DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on January 16, 2025.
Claims 1-8 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-8 have been examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 16, 2025. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, reads “the speech”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the acquired speech”. Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 6, line 9, reads “the speech”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the acquired speech”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: the various “units” throughout the claims.
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. Specifically, each “unit” is considered to be a processor of the conference support device which is, for example, one of a personal computer, a server, a smartphone, and a tablet terminal (specification [0069]).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
A conversation support device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire speech;
a display unit configured to display text based on the acquired speech; and
a control unit configured to cause the display unit to display the text based on the speech,
wherein the control unit recognizes a piece of text selected by a user out of a plurality of pieces of the text displayed on the display unit as designated text, and
wherein the control unit causes the display unit to display speech associated with the designated text in correlation with the designated text when the speech associated with the designated text is input in a state in which the designated text has been recognized.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“an acquisition unit configured to acquire speech” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to another person,
“a display unit configured to display text based on the acquired speech” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing down the words,
“a control unit configured to cause the display unit to display the text based on the speech” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing down the words,
“wherein the control unit recognizes a piece of text selected by a user out of a plurality of pieces of the text displayed on the display unit as designated text” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing the other person point to some phrase,
“wherein the control unit causes the display unit to display speech associated with the designated text in correlation with the designated text when the speech associated with the designated text is input in a state in which the designated text has been recognized” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing down the other person’s comment regarding the phrase, near the phrase.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
conversation support device
acquisition unit
display unit
control unit.
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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising a text conversion unit configured to convert the speech to text when the speech is a voice signal,
wherein the acquisition unit acquires a voice signal when the speech is a voice signal and acquires text when the speech is text, and
wherein the control unit assigns identification information to the converted text or the acquired text and causes the display unit to display the speech associated with the designated text in correlation with the designated text on the basis of the identification information of the text designated by a user out of the plurality of pieces of text displayed on the display unit.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“further comprising a text conversion unit configured to convert the speech to text when the speech is a voice signal” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening and writing down the words,
“wherein the acquisition unit acquires a voice signal when the speech is a voice signal and acquires text when the speech is text” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening when it is a voice and reading when it is written,
“wherein the control unit assigns identification information to the converted text or the acquired text and causes the display unit to display the speech associated with the designated text in correlation with the designated text on the basis of the identification information of the text designated by a user out of the plurality of pieces of text displayed on the display unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing down the other person’s comment regarding the phrase, near the phrase.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
text conversion unit
acquisition unit
control unit
display unit.
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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the control unit displays the speech associated with the designated text in an area in which the designated text is displayed.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the control unit displays the speech associated with the designated text in an area in which the designated text is displayed” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a new sheet of paper to write the comment for the phrase.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a control unit.
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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the control unit causes the display unit to thread-display a relationship between the speech associated with the designated text and the designated text when a thread display instruction is given.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the control unit causes the display unit to thread-display a relationship between the speech associated with the designated text and the designated text when a thread display instruction is given” in the context of this claim encompasses a person write on paper a thread in thread format.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a control unit
a display unit.
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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
conversation support device according to claim1,
wherein the designated text is full or partial text of the speech.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the designated text is full or partial text of the speech” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the other person selects all or part of the words written.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a conversation support device.
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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
A conversation support system comprising:
a terminal; and
a conference support device,
wherein the terminal includes
an acquisition unit configured to acquire speech,
a display unit configured to display text based on the acquired speech, and
a processing unit configured
to transmit information on the acquired speech to the conference support device,
to acquire the text based on the speech,
to cause the display unit to display the text acquired from the conference support device,
to recognize a piece of text selected out of a plurality of pieces of the displayed text as designated text,
to transmit information indicating the designated text and speech associated with the designated text to the conference support device when the speech associated with the designated text is input in a state in which the designated text has been recognized, and
to cause the display unit to display comment display information in which the information indicating the designated text and the speech associated with the designated text are correlated and which is acquired from the conference support device,
and wherein the conference support device includes a conversion unit configured to convert a voice signal to text when the speech acquired from the terminal is the voice signal,
a comment generating unit configured to acquire information indicating the designated text and speech associated with the designated text and to generate the comment display information in which the speech associated with the designated text is correlated with the designated text, and
a processing unit configured to transmit the generated comment display information to the terminal.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“acquire speech” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to another person,
“display text based on the acquired speech” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing down the words,
“transmit information on the acquired speech to the conference support device” in the context of this claim encompasses a person entering the words into a computer,
“acquire the text based on the speech” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to another person and writing down the words,
“cause the display unit to display the text acquired from the conference support device” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing down the words on paper,
“recognize a piece of text selected out of a plurality of pieces of the displayed text as designated text” in the context of this claim encompasses a person seeing the other person select some of the words,
“transmit information indicating the designated text and speech associated with the designated text to the conference support device when the speech associated with the designated text is input in a state in which the designated text has been recognized” in the context of this claim encompasses a person entering the selection into a computer,
“cause the display unit to display comment display information in which the information indicating the designated text and the speech associated with the designated text are correlated and which is acquired from the conference support device” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing down the selected text with the comment,
“the conference support device includes a conversion unit configured to convert a voice signal to text when the speech acquired from the terminal is the voice signal” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing down the words,
“a comment generating unit configured to acquire information indicating the designated text and speech associated with the designated text and to generate the comment display information in which the speech associated with the designated text is correlated with the designated text” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to the other person suggest a comment,
“a processing unit configured to transmit the generated comment display information to the terminal” in the context of this claim encompasses a person entering the comment into the computer.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a conversation support system
terminal
conference support device
acquisition unit
display unit
processing unit
conversion unit
comment generating unit
control unit.
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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maurer et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20240176960 A1), hereinafter Maurer.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Maurer teaches a conversation support device, a conversation support method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Maurer in [0162] teaches using an audio/video component which can process audio and/or video data between attendees of the teleconferencing meeting)
[claim 8 only] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to perform (Maurer in [0025] teaches using non-transitory computer-readable media with program modules, and in [0024] teaches using computers with CPUs to execute algorithms and processes):
comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire speech (Maurer in [0162] teaches using an audio/video component which can process audio and/or video data between attendees of the teleconferencing meeting);
[claim 8 only] generating text based on the acquired speech to be displayed (Maurer in [0156] teaches creating a transcript (generated in real time or near time time) of the teleconferencing meeting);
a display unit configured to display text based on the acquired speech (Maurer in [0156] teaches the user interface may include a live video of one or more users, a transcript (generated in real time or near time time) of the teleconferencing meeting, a thread, and/or tools that enable a user to control various features of the collaboration session);
and
a control unit configured to cause the display unit to display the text based on the speech (Maurer in [0156] teaches the user interface may include a live video of one or more users, a transcript (generated in real time or near time time) of the teleconferencing meeting, a thread, and/or tools that enable a user to control various features of the collaboration session),
wherein the control unit recognizes a piece of text selected by a user out of a plurality of pieces of the text displayed on the display unit as designated text (Maurer in [0035] teaches the audio/video component can render one or more sections of the transcript selectable for commenting, such as to enable members of the communication channel to comment on, or further contribute to, the conversation),
and
wherein the control unit causes the display unit to display speech associated with the designated text in correlation with the designated text when the speech associated with the designated text is input in a state in which the designated text has been recognized (Maurer in [0035] teaches the audio/video component can update the transcript based on the comments).
Regarding claim 2, Maurer teaches the conversation support device according to claim 1.
Maurer further teaches
further comprising a text conversion unit configured to convert the speech to text when the speech is a voice signal (Maurer in [0156] teaches creating a transcript (generated in real time or near time time) of the teleconferencing meeting),
wherein the acquisition unit acquires a voice signal when the speech is a voice signal and acquires text when the speech is text (Maurer in [0146] teaches user input is made by text, and in [0149] user input is made by speech),
and
wherein the control unit assigns identification information to the converted text or the acquired text and causes the display unit to display the speech associated with the designated text in correlation with the designated text on the basis of the identification information of the text designated by a user out of the plurality of pieces of text displayed on the display unit (Maurer in [0035] teaches the audio/video component can update the transcript based on the comments, and in [0029] teaches metadata associated with each message transmitted via the virtual space, such as a timestamp associated with the message, a sending user identifier, a recipient user identifier, a conversation identifier and/or a root object identifier (e.g., conversation associated with a thread and/or a root object), and/or the like, can be stored).
Regarding claim 3, Maurer teaches the conversation support device according to claim 1.
Maurer further teaches
wherein the control unit displays the speech associated with the designated text in an area in which the designated text is displayed (Maurer in [0162] teaches using an audio/video component which can process audio and/or video data between attendees of the teleconferencing meeting, and the transcript can include reactions by one or more user's during the teleconferencing meeting in response to what a user said, a user's edit to an agenda, a user's edit to an action item, a user's edit to AI notes, a user's thread message or reply, and updating the transcript based on the comments).
Regarding claim 4, Maurer teaches the conversation support device according to claim 1.
Maurer further teaches
wherein the control unit causes the display unit to thread-display a relationship between the speech associated with the designated text and the designated text when a thread display instruction is given (Maurer in [0067] teaches using a thread pane that provides additional levels of detail of the messages, different panes can be resized, panes can be popped out to independent windows, and/or independent windows can be merged to multiple panes of the user interface).
Regarding claim 5, Maurer teaches the conversation support device according to claim 1.
Maurer further teaches
wherein the designated text is full or partial text of the speech (Maurer in [0035] teaches rendering one or more sections of the transcript selectable for commenting).
Regarding claim 6, Maurer teaches a conversation support system (Maurer in [0162] teaches using an audio/video component which can process audio and/or video data between attendees of the teleconferencing meeting)
comprising:
a terminal (Maurer in [0021] teaches using a terminal computing device);
and
a conference support device (Maurer in [0146] teaches using teleconferencing meeting device),
wherein the terminal includes
an acquisition unit configured to acquire speech (Maurer in [0162] teaches using an audio/video component which can process audio and/or video data between attendees of the teleconferencing meeting, and in [0033] teaches the conversation can include a real-time audio and/or video conversation between a first user and a second user during a period of time and, after the first period of time, a third user who is associated with (e.g., is a member of) the conversation can contribute to the conversation),
a display unit configured to display text based on the acquired speech (Maurer in [0156] teaches the user interface may include a live video of one or more users, a transcript (generated in real time or near time time) of the teleconferencing meeting, a thread, and/or tools that enable a user to control various features of the collaboration session),
and
a processing unit configured to (Maurer in [0023] teaches using processors)
transmit information on the acquired speech to the conference support device (Maurer in [0021] teaches the server(s) can communicate with a user computing device via one or more network(s), that is, the server(s) and the user computing device can transmit, receive, and/or store data (e.g., content, information, or the like) using the network(s)),
to acquire the text based on the speech (Maurer in [0017] teaches transcribing),
to cause the display unit to display the text acquired from the conference support device (Maurer in [0156] teaches the user interface may include a live video of one or more users, a transcript (generated in real time or near time time) of the teleconferencing meeting, a thread, and/or tools that enable a user to control various features of the collaboration session),
to recognize a piece of text selected out of a plurality of pieces of the displayed text as designated text (Maurer in [0035] teaches the audio/video component can render one or more sections of the transcript selectable for commenting, such as to enable members of the communication channel to comment on, or further contribute to, the conversation),
to transmit information indicating the designated text and speech associated with the designated text to the conference support device when the speech associated with the designated text is input in a state in which the designated text has been recognized (Maurer in [0035] teaches the audio/video component can update the transcript based on the comments, and in [0021] teaches the server(s) can communicate with a user computing device via one or more network(s), that is, the server(s) and the user computing device can transmit, receive, and/or store data (e.g., content, information, or the like) using the network),
and
to cause the display unit to display comment display information in which the information indicating the designated text and the speech associated with the designated text are correlated and which is acquired from the conference support device (Maurer in [0035] teaches the audio/video component can update the transcript based on the comments, and in [0021] teaches the server(s) can communicate with a user computing device via one or more network(s), that is, the server(s) and the user computing device can transmit, receive, and/or store data (e.g., content, information, or the like) using the network),
and
wherein the conference support device includes
a conversion unit configured to convert a voice signal to text when the speech acquired from the terminal is the voice signal (Maurer in [0017] teaches transcribing),
a comment generating unit configured to acquire information indicating the designated text and speech associated with the designated text and to generate the comment display information in which the speech associated with the designated text is correlated with the designated text (Maurer in [0035] teaches the audio/video component can render one or more sections of the transcript selectable for commenting, such as to enable members of the communication channel to comment on, or further contribute to, the conversation),
and
a processing unit configured to transmit the generated comment display information to the terminal (Maurer in [0021] teaches the server(s) can communicate with a user computing device via one or more network(s), that is, the server(s) and the user computing device can transmit, receive, and/or store data (e.g., content, information, or the like) using the network(s)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern).
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
PAUL MUELLER
Examiner
Art Unit 2657
/PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights