DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having Application No. 19/086,005 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application, there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The applicant’s specification submitted is acceptable for examination purposes.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to nonstatutory subject matter.
The independent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 are drawn to displaying conversation, displaying message, obtaining input, obtaining information and triggering generation of a content. The displaying of information and obtaining of information to trigger a content could have been accomplished through human mental process, and addition of a system with memory and processors, hold as abstract, thus the limitations don’t describe doing significantly more, and the claims as a whole does not provide integration into a practical application.
The claims fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, the limitations as discussed above, as claimed, is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind, or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., computer, storage device) because a user can mentally, or with pen and paper, observe, evaluate and make judgements to perform the claimed limitations. For example, a person can read documents and make judgements to find sections of documents that contain a problem, and provide a report with any findings. A person can further link substantially identical concepts mentally or via taking notes on paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements (e.g., computer, storage device) that are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 2106.05(d)(Il). Accordingly, the 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.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16 and 18-19 recite generic steps of displaying messages and content, capturing and selection to get media, determining a step from command, adjustment of display, definition of object type, displaying predetermined information, setting text information based on other information and naming based on naming command, with only basic elements stated that can be accomplished through mental processes without significantly more elements.
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount 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 is not significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(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 1-3, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Saruhashi et al. (US 2004/0205131 A1).
For claim 1, Saruhashi et al. teaches:
A method of media content processing, comprising: displaying a conversation between a first object and a second object [bidirectional conversation with multimedia exchanges, 0008: Saruhashi]; displaying a first message sent by the second object in the conversation, wherein the first message comprises a first media content [data conference bidirectional communication that shares an application on the user terminals, 0022: Saruhashi]; obtaining input information of the first object [multimedia information transfer of content with media information, 0009: Saruhashi]; obtaining synthesis information based on the input information [synthesized capturing of information between users and devices, 0009-0012: Saruhashi]; and triggering generation of a second media content based on the synthesis information and the first media content [synthesizing step providing resultant secondary content to user terminals, 0011-0012: Saruhashi].
For claim 2, Saruhashi et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying the second media content in the conversation [multimedia shared on terminals, with two separate contents, 0022: Saruhashi].
For claim 3, Saruhashi et al. teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the displaying the second media content comprises: displaying a second message sent by the second object, wherein the second message comprises the second media content [data conference bidirectional communication that shares an application on the user terminals, 0022: Saruhashi].
For claim 6, Saruhashi et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining synthesis information comprises: in response to an effect selection command, displaying an information set [selection for delivering cotent, 0071: Saruhashi]; and determining, in the information set, information selected by the first object as the synthesis information [synthesizes objects with text information, 0140: Saruhashi].
For claim 7, Saruhashi et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein, after obtaining the input information, the method further comprises: in response to a resource adjustment command, adjusting one or more of a size, a position or a color of the input information [synthesis used for sizing of objects, 0084: Saruhashi].
For claim 8, Saruhashi et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the second object is a virtual object [content objects are multimedia, 0008-0009: Saruhashi].
For claim 10, Saruhashi et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying predetermined information for interacting with the first object [predetermined information content during interaction, 0040: Saruhashi].
For claim 11, Saruhashi et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the triggering generation of a second media content based on the synthesis information and the first media content comprises: setting text information associated with the first media content according to the synthesis information [synthesizes objects with text information, 0140: Saruhashi].
Claim 13 is a device of the method taught by claim 1. Saruhashi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 14 is a device of the method taught by claim 2. Saruhashi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 15 is a device of the method taught by claim 3. Saruhashi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 18 is a device of the method taught by claim 6. Saruhashi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 6 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 19 is a device of the method taught by claim 7. Saruhashi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 7 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 20 is a medium of the method taught by claim 1. Saruhashi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9 and 17 are in condition for allowance.
For claims 5, 9 and 17, Saruhashi et al. (US 2004/0205131 A1) teaches displaying a conversation between a first object and a second object; displaying a first message sent by the second object in the conversation, wherein the first message comprises a first media content; obtaining input information of the first object; obtaining synthesis information based on the input information; and triggering generation of a second media content based on the synthesis information and the first media content but does not capturing a first media resource to obtain the input information, or in response to a selection command, obtaining a second media resource based on the selection command, to obtain the input information; and triggering generation of a second media content based on the synthesis information and the first media content comprises: if the input information is detected to contain a predetermined target media content, extracting the target media content in the input information; and integrating the first media content and the target media content based on the synthesis information to generate the second media content.
Conclusion
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office action, that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJITH M JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-1763. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: Flexible Hours.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AJITH JACOB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
4/3/2026