DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 statement (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-007633, filed on 01/22/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 in line 1 recites, “an information processing system comprising;”, which should end with colon (:), instead of semi colon.
Claim 13 in line 1 recites, “An information processing method performed by an information processing apparatus, the method comprising;”, which should end with colon (:), instead of semi colon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
The Independent claims 1 and 13 recite “receive input of task content information indicating content of a task”; ”determine whether the task is a task that can be supported by a tool based on the task content information”; “and output information, to a terminal device, associating the task that can be supported by a tool with candidate tools to be used to support the task”. The limitations above as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, as this could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
The limitation of " receive ... ", "determine ... ", "output ... ", as drafted covers mental activities. More specifically, a person can receive information about a job/task, can determine from the information provided to him, if a tool is available to support the job, can notify someone or write in a paper, about the available tool associating with the task to complete the task. The above steps, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims recite the additional limitation of “circuitry”, “terminal device” for performing the method, which are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The current specification in page 4, 3rd paragraph, specifies circuitry as “processing circuitry which includes general purpose processors, special purpose processors, integrated circuits, ASICs ("Application Specific Integrated Circuits"), FPGAs ("Field-Programmable Gate Arrays"), and/or combinations thereof”, which is generic and not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Terminal device is specified in specification, in page 5, 3rd and 4th paragraph as generic computer, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. All those are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. This is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication
that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Claims 1 and 13 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as this is directed to an abstract idea without
significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Independent claim 12 recites “receive input of task content information indicating content of a task”; ”determine whether the task is a task that can be supported by a tool based on the task content information”; “and output information, to a terminal device, associating the task that can be supported by a tool with candidate tools to be used to support the task”, “and the terminal device comprises circuitry configured to display the information associating the task that can be supported by a tool with the candidate tools to be used to support the task”. The limitations above as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, as this could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
The limitation of " receive ... ", "determine ... ", "output ... ",”display…” as drafted covers mental activities. More specifically, a person can receive information about a job/task, can determine from the information provided to him, if a tool is available to support the job, can notify someone or write in a paper about the available tool associating with the task to complete the task and display the information somewhere so that people can see it. The above steps, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims recite the additional limitation of “circuitry”, “terminal device” for performing the method, which are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The current specification in page 4, 3rd paragraph, specifies circuitry as “processing circuitry which includes general purpose processors, special purpose processors, integrated circuits, ASICs ("Application Specific Integrated Circuits"), FPGAs ("Field-Programmable Gate Arrays"), and/or combinations thereof”, which is generic and not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Terminal device is specified in specification, in page 5, 3rd and 4th paragraph as generic computer, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. All those are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. This is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication
that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Claim 12 is therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as this is directed to an abstract idea without
significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the candidate tools to be used to support the task are extracted from a memory, in which tool information related to tools supporting the task are stored, based on the task content information”, where determining that the information related to tool to support any task is stored, is an evaluation, observation and could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim recites additional limitation of “memory”, which is specified in specification, as performing generic computer functions, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 2 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the task content information is task visualization information that visualizes the task and includes processes included in the task, at least one of the candidate tools used to support the task is existing software that automates at least one of the processes, and the circuitry is further configured to control to display a screen on the terminal device that associates the at least one of the processes with the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the at least one of the processes, which is extracted from the memory based on the at least one of the processes”, where determining that the information related to task is in visualization form such as table or spreadsheet which elaborates the information such as processes, tools, name of the software which automates the process, and displaying the information, is an evaluation, observation and could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim recites additional limitations of “ circuitry”, “terminal device”, “screen”, “memory”, which are specified in specification, as performing generic computer functions, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 3 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the screen includes an operation component for setting a display order of the processes to be displayed on the screen; and the processes are associated with the candidate tools in an order according to an operation of the operation component and are displayed on the screen”, where a person can set up an order on how to display the information, which could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim recites additional limitation of “screen”, which is specified in specification as performing generic computer functions, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 4 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the task visualization information includes at least one of information in which a load is aggregated for each of the processes, information in which a load is aggregated for each person in charge of the processes, or information in which a cost is aggregated for each of the processes; the screen includes an operation component for selecting a type of the task visualization information; and depending on the selected type of the task visualization information, at least one of the load for each of the processes, the load for each person in charge of the processes, or the cost for each of the processes is displayed on the screen”, where the task information in spreadsheet form could include information about load/work distribution of each person, cost for each process and a person can choose how to display the information, could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim recites additional limitation of “screen”, which is specified in specification as performing generic computer functions, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 5 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the tool information is information in which a name of the at least one candidate tool that automates the at least one of the processes is associated with a keyword; and the circuitry is further configured to: search the memory for a name of the at least one of the processes; determine the at least one of the processes from which the keyword is extracted as a search result as a task process to be automated; extract a tool associated with the keyword as a result of the search in the tool information as the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the at least one of the processes; and control to display on the terminal device a name of the task process to be automated and the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the at least one of the processes in association with each other”, where the task information can have a name of the tool which can be used for automation and associated with keyword, search for the keyword to find the tool and display it, could be performed with the aid of pen and paper. The claim recites additional limitations of “memory”, “circuitry”, “terminal device” , which are specified in specification as performing generic computer functions, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 6 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the task content information is text data indicating a process of the task, at least one of the candidate tools used to support the task is existing software that automates the process of the task, and the circuitry is further configured to control to display on the terminal device a screen in which the text data is associated with a name of the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the process of the task indicated by the text data”, where the task information can be text data describing process, tools, software name which could be used for automation and displaying all the information, could be performed with the aid of pen and paper. The claim recites additional limitations of “circuitry”, “terminal device” ,“screen”, which is specified in specification as performing generic computer functions, which are specified in specification as performing generic computer functions, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 7 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the circuitry is further configured to: extract words by analyzing the text data; search a memory that stores tool information related to tools that support the task for each extracted word; and extract tools associated with keywords as search results as candidates for tools that automate the process of the task indicated by the text data”, where searching text data for exact words/keywords and finding tools associated with those words which can be used for automation, could be performed with the aid of pen and paper. The claim recites additional limitations of “circuitry”, “memory” , which are specified in specification as performing generic computer functions, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 8 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the circuitry is further configured to extract a tool having the most keywords in a word-by-word search as the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the process of the task indicated by the text data”, where searching text data for exact words/keywords and finding tools associated with those words which can be used for automation, could be performed with the aid of pen and paper. The claim recites additional limitation of “circuitry”, which is specified in specification as performing generic computer functions, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 9 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the task content information includes content of a plurality of tasks, and the circuitry is further configured to output, to the terminal device, information associating a candidate tool to be used to support a respective task for each of the plurality of tasks”, where the task information includes the details of multiple tasks and associating tools with the respective task, is an evaluation, observation and could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim recites additional limitations of “circuitry”, “the terminal device” , which are specified in specification as performing generic computer functions, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 10 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “the circuitry is further configured to, in a case that the task is not determined as the task that can be supported by a tool, not output candidates for tools to be used to support the task to the terminal device”, when a task is not determined and no tool will be selected and displayed, is an evaluation, observation and could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim recites additional limitations of “circuitry”,” terminal device” which are specified in specification, as performing generic computer functions, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 11 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 11, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tashiro et al. ( US 20190340231 A1), hereinafter referenced as Tashiro.
Regarding Claim 1, Tashiro teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to ( Tashiro: Para.[0031], Fig.1 illustrates an information processing system 1 includes an information processing apparatus 2. Para.[0042],[0158], controller 20 may be partially or entirely configured by hardware circuits such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)):
receive input of task content information indicating content of a task ( Tashiro: Para.[0054], Fig. 2, The specifying unit 203 specifies input target information, which is to be input, from a sample of a document. The input target information includes field information that indicates a field and information that indicates contents input in the field (hereinafter, also referred to as "input content information"));
determine whether the task is a task that can be supported by a tool based on the task content information ( Tashiro: Para.[0060], [0079]-[0082], Fig. 3B illustrates a workplace information table 222 which shows an association information that associates the transfer conditions ( completion condition of the tasks) with tools, which is used to determine the tools necessary to complete the task);
and output information, to a terminal device, associating the task that can be supported by a tool with candidate tools to be used to support the task ( Tashiro: Para.[0078], [0118], Figs. 2, 8B, display controller 209 controls the display unit 33 of the terminal apparatus 3 to display ( output) candidate list of tools necessary for performing the task, on the task addition screen 76).
Regarding Claim 2, Tashiro teach the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Tashiro further teaches, wherein the candidate tools to be used to support the task are extracted from a memory, in which tool information related to tools supporting the task are stored, based on the task content information ( Tashiro: Para.[0044],[0060],[0079], Figs.2, 3B, The storage unit 22 is configured with a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a hard disk, or the like and stores a workplace information table 222, which shows an association information that associates the transfer conditions ( completion condition of the tasks) with tools).
Regarding Claim 11, Tashiro teach the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Tashiro further teaches, the circuitry is further configured to, in a case that the task is not determined as the task that can be supported by a tool, not output candidates for tools to be used to support the task to the terminal device ( Tashiro: Para.[0115], Fig.8A, when the document doesn’t satisfy the transfer condition, the display controller 209 may display the transfer symbol 72 with a broken line or the like, in a display mode indicating that the consistency of the task is not satisfied or the document does not satisfy the transfer condition. Para. [0060],[0079], Figs.2, 3B, The storage unit 22 stores a workplace information table 222, which shows an association information that associates the transfer conditions ( completion condition of the tasks) with tools).
Regarding Claim 12, Tashiro teaches an information processing system comprising: an information processing apparatus; and a terminal device, wherein the information processing apparatus comprises circuitry configured to ( Tashiro: Para.[0031],[0032], Fig.1 illustrates an information processing system 1 includes an information processing apparatus 2, terminal devices 3A, 3B, 3C, collectively referred to, as a "terminal apparatus 3." Para.[0042],[0158], controller 20 may be partially or entirely configured by hardware circuits such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)):
receive input of task content information indicating content of a task ( Tashiro: Para.[0054], Fig. 2, The specifying unit 203 specifies input target information, which is to be input, from a sample of a document. The input target information includes field information that indicates a field and information that indicates contents input in the field (hereinafter, also referred to as "input content information"));
determine whether the task is a task that can be supported by a tool based on the task content information ( Tashiro: Para.[0060], [0079]-[0082], Fig. 3B illustrates a workplace information table 222 which shows an association information that associates the transfer conditions ( completion condition of the tasks) with tools, which is used to determine the tools necessary to complete the task);
and output information, to a terminal device, associating the task that can be supported by a tool with candidate tools to be used to support the task ( Tashiro: Para.[0078], Fig. 2, display controller 209 outputs the candidate list of tools necessary for performing the task, to the terminal apparatus 3),
and the terminal device comprises circuitry configured to display the information associating the task that can be supported by a tool with the candidate tools to be used to support the task ( Tashiro: Para.[0078], [0118], Figs. 2, 8B, display controller 209 controls the display unit 33 of the terminal apparatus 3 to display ( output) candidate list of tools necessary for performing the task, on the task addition screen 76).
Claim 13 is a method claim performing the steps in apparatus claim 1 above and as such, claim 13 is similar in scope and content to claim 1 and therefore, claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale as presented against claim 1 above.
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 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 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. ( US 20190340231 A1), hereinafter referenced as Tashiro, in view of Tanoue et al. ( US 20190266565 A1), hereinafter referenced as Tanoue, further in view of Adachi et al. (US 20220335087 A1), hereinafter referenced as Adachi.
Regarding Claim 3, Tashiro teach the information processing apparatus of claim 2. Tashiro fails to explicitly teach the claimed, wherein the task content information is task visualization information that visualizes the task and includes processes included in the task, at least one of the candidate tools used to support the task is existing software that automates at least one of the processes, and the circuitry is further configured to control to display a screen on the terminal device that associates the at least one of the processes with the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the at least one of the processes, which is extracted from the memory based on the at least one of the processes.
However, Tanoue does teach the claimed, wherein the task content information is task visualization information that visualizes the task and includes processes included in the task ( Tanoue: Para.[0037], [0042], Figs.4, 6(a)-6(c) illustrate a process list/view, where process sequences P, Q, and R are used for manufacturing the product A. Process sequences P, Q, and R include the processes P1 to P3, processes Q1 and Q2, and processes R1 and R2, respectively),
at least one of the candidate tools used to support the task [is existing software] that automates at least one of the processes ( Tanoue: Para.[0057], Figs. 1, 7(a)-7(c), 8, the association part 5 associated processes with resources, such as process P1 is supported by Tool X2 ( illustrated in Fig. 8)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Tanoue’s teaching of process design support apparatus and method for supporting designing a BOP (Bills Of Process) that represents manufacturing processes of products, into the system and method of an information processing apparatus, taught by Tashiro, because, by automatically generating a work sequence by incorporating CAD ( computer-aided design) information, different processes associated with each other, and rearranging the process kinds by referring to a template representing a process sequence relationship, would help to bring new products to market more quickly and reduce costs. (Tanoue, [ Para.[0003], [0004]).
Tashiro in view of Tanoue while teaching the apparatus of claim 3, fail to explicitly teach the claimed, at least one of the candidate tools used to support the task is existing software that automates at least one of the processes, and the circuitry is further configured to control to display a screen on the terminal device that associates the at least one of the processes with the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the at least one of the processes, which is extracted from the memory based on the at least one of the processes.
However, Adachi does teach the claimed, at least one of the candidate tools used to support the task is existing software that automates at least one of the processes( Adachi: Para.[0067],[0068], Fig. 9, server 10 stores a database, which indicates, for each of the types of data, one or more software by which one or more processes is to be performed, such as Software A is set for an invoice type of data. Software frequently used by a user can be set in association with the types of data),
and the circuitry is further configured to control to display a screen on the terminal device that associates the at least one of the processes with the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the at least one of the processes, which is extracted from the memory based on the at least one of the processes ( Adachi: Para.[0080],[0088],[0089], Fig.14 illustrates a screen displayed on the operation device 11, which shows text data 61, software A, C and D ( candidate tools), from which the user can select the software to process the data automatically. Para.[0056]-[0058], Fig. 4, The association unit 51 associates the identified type of data and the extracted information as tags with the data number and the user ID. The storage unit 55 stores the data number and the user ID in association with each other. Extraction unit 53 extracts specific information. Para.[0129], processing circuitry which includes general purpose processors, special purpose processors, integrated circuits, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), conventional circuitry and/or combinations thereof which are configured or programmed to perform the disclosed functionality).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Adachi’s teaching of data processing apparatus, system and method, into the system and method of an information processing apparatus, taught by Tashiro in view of Tanoue, because, by processing data of multiple types such as audio, image , text, management of data can be improved. (Adachi [ Para.[0005], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4, Tashiro in view of Tanoue, further in view of Adachi teach the information processing apparatus of claim 3. Tashiro further teaches, wherein the screen includes an operation component for setting a display order of the processes to be displayed on the screen ( Tashiro: Para.[0090], Fig.4B, when the receiving unit 200 receives an operation on the workplace addition button 531 ( operation component), the display controller 209 sets the name of the workplace on the home screen 5 and creates a workplace based on the set information);
Tanoue further teaches, and the processes are associated with the candidate tools in an order according to an operation of the operation component and are displayed on the screen ( Tanoue: Para.[0057], Fig. 8, the display part 6 displays the process list, and the resource list in respective trees, as a production view, a process view, and a resource view and connects items, such as processes with the respective tools, which have been associated with each other by the association part 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Tanoue’s teaching of process design support apparatus and method for supporting designing a BOP (Bills Of Process) that represents manufacturing processes of products, into the system and method of an information processing apparatus, taught by Tashiro in view of Adachi, because, by automatically generating a work sequence by incorporating CAD ( computer-aided design) information, different processes associated with each other, and rearranging the process kinds by referring to a template representing a process sequence relationship, would help to bring new products to market more quickly and reduce costs. (Tanoue, [ Para.[0003], [0004]).
Regarding Claim 6, Tashiro in view of Tanoue, further in view of Adachi teach the information processing apparatus of claim 3. Adachi further teaches, wherein the tool information is information in which a name of the at least one candidate tool that automates the at least one of the processes is associated with a keyword ( Adachi: Para.[0065], [0067], Figs.4, 7, 9, extraction unit 53 extracts keywords from the content of the “invoice” , as shown in Fig. 7. The server 10 stores a database as illustrated in FIG. 9, which indicates, for each of the types of data, one or more software by which one or more processes is to be performed, such as Software A is set for an invoice type of data);
and the circuitry is further configured to: search the memory for a name of the at least one of the processes ( Adachi : Para.[0084], [0085], Fig. 13 illustrates a search screen displayed on the device, where user can select either "Search by word" or "Search by classification" options to perform search. The types of data might include "invoice", "contract", and "internal document" ( different processes));
determine the at least one of the processes from which the keyword is extracted as a search result as a task process to be automated ( Adachi: Para.[0065], [0067], Figs.4, 7, 9, based on the keywords extracted by extraction unit 53 from the content of the “invoice” , as shown in Fig. 7, invoice process is selected);
extract a tool associated with the keyword as a result of the search in the tool information as the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the at least one of the processes ( Adachi: Para.[0060], Fig. 4, the control unit 56 receives a user's instruction from the operation device 11 such as an input of search information, selection of data from the data list, selection of particular processed data from the list of processed data, selection of particular software from the list of software);
and control to display on the terminal device a name of the task process to be automated and the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the at least one of the processes in association with each other ( Adachi: Para.[0080],[0088],[0089], Fig.14 illustrates a screen displayed on the operation device 11, which shows the task 61, software A, C and D ( candidate tools), from which the user can select the software to process the data automatically. Para.[0056]-[0058], Fig. 4, The association unit 51 associates the identified type of data and the extracted information as tags with the data number and the user ID. The storage unit 55 stores the data number and the user ID in association with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Adachi’s teaching of data processing apparatus, system and method, into the system and method of an information processing apparatus, taught by Tashiro in view of Tanoue, because, by processing data of multiple types such as audio, image , text, management of data can be improved. (Adachi [ Para.[0005], [0034]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. ( US 20190340231 A1), hereinafter referenced as Tashiro, in view of Tanoue et al. ( US 20190266565 A1), hereinafter referenced as Tanoue, further in view of Adachi et al. (US 20220335087 A1), hereinafter referenced as Adachi, further in view of Haramati et al. (US 20210150489 A1), hereinafter referenced as Haramati.
Regarding Claim 5, Tashiro in view of Tanoue, further in view of Adachi teach the information processing apparatus of claim 3. Tashiro in view of Tanoue, further in view of Adachi fail to explicitly teach the claimed, wherein the task visualization information includes at least one of information in which a load is aggregated for each of the processes, information in which a load is aggregated for each person in charge of the processes, or information in which a cost is aggregated for each of the processes; the screen includes an operation component for selecting a type of the task visualization information; and depending on the selected type of the task visualization information, at least one of the load for each of the processes, the load for each person in charge of the processes, or the cost for each of the processes is displayed on the screen.
However, Haramati does teach the claimed, wherein the task visualization information includes at least one of information in which a load is aggregated for each of the processes, information in which a load is aggregated for each person in charge of the processes, [or information in which a cost is aggregated for each of the processes] ( Haramati: Para.[0030]-[0032],[1002],Fig. 113 illustrates a process management resource utilization view of the workload per period of time for each resource. This may be achieved by defining a resource unit capacity for each resource, assigning resources to items, assigning resource units to each item, aggregating the resource utilization per period, and displaying the utilization of each resource as a visual indicator of the current workload);
the screen includes an operation component for selecting a type of the task visualization information ( Haramati: Para.[0999],[1002],Figs. 112D,113, user can select an operation component , 15410, to select resource utilization view);
and depending on the selected type of the task visualization information, at least one of the load for each of the processes, the load for each person in charge of the processes, [or the cost for each of the processes] is displayed on the screen ( Haramati: Para.[1002], [1005], Figs. 113-115A, the process management resource utilization view is displayed on the screen for different person and different processes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Haramati’s teaching of systems, methods, and computer-readable media for enabling and optimizing workflows in collaborative work systems, into the system and method of an information processing apparatus, taught by Tashiro in view of Tanoue, further in view of Adachi, because, by integrating different project management tools, the resources can be organized, planned, and managed efficiently, in order to optimize the time and resources spent related to a process. (Haramati, [ Para.[0003], [0004]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. ( US 20190340231 A1), hereinafter referenced as Tashiro, in view of Adachi et al. (US 20220335087 A1), hereinafter referenced as Adachi.
Regarding Claim 7, Tashiro teach the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Tashiro fails to explicitly teach the claimed, wherein the task content information is text data indicating a process of the task, at least one of the candidate tools used to support the task is existing software that automates the process of the task, and the circuitry is further configured to control to display on the terminal device a screen in which the text data is associated with a name of the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the process of the task indicated by the text data.
However, Adachi does teach the claimed, wherein the task content information is text data indicating a process of the task ( Adachi: Para.[0043], [0053], [0056], Fig. 4, identification unit 52 in server 10 of a data processing system identifies a type of data of the acquired data as text data which can be a contract, inquiry, technical documentation),
at least one of the candidate tools used to support the task is existing software that automates the process of the task ( Adachi: Para.[0067],[0068], Fig. 9, server 10 stores a database, which indicates, for each of the types of data, one or more software by which one or more processes is to be performed, such as Software A is set for an invoice type of data. Software frequently used by a user can be set in association with the types of data) ,
and the circuitry is further configured to control to display on the terminal device a screen in which the text data is associated with a name of the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the process of the task indicated by the text data ( Adachi: Para.[0080],[0088],[0089], Fig.14 illustrates a screen displayed on the operation device 11, which shows text data 61, software A, C and D ( candidate tools), from which the user can select the software to process the data automatically. Para.[0129], processing circuitry which includes general purpose processors, special purpose processors, integrated circuits, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), conventional circuitry and/or combinations thereof which are configured or programmed to perform the disclosed functionality).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Adachi’s teaching of data processing apparatus, system and method, into the system and method of an information processing apparatus, taught by Tashiro, because, by processing data of multiple types such as audio, image , text, management of data can be improved. (Adachi [ Para.[0005], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 8, Tashiro in view of Adachi teach the information processing apparatus of claim 7. Adachi further teaches, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: extract words by analyzing the text data ( Adachi: Para.[0046], [0056], Fig. 4, The extraction unit 53 extracts specific information in the text data based on extraction content associated with the type of data. In a case that the type of data is an "inquiry", a phrase or a sentence including a designated term such as "want ... ", "wish ... ", or "request ... " is extracted from the analyzed content) ;
search a memory that stores tool information related to tools that support the task for each extracted word ( Adachi: Para.[0057],[0058], Fig. 4, The association unit 51 associates the identified type of data and the extracted information as tags with the data number and the user ID. The storage unit 55 stores the data number and the user ID in association with each other. The storage unit 55 further stores the extraction content, the software to be executed, which are set for the type of data. The storage unit 55 further stores data tagged with the type of data or extracted content. Para.[0084], [0085], Fig. 13 illustrates a search screen displayed on the device, where user can select either "Search by word" or "Search by classification" options to perform search);
and extract tools associated with keywords as search results as candidates for tools that automate the process of the task indicated by the text data ( Adachi: Para.[0060], Fig. 4, the control unit 56 receives a user's instruction from the operation device 11 such as an input of search information, selection of data from the data list, selection of particular processed data from the list of processed data, selection of particular software from the list of software).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Adachi’s teaching of data processing apparatus, system and method, into the system and method of an information processing apparatus, taught by Tashiro, because, by processing data of multiple types such as audio, image , text, management of data can be improved. (Adachi [ Para.[0005], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 9, Tashiro in view of Adachi teach the information processing apparatus of claim 8. Adachi further teaches, wherein the circuitry is further configured to extract a tool having the most keywords in a word-by-word search as the at least one of the candidate tools that automates the process of the task indicated by the text data ( Adachi: Para.[0065], [0067], Figs.4, 7, 9, extraction unit 53 extracts keywords from the content of the “invoice” , as shown in Fig. 7. Execution unit 54 executes one or more processes by one or more software according to the type of data. The server 10 stores a database as illustrated in FIG. 9, which indicates, for each of the types of data, one or more software by which one or more processes is to be performed, such as Software A is set for an invoice type of data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Adachi’s teaching of data processing apparatus, system and method, into the system and method of an information processing apparatus, taught by Tashiro, because, by processing data of multiple types such as audio, image , text, management of data can be improved. (Adachi [ Para.[0005], [0034]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. ( US 20190340231 A1), hereinafter referenced as Tashiro, in view of Tanoue et al. ( US 20190266565 A1), hereinafter referenced as Tanoue.
Regarding Claim 10, Tashiro teach the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Tashiro fails to explicitly teach the claimed, wherein the task content information includes content of a plurality of tasks, and the circuitry is further configured to output, to the terminal device, information associating a candidate tool to be used to support a respective task for each of the plurality of tasks.
However, Tanoue does teach the claimed, wherein the task content information includes content of a plurality of tasks, and the circuitry is further configured to output, to the terminal device, information associating a candidate tool to be used to support a respective task for each of the plurality of tasks ( Tanoue: Para.[0037], [0042], Figs.4, 6(a)-6(c) illustrate a process list/view, where process sequences P, Q, and R are used for manufacturing the product A. Process sequences P, Q, and R include the processes P1 to P3, processes Q1 and Q2, and processes R1 and R2, respectively. Para.[0057], Fig. 8, the display part 6 displays the process list, and the resource list in respective trees, as a production view, a process view, and a resource view and connects items, such as processes with the respective tools, which have been associated with each other by the association part 5. For examples, process P1 is associated with Tool X2, process R2 is associated with Tool Z2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Tanoue’s teaching of process design support apparatus and method for supporting designing a BOP (Bills Of Process) that represents manufacturing processes of products, into the system and method of an information processing apparatus, taught by Tashiro, because, by automatically generating a work sequence by incorporating CAD ( computer-aided design) information, different processes associated with each other, and rearranging the process kinds by referring to a template representing a process sequence relationship, would help to bring new products to market more quickly and reduce costs. (Tanoue, [ Para.[0003], [0004]).
Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuki et al. (US 20140081956 A1) teaches a content processing apparatus includes: a content input unit that acquires target content that is content to be processed; a content analysis unit that extracts at least one object included in the target content and feature information indicating a feature of the object, and specifies context information based on analytical information and the extracted feature information, the context information indicating contexts of the objects and including attribute information for supplementing the features of the objects, and the analytical information being information for specifying the contexts of the objects; an output control unit that calculates processing priority of each of the objects based on the context information; and a candidate process extracting unit that extracts a candidate process that is executable on the target content based on the context information and the processing priority.
Kishimoto et al. (US 20210182477 A1) teaches an information processing apparatus which includes a display control section that performs control for displaying a candidate for an element to be added or a corrected element based on an element constituting a document and information related to a purpose of use of the document to be created.
Urawaki et al. (EP 2701044 B1) teaches information processing devices with multiple window functions, such as portable appliances and personal computers, comprise one or a plurality of display screens. In the use of such information processing devices, a user sometimes manipulates setting a plurality of windows displayed on one or a plurality of screens in a favorable display layout. However, user's preferences for a window layout vary depending on the situations. For this reason, there is a problem where a user needs to manipulate changing a window layout each time according to the situation of the moment, making the manipulation complex. A technique, therefore, has been proposed for supporting manipulation of setting a layout for displaying windows for information processing devices with display screens.
Tazuke et al. (US 20230056860 A1 ) teaches an information processing apparatus includes circuitry. The circuitry displays one or more screens that receive an operation by a user. The circuitry identifies an operation item corresponding to the operation based on display information of the one or more screens, according to the operation on the one or more screens. The circuitry generates an operation component associated with a condition corresponding to the operation item. The circuitry generates a flow of operations based on the operation component according to an order of operations including the operation by the user, the flow of operations being a flow to be processed by a computer that executes an application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADIRA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)272-4048. The examiner can normally be reached M-F,7:30 am-5:00pm.
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 on (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.
/NADIRA SULTANA/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Prosecution Insights