by the conversion processor, the text information corresponding to sources of the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas selected by the users and the text information corresponding to sources of the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas not selected by the users to be displayed in different display modes”, which reads on a human writing summaries of the transcription based on specific agenda on paper. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the display processor causes, from among the text information displayed on the display screen, the summary sentences generated based on the text information selected by the users to be displayed on the display screen”, which reads on a human writing summaries of the transcription based on agenda on paper. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the display processor causes the agendas for conversations currently in progress and the agendas selected by the users to be identifiably displayed on the display screen”, which reads on a human writing summaries of the recent transcription different from previous transcription based on agenda on paper. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 8, the claim recites “wherein the display processor displays time information corresponding to utterance time of the voices to be displayed in association with the text information”, which reads on a human writing transcription with time information. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 9, the claim recites “wherein the generation processor generates the summary sentences per predetermined time or for every predetermined number of characters of the text information, and the display processor causes the summary sentences to be displayed per predetermined time or for every predetermined number of characters”, which reads on a human thinking of a summary for transcription every minute. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the setting processor receives, on a setting screen different from the display screen, at least one of an operation of adding a new agenda, an operation of designating the agenda and starting conversations, and an operation of changing the agenda for conversations currently in progress”, which reads on a human thinking and writing new agenda on paper. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 11, the claim recites “wherein the display processor causes the agenda for conversations currently in progress to be identifiably displayed on the setting screen”, which reads on a human writing recent discussion agenda on top of paper. No additional limitations are present.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 12, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. PG Pub No. 20250238456 in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 20250200852). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the issued patent anticipate the claims of the instant application. Please see below for mapping in the table, where the bold limitations indicate the corresponding limitations between the issued patent and the instant application. With respect to the dependent claims, each of the claims map to a corresponding dependent claim of the issued patent or are found within the scope of the independent claim.
Instant Application: 19019072
Pending Application: US 20250238456
An information processing method executed by one or more processors, the information processing method comprising:
setting agendas for conversations;
acquiring voices uttered by users;
converting the voices into text information,
generating summary sentences summarizing utterance contents of the users for each of the agendas based on the text information; and
causing the text information and the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas to be displayed side by side on a display screen.
An information processing method executed by one or a plurality of processors, the information processing method comprising:
acquiring voices uttered by users;
converting the voices into text information; and
generating summary sentences summarizing utterance contents of the users based on the text information; and
causing the text information and the summary sentences to be displayed side by side on a display screen.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 20250200852), hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1 Suzuki teaches:
An information processing system comprising: (P0002, The present disclosure relates to a communication system, an information processing apparatus, a terminal device, and an information processing method.)
a setting processor that sets agendas for conversations; (P0149, The participant can input any content in the whiteboard work area. In other words, the participant can use the whiteboard work area like an electronic whiteboard.; P0188, The agenda and the topic are displayed in the whiteboard work area 102 as illustrated in FIG. 1.)
an acquisition processor that acquires voices uttered by users; (P0075, The terminal device is an information processing device operated by the participant. The terminal device transmits voice data spoken by the participant to the information processing apparatus.)
a conversion processor that converts the voices acquired by the acquisition processor into text information; (P0148, The voice recognition result display field displays in real time the language information converted from the voice data acquired by the voice input unit of the terminal device.)
a generation processor that generates, based on the text information to be converted by the conversion processor, summary sentences summarizing utterance contents of the users for each of the agendas set by the setting processor; (P0123, the arrangement of the analysis information is determined in association with “agenda and summary”.; P0156, When the summary is selected, the generative AI system generates a summary of the language information in the designated range of the conversation accumulation area. The summary is information in which the main points of the language information are summarized briefly.)
a display processor that causes the text information to be converted by the conversion processor and the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas and generated by the generation processor to be displayed side by side on a display screen, and one or more processors. (P0123, In the arrangement information storage unit, when the analysis content is “agenda and topic,” an arrangement in which the agenda is set as a parent hierarchy and the topic is set as a child hierarchy and the topics are arranged in parallel is registered in advance. Similarly, the arrangement of the analysis information is determined in association with “agenda and summary”, “topic and summary”, and “agenda, topic, and summary”, which are combinations of the analysis content.; Fig. 18, Conversation accumulation area and Analysis information area.; P0189, FIG. 18 is a diagram illustrating an arrangement of the analysis information displayed by the terminal device. In FIG. 18, the message boxes including the agenda and the topics to illustrated in FIG. 1 are displayed. The message boxes including another agenda and topics to are displayed. A combination of agenda and topic (e.g., agenda and topics) is generated from language information in a range specified by the time interval, the number of characters, or the automatic determination.; P0156, In the analysis content selection field, the participant can select the analysis content and the range of the language information of the conversation accumulation area to be analyzed. There are five analysis content: a summary, a topic, an agenda, divergence, convergence, and a keyword. These five analysis content is the type of analysis information. The participant can select one or more of the five types at the same time. When the summary is selected, the generative AI system generates a summary of the language information in the designated range of the conversation accumulation area.)
Regarding claim 12 and 15 Suzuki teaches:
(Claim 12) An information processing method executed by one or more processors, the information processing method comprising: (P0002, Information processing method.; P0387, The functionality of the elements disclosed herein may be implemented using circuitry or processing circuitry which includes general purpose processors.)
(Claim 15) A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which an information processing program is recorded, the information processing program causing one or more processors to execute: (P0388, There is a memory that stores a computer program which includes computer instructions. These computer instructions provide the logic and routines that enable the hardware (e.g., processing circuitry or circuitry) to perform the method disclosed herein.)
setting agendas for conversations; (P0149, The participant can input any content in the whiteboard work area. In other words, the participant can use the whiteboard work area like an electronic whiteboard.; P0188, The agenda and the topic are displayed in the whiteboard work area 102 as illustrated in FIG. 1.)
acquiring voices uttered by users; (P0075, The terminal device is an information processing device operated by the participant. The terminal device transmits voice data spoken by the participant to the information processing apparatus.)
converting the voices into text information, (P0148, The voice recognition result display field displays in real time the language information converted from the voice data acquired by the voice input unit of the terminal device.)
generating summary sentences summarizing utterance contents of the users for each of the agendas based on the text information; and (P0123, the arrangement of the analysis information is determined in association with “agenda and summary”.; P0156, When the summary is selected, the generative AI system generates a summary of the language information in the designated range of the conversation accumulation area. The summary is information in which the main points of the language information are summarized briefly.)
causing the text information and the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas to be displayed side by side on a display screen. (P0123, In the arrangement information storage unit, when the analysis content is “agenda and topic,” an arrangement in which the agenda is set as a parent hierarchy and the topic is set as a child hierarchy and the topics are arranged in parallel is registered in advance. Similarly, the arrangement of the analysis information is determined in association with “agenda and summary”, “topic and summary”, and “agenda, topic, and summary”, which are combinations of the analysis content.; Fig. 18, Conversation accumulation area and Analysis information area.; P0189, FIG. 18 is a diagram illustrating an arrangement of the analysis information displayed by the terminal device. In FIG. 18, the message boxes including the agenda and the topics to illustrated in FIG. 1 are displayed. The message boxes including another agenda and topics to are displayed. A combination of agenda and topic (e.g., agenda and topics) is generated from language information in a range specified by the time interval, the number of characters, or the automatic determination.; P0156, In the analysis content selection field, the participant can select the analysis content and the range of the language information of the conversation accumulation area to be analyzed. There are five analysis content: a summary, a topic, an agenda, divergence, convergence, and a keyword. These five analysis content is the type of analysis information. The participant can select one or more of the five types at the same time. When the summary is selected, the generative AI system generates a summary of the language information in the designated range of the conversation accumulation area.)
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 16 Suzuki teaches claim 1, 12, and 15.
Suzuki further teaches:
wherein the display processor causes the text information for conversations currently in progress to be displayed in a first region of the display screen and causes the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas selected by the users to be displayed in a second region of the display screen. (Fig. 18, Conversation accumulation area 101, Analysis area 308.; P0156, When the summary is selected, the generative AI system generates a summary of the language information in the designated range of the conversation accumulation area. The summary is information in which the main points of the language information are summarized briefly.; P0190, The same type of analysis information generated from the language information in the designated range may be grouped. For example, the second display control unit displays a dotted line frame surrounding the same type of analysis information as the analysis information mouse-overed by a mouse pointer and prompt the participant to grasp the analysis information of the same group.)
Regarding claims 3, 14, and 17 Suzuki teaches claim 1, 12, and 15.
Suzuki further teaches:
wherein the display processor causes the plurality of agendas set by the setting processor to be selectively displayed on the display screen and (P0156, In the analysis content selection field, the participant can select the analysis content and the range of the language information of the conversation accumulation area to be analyzed. There are five analysis content: a summary, a topic, an agenda, divergence, convergence, and a keyword.)
causes the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas selected by the users from among the plurality of agendas to be displayed on the display screen. (P0193, As the conference progresses, the analysis information (and other content) is increasingly arranged in the whiteboard work area.; Fig. 18, Analysis information area.; P0274, The participant can scroll the AI analysis area.)
Regarding claim 4 Suzuki teaches claim 3.
Suzuki further teaches:
wherein the display processor causes the text information corresponding to sources of the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas selected by the users from among the text information to be converted by the conversion processor to be preferentially displayed. (P0156, In the analysis content selection field, the participant can select the analysis content and the range of the language information of the conversation accumulation area to be analyzed. There are five analysis content: a summary, a topic, an agenda, divergence, convergence, and a keyword.; P0193, As the conference progresses, the analysis information (and other content) is increasingly arranged in the whiteboard work area.; Fig. 18, Analysis information area.; P0274, The participant can scroll the AI analysis area.; P0140, When the state ID is s001, language information of t001 to t002 is displayed in the conversation accumulation area, and the content indicated by the state of the whiteboard work area with the state ID of s001 is displayed in the whiteboard work area in the state where language information of t001 to t002 is displayed.)
Regarding claim 5 Suzuki teaches claim 3.
Suzuki further teaches:
wherein the display processor causes, from among the text information to be converted by the conversion processor, the text information corresponding to sources of the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas selected by the users and the text information corresponding to sources of the summary sentences corresponding to the agendas not selected by the users to be displayed in different display modes. (P0156, In the analysis content selection field, the participant can select the analysis content and the range of the language information of the conversation accumulation area to be analyzed. There are five analysis content: a summary, a topic, an agenda, divergence, convergence, and a keyword.; P0193, As the conference progresses, the analysis information (and other content) is increasingly arranged in the whiteboard work area.; Fig. 18, Analysis information area.; P0274, The participant can scroll the AI analysis area.)
Regarding claim 6 Suzuki teaches claim 3.
Suzuki further teaches:
wherein the display processor causes, from among the text information displayed on the display screen, the summary sentences generated based on the text information selected by the users to be displayed on the display screen. (P0156, In the analysis content selection field, the participant can select the analysis content and the range of the language information of the conversation accumulation area to be analyzed. There are five analysis content: a summary, a topic, an agenda, divergence, convergence, and a keyword.; P0193, As the conference progresses, the analysis information (and other content) is increasingly arranged in the whiteboard work area.; Fig. 18, Analysis information area.)
Regarding claim 7 Suzuki teaches claim 3.
Suzuki further teaches:
wherein the display processor causes the agendas for conversations currently in progress and the agendas selected by the users to be identifiably displayed on the display screen. (P0156, In the analysis content selection field, the participant can select the analysis content and the range of the language information of the conversation accumulation area to be analyzed. There are five analysis content: a summary, a topic, an agenda, divergence, convergence, and a keyword.; P0193, As the conference progresses, the analysis information (and other content) is increasingly arranged in the whiteboard work area.; Fig. 18, Analysis information area.; P0190, The second display control unit displays a dotted line frame surrounding the same type of analysis information as the analysis information mouse-overed by a mouse pointer and prompt the participant to grasp the analysis information of the same group.)
Regarding claim 8 Suzuki teaches claim 1.
Suzuki further teaches:
wherein the display processor displays time information corresponding to utterance time of the voices to be displayed in association with the text information. (Fig. 18, Conversation accumulation area conversation timestamp.)
Regarding claim 9 Suzuki teaches claim 1.
Suzuki further teaches:
wherein the generation processor generates the summary sentences per predetermined time or for every predetermined number of characters of the text information, and (P0156, In the analysis content selection field, the participant can select the analysis content and the range of the language information of the conversation accumulation area to be analyzed. … The participant can select one or more of the five types at the same time. When the summary is selected, the generative AI system generates a summary of the language information in the designated range of the conversation accumulation area. The summary is information in which the main points of the language information are summarized briefly.; P0158, A description is given below of the range of the language information of the conversation accumulation area to be analyzed. The analysis content selection field includes options of a time interval, the number of characters, and automatic determination as the generation timing of the analysis information. The time interval is, for example, a setting in which the generative AI system analyzes the language information for N minutes set in a time setting field by the participant. The number of characters is, for example, a setting for the generative AI system to analyze the language information of the number set in the number of characters setting field by the participant.)
Regarding claim 10 Suzuki teaches claim 1.
Suzuki further teaches:
wherein the setting processor receives, on a setting screen different from the display screen, at least one of an operation of adding a new agenda, an operation of designating the agenda and starting conversations, and an operation of changing the agenda for conversations currently in progress. (P0149, The participant can input any content in the whiteboard work area. In other words, the participant can use the whiteboard work area like an electronic whiteboard.; P0188, The agenda and the topic are displayed in the whiteboard work area 102 as illustrated in FIG. 1.)
Regarding claim 11 Suzuki teaches claim 10.
Suzuki further teaches:
wherein the display processor causes the agenda for conversations currently in progress to be identifiably displayed on the setting screen. (P0148, The voice recognition result display field displays in real time the language information converted from the voice data acquired by the voice input unit of the terminal device.; P0193, As the conference progresses, the analysis information (and other content) is increasingly arranged in the whiteboard work area.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL WONSUK CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7am-4pm)[PT].
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, PIERRE-LOUIS DESIR can be reached at (571)272-7799. 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.
/DANIEL W CHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights