DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed 6/4/2025. Claims 16-33 are pending in the application. As such, Claims 16-33 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. The arguments with respect to the previous rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered, but are not found persuasive. The claimed invention is simply applying well-known components to analyze a user’s intent and set an objective that needs a corresponding action - something that could be done in a conference setting with humans. The claims only recite a method for analyzing natural language that can reasonably be performed by a human under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the current claim language.
The arguments and amendments with respect to interpretation under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered, but are not found persuasive. The modified claim features do not recite structure such that they are still functional placeholders.
The arguments and amendments with respect to the previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered, but are not found persuasive.
With regard to the argument that Tiwari does not disclose “a watch list,” Tiwari discloses sending a notification to the user. Even a single notification can be considered “a watch list,” as the claims do not define the size/structure of the watch list. The notification must be displayed to the user in some way to notify them, which is considered displaying reminders or due dates.
With regard to the argument that Lehrian does not disclose a watch list or transcripts, other references have been cited for these features. Lehrian is only cited for displaying a reminder of the task to the user and receiving an input when the user has completed it.
With regard to the argument the Truong fails to describe displaying a transcript, Truong does describe displaying a transcript of an interaction to inform a user of the details of the interaction. The primary reference of Berry is relied on for the details of the interaction and the storing of the transcripts. The motivation for displaying a transcript is to inform a user of the details of an interaction, which improves Berry by providing additional information to a user.
With regard to the argument that Haggerty does not describe reminder, a watch list, or due dates, the other references are relied on for these features. Haggerty is only relied on for searching for keywords in a transcript, as noted below.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “a speech act analyzer” and “a speech act processor” in claim 16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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
6. 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.
7. Claims 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claims 16 and 22 recite various limitations that, but for the recitation of generic computer components, can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover the concept of receiving transcripts, analyzing the transcripts to find tasks associated with users, creating a watch list for each task, and reminding the user to complete the task. The elements of the claim can be performed by a person listening to a conference and taking notes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite generic elements in the form of “a conversation unit,” “a speech act analyzer unit,” and “a speech act processing unit.” These elements are used to perform the claimed methods and steps and are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not include subject matter that could not be performed by a human, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the generic computing elements to perform the claimed elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, this claim further limit the elements of claim 16 by reciting the speech act analyzer unit is configured to create the obligation statement. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 16 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, this claim further limit the elements of claim 16 by reciting each statement is provided with a timestamp. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 16 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, this claim further limit the elements of claim 16 by reciting the speech act processing unit is configured to manage statistics based on monitoring of time constraints for providing information related to the statistics to the user. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 16 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, this claim further limit the elements of claim 16 by reciting an active speaker recognizer and a Speech-to-Text transcription engine comprised in a Natural Language Understanding unit. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 16 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, this claim further limit the elements of claim 16 by reciting the system further comprises a speech act entity management and display device. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 16 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 23, this claim further limit the elements of claim 22 by reciting detecting sentiments for creating a statement for the user. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 22 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 23 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 24, this claim further limit the elements of claim 22 by reciting for each user of the plurality of users, a statement or a statement collection is created. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 22 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 24 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 25, this claim further limit the elements of claim 22 by reciting the speech act library comprises pre-defined general speech act patterns. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 22 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 25 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 26, this claim further limit the elements of claim 22 by reciting the speech act library further comprises domain-specific speech act patterns. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 22 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 26 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 27, this claim further limit the elements of claim 22 by reciting classifying the transcribed speech to an illocutionary force category according to the illocutionary force, the illocutionary force being either one of assertive, commissive, declarative, directive, or expressive. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 22 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 27 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 28, this claim further limit the elements of claim 22 by reciting the transcribed speech includes utterances or the posts of the user of the plurality of users. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 22 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 28 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 29, this claim further limit the elements of claim 22 by reciting assigning the identified category as a statement with meta-data to a corresponding conversation item. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 22 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 29 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 30, this claim further limit the elements of claim 22 by reciting monitoring of time constraints and generating statistics associated with the statement included in the watch list to provide to the user. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 22 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 30 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 31, this claim further limit the elements of claim 22 by reciting adding a due date to the statement included in the watch list and generating a reminder for the statement included in the watch list to be provided to the user prior to the added due date. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 22 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 31 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 32, this claim further limit the elements of claim 22 by reciting the generating of the display of the watch list to display the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to facilitate receipt of input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed occurs in response to the due date for the obligation statement or the motivation statement being reached. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 22 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 32 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 33, this claim further limit the elements of claim 16 by reciting the real-time communication and collaboration system is configured to generate the watch list to display the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to facilitate receipt of input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed in response to the due date for the obligation statement or the motivation statement being reached. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 16 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 33 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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, 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.
9. Claims 16, 17, 19, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20090094288 (Berry et al., herein “Ber”) in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20190103111 (Tiwari et al., herein “Ti”), U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20190394289 (Lehrian et al., hereinafter “Leh”), and U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20200111377 (Truong et al., “Tru”).
With respect to Claim 16, Ber describes:
“A real-time communication and collaboration system, which allows a plurality of users in different locations to communicate and collaborate on a project in real time using a communication network (Abstract), wherein the system comprises:
a processor communicatively connected to a non-transitory computer readable medium, (Processor 2, Figure 1)
the non-transitory computer readable medium (RAM 4, Figure 1) having posts of threads and recordings of utterances of the users and corresponding transcripts stored thereon,” (Paragraph 66 describes that the device saves both threads and transcripts of utterances.)
Ber does not explicitly describe “a speech act analyzer to continuously analyze the posts and transcripts stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium for illocutionary forces, and
in response to the speech act analyzer detecting an illocutionary force, the speech act analyzer unit creates a corresponding statement comprising at least one of: a fact statement, an obligation statement, a status statement, a motivation statement, and an own feeling statement based on the detected illocutionary force; and
the speech act analyzer configured to include each statement into a watch list; and
a speech act processor configured so that, in response to creation of the obligation statement or the motivation statement, one or more due dates and/or reminders are generated for displaying to a user to facilitate management of a status associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement via the watch list,
the real-time communication and collaboration system configured to generate the watch list to display the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to facilitate receipt of input from a user of a user device communicatively connected to the real-time communication and collaboration system to indicate an action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is complete;
the real-time communication and collaboration system configured to have a display of the transcript associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list shown to the user of the user device via the user device before receipt of the input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed to facilitate receipt of input from the user that reacts to the obligation statement or the motivation statement.”
However, Ti describes “a speech act analyzer to continuously analyze the posts and transcripts stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium for illocutionary forces, and (Paragraph 35 describe that the intent of incoming messages is determined.)
in response to the speech act analyzer unit detecting an illocutionary force, the speech act analyzer unit creates a corresponding statement comprising at least one of: a fact statement, an obligation statement, a status statement, a motivation statement, and an own feeling statement based on the detected illocutionary force; and (Paragraph 37 describes that an obligation statement can be created, which results in a notification being created.)
the speech act analyzer unit configured to include each statement into a watch list; and (Paragraph 37 describes that a notification is created, which is part of a watch list.)
a speech act processor configured so that, in response to creation of the obligation statement or the motivation statement, one or more due dates and/or reminders are generated for displaying to a user to facilitate management of a status associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement via the watch list.” (Paragraph 44 describes that a notification is sent to the user by notification portion 406.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification creation as described by Ti into the device described by Ber, to provide different types of notifications in a targeted, personalized, and timely manner, as described in paragraph 44 of Ti.
Ber in view of Ti does not explicitly describe:
“the real-time communication and collaboration system configured to generate the watch list to display the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to facilitate receipt of input from a user of a user device communicatively connected to the real-time communication and collaboration system to indicate an action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is complete;
the real-time communication and collaboration system configured to have a display of the transcript associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list shown to the user of the user device via the user device before receipt of the input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed to facilitate receipt of input from the user that reacts to the obligation statement or the motivation statement.”
However, Leh describes ““the real-time communication and collaboration system configured to generate the watch list to display the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to facilitate receipt of input from a user of a user device communicatively connected to the real-time communication and collaboration system to indicate an action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is complete.”
Paragraph 34 of Leh describes a device that displays proactive reminders to a user. Paragraph 35 describes that the reminder can be a push notification displayed on a smartphone. It prompts the user to complete the task. Paragraph 91 describes that the device determines if the user has completed the device based on the user’s actions, which is the “receipt of input from a user.” The disclosed smartphone is a user device communicatively connected to the real-time communication and collaboration system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification delivery as described by Leh into the device described by Ber in view of Ti, to increase the likelihood of tasks being completed by the user, as described in paragraph 35 of Leh.
Ber in view of Ti and Leh does not explicitly describe “the real-time communication and collaboration system configured to have a display of the transcript associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list shown to the user of the user device via the user device before receipt of the input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed to facilitate receipt of input from the user that reacts to the obligation statement or the motivation statement.”
However, Tru describes a training system where an exemplar interaction (a transcript) is displayed to a user to help train the user (paragraphs 7 and 17). This is part of a system that assigns a series of training tasks to the trainee. (paragraphs 3 and 5.) The exemplary interaction is presented to the user before the task is complete. (paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a trainee with exemplar transcripts as described by Tru into the device described by Ber in view of Ti and Leh, to provide the trainee with positive examples, as described in paragraph 7 of Tru.
With regard to Claim 17, Ber does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Ti describes “the speech act analyzer is configured to create an obligation statement.” (Paragraph 37 describes that an obligation statement can be created, which results in a notification being created.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification creation as described by Ti into the device described by Ber, to provide different types of notifications in a targeted, personalized, and timely manner, as described in paragraph 44 of Ti.
With regard to Claim 19, Ber does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Ti describes “the speech act processor is configured to manage statistics based on monitoring of time constraints for providing information related to the statistics.” (Paragraph 44 describes that notifications are sent to the user by notification portion 406. Keeping track of these notifications is cited as “to manage statistics.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification creation as described by Ti into the device described by Ber, to provide different types of notifications in a targeted, personalized, and timely manner, as described in paragraph 44 of Ti.
With regard to Claim 33, Ber in view of Ti does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Leh describes:
“the real-time communication and collaboration system is configured to generate the watch list to display the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to facilitate receipt of input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed in response to the due date for the obligation statement or the motivation statement being reached.”
Paragraph 35 of Leh describes that the reminder can be a push notification displayed on a smartphone. The reminder is delivered at a time near the deadline, but allowing time for the task to be completed. Paragraph 91 describes that the device determines if the user has completed the device based on the user’s actions, which is the “receipt of input from a user.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification delivery as described by Leh into the device described by Ber in view of Ti, to increase the likelihood of tasks being completed by the user, as described in paragraph 35 of Leh.
10. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and Tru and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140310001 (Kalns et al., herein “Kal”).
With regard to Claim 18, Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and Tru does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Kal describes “each statement is provided with a timestamp.” Paragraph 28 describes that each of input intents are timestamped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the timestamps as described by Kal into the device described by Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and Tru, to provide unique tags for the data analyzed, as described in paragraph 28 of Kal.
11. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and Tru and further in view of WO Patent Pub. No. 2014124332 (Binder et al., herein “Bin”).
With regard to Claim 20, Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and Tru does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Bin describes “an active speaker recognizer and a Speech-to-Text transcription engine comprised in a Natural Language Understanding unit.” Paragraphs 72 and 73 describe an active speaker recognizer (an active sound detector to detect a human voice), and a Speech-to-Text transcription engine comprised in a Natural Language Understanding unit (a speech-to-text processing module 330 for speech-to-text conversions comprised in a natural language processing module 332).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the speech engines as described by Bin into the device described by Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and Tru, to help determine the correct intent, as described in paragraph 73 of Bin.
With regard to Claim 21, Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and Tru does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Bin describes “the system further comprises a speech act entity management and display device.” Paragraphs 93 and 120 describe a speech act entity management and display device, which includes a voice-based digital assistant and a display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the management and display as described by Bin into the device described by Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and Tru, to help provide efficient output to the user, as described in paragraph 120 of Bin.
10. Claims 22-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and further in view of US Patent No. 9,880,807 (Haggerty et al., herein “Hag”) and Tru.
With regard to Claim 22, Ber describes:
“A method of monitoring objectives to be achieved by a plurality of users collaborating on a real-time communication and collaboration platform (Abstract) hosted by a communication device of the communication and collaboration platform, the communication device having a processor communicatively connected to a non-transitory computer readable medium, each of the users having a user device that is communicatively connectable to the communication device, the method comprising:
starting a conversation on the communication and collaboration platform via the user device of a user of the plurality of users that is communicatively connected to the communication device; (Paragraph 17 describes starting a new conversation. Paragraphs 17-21 describe that multiple users participate in the conversation with their own device.)
recognizing the speech of a first user of the plurality of users, and transcribing the speech via the communication device;” (Paragraph 17 describes starting a new conversation transcript)
Ber does not explicitly describe:
“searching, via the communication device, in the transcribed speech and/or in a post of the first user, for predetermined keywords or predetermined key-phrases in a speech act library comprising general speech act patterns,
in response to a keyword or key-phrase from the speech act library being identified in the transcribed speech:
the communication device creating, on the basis of the keyword or key-phrase, a corresponding statement for the user comprising at least one of: a fact statement, an obligation statement, a status statement, a motivation statement, and an own feeling statement based on the detected illocutionary force;
the communication device including the statement into a watch list associated with the user; and
in response to creation of the obligation statement or the motivation statement, the communication device generating one or more due dates and/or reminders for displaying to the user to facilitate management of a status associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement via the watch list, and
generating, by the communication device, a display of the watch list to display the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to the first user via the user device of the first user to facilitate receipt of input from a user to indicate an action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed,
generating, by the communication device, display of the transcript associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to the first user via the user device of the first user before receipt of the input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed to facilitate receipt of input from the first user that reacts to the obligation statement or the motivation statement.”
Ti describes “creating [[, on the basis of the keyword or key-phrase,]] a corresponding statement comprising at least one of: a fact statement, an obligation statement, a status statement, a motivation statement, and an own feeling statement based on the detected illocutionary force; and (Paragraph 37 describes that an obligation statement can be created, which results in a notification being created.)
the communication device including each statement into a watch list associated with the user; and (Paragraph 37 describes that a notification is created, which is part of a watch list.)
in response to creation of the obligation statement or the motivation statement, the communication device generating one or more due dates and/or reminders for displaying to the user to facilitate management of a status associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement via the watch list.” (Paragraph 44 describes that a notification is sent to the user by notification portion 406.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification creation as described by Ti into the device described by Ber, to provide different types of notifications in a targeted, personalized, and timely manner, as described in paragraph 44 of Ti.
Ber in view of Ti does not explicitly describe:
“searching, via the communication device, in the transcribed speech and/or in a post of the first user, for predetermined keywords or predetermined key-phrases in a speech act library comprising general speech act patterns,
in response to a keyword or key-phrase from the speech act library being identified in the transcribed speech:
the communication device creating, on the basis of the keyword or key-phrase, a corresponding statement for the user; and
generating, by the communication device, a display of the watch list to display the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to the first user via the user device of the first user to facilitate receipt of input from a user to indicate an action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed,
generating, by the communication device, display of the transcript associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to the first user via the user device of the first user before receipt of the input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed to facilitate receipt of input from the first user that reacts to the obligation statement or the motivation statement.”
However, Leh describes:
“generating, by the communication device, a display of the watch list to display the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to the first user via the user device of the first user to facilitate receipt of input from a user to indicate an action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed.”
Paragraph 34 of Leh describes a device that displays proactive reminders to a user. Paragraph 35 describes that the reminder can be a push notification displayed on a smartphone. It prompts the user to complete the task. Paragraph 91 describes that the device determines if the user has completed the device based on the user’s actions, which is the “receipt of input from a user.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification delivery as described by Leh into the device described by Ber in view of Ti, to increase the likelihood of tasks being completed by the user, as described in paragraph 35 of Leh.
Ber in view of Ti and Leh does not explicitly describe:
“searching, via the communication device, in the transcribed speech and/or in a post of the first user, for predetermined keywords or predetermined key-phrases in a speech act library comprising general speech act patterns,
in response to a keyword or key-phrase from the speech act library being identified in the transcribed speech:
creating, on the basis of the keyword or key-phrase, a corresponding statement for the user, and
generating, by the communication device, display of the transcript associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to the first user via the user device of the first user before receipt of the input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed to facilitate receipt of input from the first user that reacts to the obligation statement or the motivation statement.”
However, Hag describes:
“searching, via the communication device, in the transcribed speech and/or in a post of the first user, for predetermined keywords or predetermined key-phrases in a speech act library comprising general speech act patterns, (column 29, lines 50 to column 30, line 10 describes that the device can search through transcripts for keywords.)
in response to a keyword or key-phrase from the speech act library being identified in the transcribed speech:
creating, on the basis of the keyword or key-phrase, a corresponding statement for the user.” (Column 9, lines 50-65 describe that a keyword mapping table may be made that may include the frequencies of each keyword appearing in the transcript.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the keyword management as described by Hag into the device described by Ber in view of Ti and Leh, to help provide efficient output to the user, as described in column 9, lines 5-65 of Hag.
Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and Hag do not explicitly describe “generating, by the communication device, display of the transcript associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to the first user via the user device of the first user before receipt of the input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed to facilitate receipt of input from the first user that reacts to the obligation statement or the motivation statement.”
However, Tru describes a training system where an exemplar interaction (a transcript) is displayed to a user to help train the user (paragraphs 7 and 17). This is part of a system that assigns a series of training tasks to the trainee. (paragraphs 3 and 5.) The exemplary interaction is presented to the user before the task is complete. (paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to motivate a trainee with exemplar transcripts as described by Tru into the device described by Ber in view of Ti, Leh, and Hag, to provide the trainee with exemplary transcript information, as described in paragraph 7 of Tru.
With regard to Claim 23, Ber does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Ti describes “detecting sentiments for creating a statement for the first user.” (Paragraph 43 describes a device that determines illocutionary forces (such as intent) from posts and transcripts.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification creation as described by Ti into the device described by Ber, to provide different types of notifications in a targeted, personalized, and timely manner, as described in paragraph 44 of Ti.
With regard to Claim 24, Ber in view of Ti and Leh does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Hag describes “for each user of the plurality of users, a statement or a statement collection is created.” Column 33, lines 1-9 describe that statements for each of a plurality of users can be created.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the multiple statements as described by Hag into the device described by Ber in view of Ti and Leh, to help provide targeted output for each user, as described in column 33, lines 1-9 of Hag.
With regard to Claim 25, Ber in view of Ti and Leh does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Hag describes “the speech act library comprises pre-defined general speech act patterns.” Column 27, line 61 to column 28, line 7 describe that the library can contain pre-defined speech patterns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the speech library as described by Hag into the device described by Ber in view of Ti and Leh, to help better speech identification, as described in column 27, line 61 to column 28, line 7of Hag.
With regard to Claim 26, Ber in view of Ti and Leh does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Hag describes “the speech act library further comprises domain-specific speech act patterns.” Column 33, lines 1-11 describe that domain-specific (such as legal documents) patterns can be included in the library.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the specific speech patterns as described by Hag into the device described by Ber in view of Ti and Leh, to help provide targeted output for specific types of speech, as described in column 33, lines 1-9 of Hag.
With regard to Claim 27, Ber does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Ti describes “the communication device classifying the transcribed speech to an illocutionary force category according to the illocutionary force, the illocutionary force being either one of assertive, commissive, declarative, directive, or expressive.” The exemplary intent described in paragraph 45 of Ti is declarative.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification creation as described by Ti into the device described by Ber, to provide different types of notifications in a targeted, personalized, and timely manner, as described in paragraph 44 of Ti.
With regard to Claim 28, Ber does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Ti describes “the transcribed speech includes utterances or the posts of the user of the plurality of users.” (Paragraph 41 describes a device that determines illocutionary forces (such as intent) from texts or audio messages.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification creation as described by Ti into the device described by Ber, to provide different types of notifications in a targeted, personalized, and timely manner, as described in paragraph 44 of Ti.
With regard to Claim 29, Ber does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Ti describes “assigning the identified category as a statement with meta-data to a corresponding conversation item.” Paragraph 45 of Ti describes that declarative configuration information is created, which is cited as “meta data.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification creation as described by Ti into the device described by Ber, to provide different types of notifications in a targeted, personalized, and timely manner, as described in paragraph 44 of Ti.
With regard to Claim 30, Ber does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Ti describes “the communication device monitoring of time constraints and generating statistics associated with the statement included in the watch list to provide to the user.” (Paragraph 44 describes that notifications are sent to the user by notification portion 406. Keeping track of these notifications is cited as “to manage statistics.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification creation as described by Ti into the device described by Ber, to provide different types of notifications in a targeted, personalized, and timely manner, as described in paragraph 44 of Ti.
With regard to Claim 31, Ber does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Ti describes “the communication device adding a due date to the statement included in the watch list and generating a reminder for the statement included in the watch list to be provided to the user prior to the added due date.” (Paragraph 37 describes that a notification is created, which is part of a watch list. Paragraph 44 describes that a notification is sent to the user by notification portion 406.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification creation as described by Ti into the device described by Ber, to provide different types of notifications in a targeted, personalized, and timely manner, as described in paragraph 44 of Ti.
With regard to Claim 32, Ber in view of Ti does not explicitly describe this subject matter.
However, Leh describes:
“the generating of the display of the watch list to display the obligation statement or the motivation statement of the watch list to the first user via the user device of the first user to facilitate receipt of input from the user to indicate the action associated with the obligation statement or the motivation statement is completed occurs in response to the due date for the obligation statement or the motivation statement being reached.”
Paragraph 35 of Leh describes that the reminder can be a push notification displayed on a smartphone. The reminder is delivered at a time near the deadline, but allowing time for the task to be completed. Paragraph 91 describes that the device determines if the user has completed the device based on the user’s actions, which is the “receipt of input from a user.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the notification delivery as described by Leh into the device described by Ber in view of Ti, to increase the likelihood of tasks being completed by the user, as described in paragraph 35 of Leh.
Conclusion
1