DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-10 have been examined in this Non-Final. Claim(s) 1-10 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2025 was filed after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Application 19/354,096 filed 10/09/2025 claims priority to JP2024-183977 filed 10/18/2024.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-a reading unit configured to read the content of conversations with customers; in claim 1.
-an analysis unit configured to analyze the conversation content read by the reading unit; in claim 1.
-a matching unit configured to compare the PC screen information registered by crew members; in claim 1.
-a warning unit configured to issue a warning when a difference occurs based on the information matched by the matching unit; in claim 1.
- a customer service reading unit configured to read the content of customer service at the storefront; in claim 1.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The Examiner interprets the elements “ reading / analysis / matching / warning / customer service reading” units existing functions in processing unit hardware (See pages 4-6 of the Applicant’s originally filed specification).
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1- rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation "the content of conversations with customers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation "the PC screen information registered by crew members". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation " the content of customer service". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation "the storefront". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 2 & 5 & 8 recites the limitation " the customer's emotion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 2 recites the limitation " the reading accuracy". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 5 recites the limitation " the priority of the conversation content to be read". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 6 recites the limitation " the start time". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 8 recites the limitation " the expression method of the analysis result". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 9 recites the limitation " the context of the conversation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites the limitation " the category of the conversation content". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites Comparing the PC screen
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-10 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 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 system for analyzing, comparing, and displaying conversations. For Claim 1 the limitations of:
[…] read the content of conversations with customers;
[…] analyze the conversation content read […];
[…] compare the PC screen information registered by crew members;
[…] issue a warning when a difference occurs based on the information matched […]; and
[…] read the content of customer service at the storefront.
The above limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as a reading unit, an analysis unit, a matching unit, a warning unit, a customer service reading unit), the claims are directed to analyzing conversations with customers to determine if data matches to previous data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 recites the additional elements of a reading unit, an analysis unit, a matching unit, a warning unit, a customer service reading unit that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
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 of a reading unit, an analysis unit, a matching unit, a warning unit, a customer service reading unit to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-10, are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) estimating the customer's emotion and adjusting the reading accuracy of the conversation content based on the estimated emotion of the customer. Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) a filtering function to remove background sounds and noise when reading the conversation content. Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) a function to emphasize and read specific keywords or phrases when reading the conversation content. Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) estimating the customer's emotion and determining the priority of the conversation content to be read based on the estimated emotion of the customer. Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) a function to automatically record the start time and end time of the conversation when reading the conversation content. Claim(s) 7 merely describe(s) a function to convert the content of the conversation into text in real time when reading the conversation content. Claim(s) 8 merely describe(s) estimating the customer's emotion and adjusting the expression method of the analysis result based on the estimated emotion of the customer. Claim(s) 9 merely describe(s) a function to improve analysis accuracy by considering the context of the conversation content during analysis. Claim(s) 10 merely describe(s) a function to apply different analysis algorithms according to the category of the conversation content during analysis.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-10 include the additional elements of a reading unit, and analysis unit. The reading unit, and analysis unit are analyzed in the same manner as the reading unit, and analysis unit in the independent claim and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above. Therefore claims 2-10 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maiman (US 12266197 B2).
Regarding Claim 1,
Maiman discloses, A system comprising: a reading unit configured to read the content of conversations with customers; "As an alternative, disclosed embodiments may replay an audio recording of the call may be so the service agent can listen to the relevant part of the conversation again and cross-reference that with what was entered to confirm whether the data entered is correct" (Maiman Col. 4 Lines 20-24). "At step 410, the computer-implemented method 400 can comprise receiving, by the error detection system 200 operatively coupled to a processor (e.g., processor(s) 710), audio of a conversation. The audio may be of a conversation between two parties over a telephonic connection. For example, a customer may converse with a service agent over a customer service connection" (Maiman Col. 8 Lines 44-51).
an analysis unit configured to analyze the conversation content read by the reading unit; "The error detection system 200 can determine identities of the parties by analyzing the audio of the conversation. For example, the error detection system 200 can determine identities of parties via voice biometrics and/or a matching analysis" (Maiman Col. 8 Lines 54-58).
a matching unit configured to compare the PC screen information registered by crew members; " The information in the cached data field may be matched (e.g., compared or analyzed) with the translated information provided by the customer" (Maiman Col. 4 Lines 38-40).
a warning unit configured to issue a warning when a difference occurs based on the information matched by the matching unit; and "If the data entries do not match the named entities from the information provided by the customer 102, the alert component 206 can transmit alerts (e.g., notifications) to the service agent 106. For example, a service platform may be a user interface that can provide (e.g., display) the data fields 112 for entering the data entries, editing the data entries, or receiving the alerts upon detection of an error based on mismatch of the data entries with the named entities from the information provided by the customer 102. The service agent 106 can receive alerts comprising a pop-up notification on the service platform, underline highlights of the data entries that are mismatched, color highlights of the data entries that are mismatched, highlights of the data fields containing the data entries that are mismatch, an auditory cue, an auditory announcement, an information icon, or a flash" (Maiman Col. 7 Lines 29-44).
a customer service reading unit configured to read the content of customer service at the storefront. "The embodiments herein can also be applied to in-person communications or communications between a customer and a chatbot as a service agent… It is not uncommon for people to make mistakes typing, so having an audio recording of the conversation between participants such as the customer allows the service agent to listen again and correct the data entries if needed." (Maiman Col. 4 Lines 13-28).
Regarding Claim 7,
Maiman discloses the system as shown above. Maiman further discloses, wherein the reading unit is provided with a function to convert the content of the conversation into text in real time when reading the conversation content. "Conversations may be recorded and translated (e.g., transcribed) from audio to textual data, which may be cross-referenced with the manual entry a service agent entered into a service platform that is also a user interface (UI). Artificial intelligence (AI) can differentiate between voices and can select to record and translate just the customer’s voice as the information is provided by the customer. The information provided in the transcript may be cross-referenced with the data entered into the data fields. Named entity recognition (NER), a form of natural language processing (NLP), is an AI technique that can extract (e.g., identify) key information in a text such as a transcript of a recorded conversation between a customer and a service agent. NER can automatically identify named entities in a text and classify (e.g., categorize) them into predefined categories. Examples of named entities may be but are not limited to the name of the customer, mailing address (e.g., postal address), email address, phone number, account number, etc. The named entities may be tagged according to predefined categories (e.g., tagged as name, mailing address, email address, phone number, account number, etc.) and compared with the relevant entities (e.g., data or information) in the data fields. For example, a mailing address extracted from the transcript may be tagged as a mailing address and compared with the mailing address entered into the mailing address data field. A mailing address extracted from the transcript may be compared with a similar mailing address, not a distinctly different mailing address, from the mailing address data field to detect manual entry error. This can prevent having to parse through an entire customer record" (Maiman Col. 0018).
Regarding Claim 9,
Maiman discloses the system as shown above. Maiman further discloses, wherein the analysis unit is provided with a function to improve analysis accuracy by considering the context of the conversation content during analysis. "Conversations may be recorded and translated (e.g., transcribed) from audio to textual data, which may be cross-referenced with the manual entry a service agent entered into a service platform that is also a user interface (UI). Artificial intelligence (AI) can differentiate between voices and can select to record and translate just the customer's voice as the information is provided by the customer. The information provided in the transcript may be cross-referenced with the data entered into the data fields. Named entity recognition (NER), a form of natural language processing (NLP), is an AI technique that can extract (e.g., identify) key information in a text such as a transcript of a recorded conversation between a customer and a service agent. NER can automatically identify named entities in a text and classify (e.g., categorize) them into predefined categories" (Maiman Col. 3 Lines 31-45).
Regarding Claim 10,
Maiman discloses the system as shown above. Maiman further discloses, herein the analysis unit is provided with a function to apply different analysis algorithms according to the category of the conversation content during analysis. "At step 420, the computer-implemented method 400 can comprise identifying, by the error detection system 200, the parties of the conversation. The error detection system 200 can determine identities of the parties by analyzing the audio of the conversation. For example, the error detection system 200 can determine identities of parties via voice biometrics and/or a matching analysis. At step 430, the computer-implemented method 400 can comprise employing (e.g., via the natural language component 202), by the error detection system 200 operatively coupled to a processor (e.g., processor(s) 710), AI and NLP to extract information from a conversation between customer 102 and service agent 106, wherein NER is used to detect and categorize named entities from the information based on training datasets. The error detection system 200 may analyze the audio for named entities. For example, the error detection system 200 may determine an address was conveyed in the audio of the conversation by an identified customer to a service agent" (Maiman Col. 8 Line 21 - Col. 9 Line 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiman (US 12266197 B2), in view of Shah (US 20190014378 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
Maiman discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Maiman fails to disclose the reading unit is configured to estimate the customer's emotion and adjust the reading accuracy of the conversation content based on the estimated emotion of the customer. Shah discloses adjusting playback of content in response to a viewer's emotional reaction. Shah further discloses wherein the reading unit is configured to estimate the customer's emotion and adjust the reading accuracy of the conversation content based on the estimated emotion of the customer. "In an embodiment that includes an image camera, the image camera captures individual images of facial expressions that may be used to analyze and identify emotions of the viewer. In an embodiment that includes a video camera, the video camera captures video segments of facial expressions that may be used to analyze and identify emotions of the viewer. With some viewers and/or with some emotions, the capture of video segments may be of greater assistance in analyzing and identifying emotions since the viewer emotion detector 126 may more accurately detect how the facial expressions change over a period of time" (Shah Par. 0035)."In another aspect of the some embodiments, the dynamical playback adjustment system and method may access the metadata associated with the content currently being presented in order to narrow down the possibilities of the emotional reaction of the viewer. For example, during a particularly violent or gory scene in presented content, the viewer emotion analysis system 134 may be weighted to watch for (1) the emotion of disgust, which would cause the dynamical playback adjustment method to increase the speed of playback or (2) the emotion of happiness, which would cause the dynamical playback adjustment method to maintain the default speed of playback. In another example, during a commercial or a particularly slow-moving scene in presented content, the viewer emotion analysis system 134 may be weighted to watch for (1) the emotion of happiness, which would cause the dynamical playback adjustment method to maintain the default speed of playback or (2) the emotion of boredom, which would cause the dynamical playback adjustment method to increase the speed of playback" (Shah Par. 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the communication service of Maiman with estimating customer's emotion and adjusting reading accuracy of the conversation based on the estimated emotion of the customer of Shah to fully understand what is occurring in the content to help alleviate the viewer's confusion (Shah Par. 0060).
Regarding Claim 8,
Maiman discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Maiman fails to disclose estimating the customer's emotion and adjusting the expression method of the analysis result based on the estimated emotion of the customer. Shah discloses adjusting playback of content in response to a viewer's emotional reaction. Shah further discloses, wherein the analysis unit is configured to estimate the customer's emotion and adjust the expression method of the analysis result based on the estimated emotion of the customer. "In an embodiment that includes an image camera, the image camera captures individual images of facial expressions that may be used to analyze and identify emotions of the viewer. In an embodiment that includes a video camera, the video camera captures video segments of facial expressions that may be used to analyze and identify emotions of the viewer. With some viewers and/or with some emotions, the capture of video segments may be of greater assistance in analyzing and identifying emotions since the viewer emotion detector 126 may more accurately detect how the facial expressions change over a period of time" (Shah Par. 0035)."In another aspect of the some embodiments, the dynamical playback adjustment system and method may access the metadata associated with the content currently being presented in order to narrow down the possibilities of the emotional reaction of the viewer. For example, during a particularly violent or gory scene in presented content, the viewer emotion analysis system 134 may be weighted to watch for (1) the emotion of disgust, which would cause the dynamical playback adjustment method to increase the speed of playback or (2) the emotion of happiness, which would cause the dynamical playback adjustment method to maintain the default speed of playback. In another example, during a commercial or a particularly slow-moving scene in presented content, the viewer emotion analysis system 134 may be weighted to watch for (1) the emotion of happiness, which would cause the dynamical playback adjustment method to maintain the default speed of playback or (2) the emotion of boredom, which would cause the dynamical playback adjustment method to increase the speed of playback" (Shah Par. 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the communication service of Maiman with estimating the customer's emotion and adjusting the expression method of the analysis result based on the estimated emotion of the customer of Shah to fully understand what is occurring in the content to help alleviate the viewer's confusion (Shah Par. 0060).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiman (US 12266197 B2), in view of Gangotri (US 20210192332 A1).
Regarding Claim 3,
Maiman discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Maiman fails to disclose a filtering function to remove background sounds and noise when reading the conversation content. Gangotri discloses voice emotion identification contained in audio in a call providing customer support between a customer and a service agent by implementing an emotion identification application to identify emotions. Gangotri further discloses wherein the reading unit is provided with a filtering function to remove background sounds and noise when reading the conversation content. "FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary flowchart of the machine learning model used for identifying emotions in voice samples in accordance with an embodiment. In FIG. 2, at step 210, the background noise is removed from the voice sample as well as any other background noise that may affect the emotion analysis of the conversation voice contained in the voice sample" (Gangotri Par. 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the communication service of Maiman with a filtering function to remove background sounds and noise when reading the conversation content of Gangotri for more efficient voice emotion processing (Gangotri Par. 0048).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiman (US 12266197 B2), in view of Boumi (US 10831438 B2).
Regarding Claim 4,
Maiman discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Maiman fails to disclose a function to emphasize and read specific keywords or phrases when reading the conversation content. Boumi discloses managing and listening to vocals, melodies, and sound effects in the same multi-channel audio file. Boumi further discloses, wherein the reading unit is provided with a function to emphasize and read specific keywords or phrases when reading the conversation content. "Referring to FIG. 6, the adjustment features for the audio playback system are shown as a set of buttons. If the user wishes to listen to all the tracks together, then the normal position button 605 may be pressed. If the user wishes to emphasize the vocals tracks, the vocals position button 603 may be pressed. If pressed multiple and consecutive times, the vocals track is increasingly emphasized. If the user wishes to emphasize the instrumentation tracks, the instrumentation position button 607 may be pressed in a similar fashion as the vocals position button 603" (Boumi Col. 3 Lines 48-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the communication service of Maiman with a function to emphasize and read specific keywords or phrases when reading the conversation content of Boumi to independently manage and listen to vocals, melodies and sound effects (Boumi Col. 26-26).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiman (US 12266197 B2), in view of Murali (US 20200092419 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
Maiman discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Maiman fails to disclose estimating customer's emotion and determining the priority of the conversation content to be read based on the estimated emotion of the customer. Murali discloses sensing emotion in voice signals and dynamically changing suggestions in a call center. Murali further discloses, wherein the reading unit is configured to estimate the customer's emotion and determine the priority of the conversation content to be read based on the estimated emotion of the customer. "The call center agent is informed through workstation 210 of the optimal route (e.g., different/revised response from the SOP) and the call center agent provides a response that is modified from the SOP by the model 240. This is done by the call center server 280 that compares the importance of each step in the SOP to the emotion predicted and the confidence in the prediction. The system administrator provides the importance of each step as part of a scale from 1-10 and stores this information in database 271. For example in the case of a warranty issue, getting the warranty number would be of very high importance while checking if the customer is interested in a different product would be of very low interest. Using the administrator's importance from a scale of 1-10, the model 240 takes the confidence in the prediction and multiplies it by the emotion value. Emotion values are assigned as follows: Angry=4, Sad=3, Fearful=2, Happy=1" (Murali Par. 0051-0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the communication service of Maiman with estimating customer's emotion and determining the priority of the conversation content to be read based on the estimated emotion of the customer of Murali so changes can be taken into account in order to sense the customer better and optimize the procedure in real time (Murali Par. 0019).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiman (US 12266197 B2), in view of Onishi (US 20150310877 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
Maiman discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. Maiman fails to disclose automatically recording the start time and end time of the conversation when reading the conversation content. Onishi discloses conversation analysis techniques. Onishi further discloses, wherein the reading unit is provided with a function to automatically record the start time and end time of the conversation when reading the conversation content. "The voice recognition unit 27 recognizes the voice with respect to each of the utterance sections in the voice data of the operator and the customer contained in the call data. Accordingly, the voice recognition unit 27 acquires, from the call data, voice text data and speech time data associated with the operator's voice and the customer's voice. …The speech time represents the time when the speech corresponding to the voice text data has been made, and includes the start time and the end time of the utterance section from which the voice text data has been acquired" (Onishi Par. 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the communication service of Maiman with automatically recording the start time and end time of the conversation when reading the conversation content of Onishi to improve the identification accuracy of the section representing the specific emotion of the conversation participants (Onishi Par. 0048).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights